Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0746-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-10-30T04:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0746; FRL-       ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

West Virginia; Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for

the Parkersburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

AGENCY:     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:     Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The revision amends the
8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Parkersburg area.  This revision
amends the maintenance plans' 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) by reallocating a portion of the plans' safety margins,
which results in an increase in the MVEBs.  The revised plan continues
to demonstrate maintenance of the 

8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.  EPA is
approving this SIP revision to the West Virginia maintenance plan for
Parkersburg in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).          

             

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0746 by one of the following methods: 

 www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

     B.    E-mail:  febbo.carol@epa.gov

     C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0746, Carol Febbo, Chief, Energy,
Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, Mailcode 3AP23, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III
address.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0746.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston,
West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold (215) 814-2027, or by
e-mail at  goold.megan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  

Background

On May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25967) EPA redesignated the Parkersburg area of
West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  For the
Parkersburg area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan, identifying on-road MVEBs for VOCs and NOX, which are
ozone precursors, used for transportation planning and conformity
purposes.  Subsequently, after the SIP approval by EPA, West Virginia
discovered that the MVEBs which were included in the previously approved
maintenance plan did not provide a sufficient buffer to account for
unforseen future growth or significant changes in the planning
assumption data which was used in developing the original MVEBs in its
September 2006 submission. 

II.	Summary of SIP Revision

2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

On August 25, 2008, the State of West Virginia submitted to EPA a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The SIP revision
proposes new MVEBs to reflect the reallocation of a portion of the
differences (“safety margins”) between the total base year and total
projected 2009 and 2018 emissions, thus producing an increase in the
MVEBs.  The base year is 2004 for the Parkersburg area.  By increasing
the MVEBs, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) is ensuring that transportation conformity can be demonstrated
in the Parkersburg area.  The August 25, 2008 submittal, while
increasing the MVEBs, still ensures maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone
for the Parkersburg area.

Tables 1 and 2 and the discussion that follows describe the basis of the
new MVEBs for the Parkersburg area.

Table 1.-- Parkersburg Area Reallocation of Safety Margin to the MVEBs

    Current MVEBs in the Approved Maintenance Plan

(Tons/Day)

2004 Base Year         2009 Projection     2018 Projection

        VOC                      4.00                              3.0  
                     1.9

       NOX                       5.66                              4.1  
                     2.0

                            Proposed MVEBs in the Revised Maintenance
Plan

(Tons/Day)

                                 2004 Base Year         2009 Projection 
   2018 Projection       

         VOC                      4.00			    3.8                       
2.4               

         NOX                      5.66	                            5.5  
                     2.7               

Table 2.-- Parkersburg Area Total Emissions (Point, Area and Mobile)
Before and After Reallocation of Safety Margin to the MVEBs

(Tons/Day)

                                    Current Total Emissions in the
Approved Maintenance Plan      

                                        2004 Base Year         2009
Projection     2018 Projection          

   VOC                                16.7                             
14.0                        13.6

   NOX                               15.2                             
11.8                         9.4

Proposed Total Emissions in the Revised Maintenance Plan

                                    2004 Base Year         2009
Projection     2018 Projection       

   VOC                                16.7                             
14.8                        14.1               

    NOX                               15.2                             
13.2                        10.1               

For the Parkersburg, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area
addressed herein, the WVDEP recalculated the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs using
revised planning data which became available after the original
maintenance plan was submitted to EPA on September 8, 2006.  The 2009
and 2018 MVEBs for VOCs and NOX emissions listed above in Table 1 under
the Proposed MVEBs in the Revised Maintenance Plan section will serve as
the new MVEBs for transportation conformity planning.

As shown in Table 1, above, WVDEP has proposed reallocating a portion of
the previous safety margin into the MVEBs for both VOCs and NOX.  The
remaining surplus emissions have been reserved as residual safety
margins in the total maintenance budgets to ensure continued maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

To explain how the safety margins are determined and allocated, the VOC
emissions for the Parkersburg area may be used as an example.  In Table
2, listed under the Current Total Emissions in the Approved Maintenance
Plan section, the total 2004 base year VOC emissions are 16.7 tons/day
(tpd), which is the maximum amount of VOC emissions consistent with
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The total projected 2009
emissions are 14.0 tpd, which provides a 2.7 tpd VOC safety margin
(i.e., the ozone NAAQS would continue to be maintained if total VOC
emissions increased as much as 2.7 tpd above the projected 2009
emissions of 14.0 tpd).  In the Proposed Total Emissions in the Revised
Maintenance Plan section, the total projected emissions for 2009 would
be increased by 0.8 tpd through the increase in the allowable mobile
emissions for VOC while still leaving a safety margin of 1.9 tpd. 
Therefore, even with the reallocation of some of the current safety
margin into the MVEBs, the State of West Virginia has left a safety
margin for any other unforseen growth.

III.	Final Action

EPA is approving West Virginia's August 25, 2008 SIP revision submittal
which amends the 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Parkersburg area.  These revisions
amend the maintenance plans' 2009 and 2018 MVEBs to reflect the
reallocation of a portion of the plans' safety margins which results in
an increase in the MVEBs.  EPA is approving this SIP revision to the
maintenance plan for the Parkersburg area because the August 25, 2008
submittal continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
as even after reallocation of a portion of the safety margin a
sufficient safety margin still exists to demonstrate continued
attainment. 

EPA notes that the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on July 11, 2008,
vacating the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).  North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).  EPA’s CAIR modeling was included in
the last Parkersburg maintenance plan effective June 17, 2007 (72 FR
25967, May 8, 2007) as a supplemental analysis however, EPA’s approval
of that maintenance plan was based on permanent and enforceable measures
(as instructed in the Calcagni memorandum, September 4, 1992).  These
permanent and enforceable measures are sufficient to provide for
continued maintenance even without any CAIR reductions.  EPA did note in
the approval that, in addition to permanent and enforceable measures,
further emissions reductions in the nonattainment area (specifically
Washington County, OH) are largely attributable to CAIR, but these
reductions are not needed to demonstrate maintenance in the area. 
Therefore, EPA’s approval of the August 25, 2008 SIP revision is not
impacted by the DC Circuit Court decision as even without any CAIR
reductions the area continues to demonstrate maintenance after
reallocation of a portion of the safety margin. 

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment, since no significant adverse comments were received on the SIP
revision at the State level.  However, in the (Proposed Rules( section
of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on [Insert date 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless
EPA receives adverse comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register]. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.  EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action.  Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.  

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A.   General Requirements 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);  

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);  

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997); 

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and 

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to
apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.  This action to
revise the MVEBs for the Parkersburg 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan may
not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. 
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52  

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

October 20, 2008						/s/

_________________                   		         
__________________________

Dated:                                				Donald S. Welsh,

                                      				Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52 - [AMENDED] 

1.  The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows: 

               Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX ( West Virginia

2.  In ( 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the
entry for the 8-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan for the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area to read as
follows:

( 52.2520  	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*	

(e)* * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 	

Applicable geographic area	

State submittal date 	

EPA approval date	

Additional explanation

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

8-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan for

the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH

Area

	

Wood County

	

09/08/06	

5/8/07

72 FR 2967	

08/25/08	

[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number where the
document begins]	Reallocation of emissions from the existing “safety
margin” to increase the available motor vehicle emission budgets for
highway vehicles. 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

   

*	*	*	*	*

 EPA filed a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on September 24, 2008.

 PAGE   

 PAGE  12