Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0485-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-13T04:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
52
and
81
[
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0485;
FRL­
]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Air
Quality
Implementation
Plans;
West
Virginia;
Redesignation
of
the
Huntington,
West
Virginia
Portion
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland
8­
Hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
to
Attainment
and
Approval
of
the
Maintenance
Plan
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
a
redesignation
request
and
a
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
revision
for
the
Huntington
portion
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland,
WV­
KY
(
herein
referred
to
as
the
"
Huntington­
Ashland
area")
interstate
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS).
The
West
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
WVDEP)
is
requesting
that
the
Cabell
and
Wayne
County,
West
Virginia
(
Huntington)
portion
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
be
redesignated
as
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
The
interstate
Huntington­
Ashland
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area
is
comprised
of
three
counties
(
Cabell
and
Wayne
Counties,
West
Virginia
and
Boyd
County,
Kentucky).
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
the
ozone
redesignation
request
for
the
Huntington
portion
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area.
In
conjunction
with
its
redesignation
request,
the
WVDEP
submitted
a
SIP
revision
consisting
of
a
maintenance
plan
for
Huntington
that
provides
for
continued
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
for
the
next
12
years.
EPA
is
proposing
to
make
a
determination
that
Huntington
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
based
upon
three
years
of
complete,
quality­
assured
ambient
air
quality
ozone
monitoring
data
for
2003­
2005.
EPA's
proposed
approval
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
redesignation
request
is
based
on
its
determination
that
Huntington
has
met
the
criteria
for
redesignation
to
attainment
specified
in
2
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
EPA
is
providing
information
on
the
status
of
its
adequacy
determination
for
the
motor
vehicle
emission
budgets
(
MVEBs)
that
are
identified
in
the
Huntington
maintenance
plan
for
purposes
of
transportation
conformity,
and
is
also
proposing
to
approve
those
MVEBs.
EPA
is
proposing
approval
of
the
redesignation
request
and
of
the
maintenance
plan
revision
to
the
West
Virginia
SIP
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
CAA.

DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
date
30
days
from
date
of
publication].

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
R03­
OAR­

2006­
0485
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

A.
Federal
eRulemaking
Portal:
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

B.
E­
mail:
morris.
makeba@
epa.
gov
C.
Mail:
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0485,
Makeba
Morris,
Chief,
Air
Quality
Planning
Branch,

D.
Mailcode
3AP21,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
III,
1650
Arch
Street,

Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103.

E.
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.
3
Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0485.
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change,
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
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
4
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,
WV
25304.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Amy
Caprio,
(
215)
814­
2156,
or
by
e­
mail
at
caprio.
amy@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Throughout
this
document
whenever
"
we",
"
us",
or
"
our"
is
used,
we
mean
EPA.

TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
What
Actions
are
EPA
Proposing
to
Take?

II.
What
is
the
Background
for
These
Proposed
Actions?

III.
What
are
the
Criteria
for
Redesignation
to
Attainment?

IV.
Why
is
EPA
Taking
These
Actions?

V.
What
Would
be
the
Effect
of
these
Actions?

VI.
What
is
EPA's
Analysis
of
the
State's
Request?

VII.
Are
the
Motor
Vehicle
Emissions
Budgets
Established
and
Identified
in
the
Huntington
Maintenance
Plan
Adequate
and
Approvable?

VIII.
Proposed
Action
IX.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
5
I.
What
Actions
are
EPA
Proposing
to
Take?

On
May
17,
2006,
WVDEP
formally
submitted
a
request
to
redesignate
Huntington
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
for
ozone.
On
May
17,
2006,
West
Virginia
submitted
a
maintenance
plan
for
Huntington
as
a
SIP
revision,
to
ensure
continued
attainment
over
the
next
12
years.
Huntington
is
comprised
of
Cabell
and
Wayne
Counties.
Huntington
is
currently
designated
as
a
basic
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area.
EPA
is
proposing
to
determine
that
Huntington
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
and
that
it
has
met
the
requirements
for
redesignation
pursuant
to
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
of
the
CAA.
EPA
is,
therefore,
proposing
to
approve
the
redesignation
request
to
change
the
designation
of
Huntington
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
approve
the
maintenance
plan
SIP
revision
for
Huntington,
such
approval
being
one
of
the
CAA
requirements
for
approval
of
a
redesignation
request.
The
maintenance
plan
is
designed
to
ensure
continued
attainment
throughout
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
for
the
next
12
years.
Additionally,
EPA
is
announcing
its
action
on
the
adequacy
process
for
the
MVEBs
identified
in
the
Huntington
maintenance
plan,

and
proposing
to
approve
the
MVEBs
identified
for
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
and
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
for
transportation
conformity
purposes.
These
MVEBs
are
state
MVEBs
for
the
West
Virginia
portion
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland
8­
hour
ozone
area.
In
a
separate
submittal,
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
is
establishing
MVEBs
for
the
remainder
of
this
area
(
i.
e.,
Boyd
County).
Concurrently,
the
State
is
requesting
that
EPA
approve
the
maintenance
plan
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
CAA
175A(
b)
with
respect
to
the
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
plan
update.
6
II.
What
is
the
Background
for
These
Proposed
Actions?

A.
General
Ground­
level
ozone
is
not
emitted
directly
by
sources.
Rather,
emissions
of
NOx
and
VOC
react
in
the
presence
of
sunlight
to
form
ground­
level
ozone.
The
air
pollutants
NOx
and
VOC
are
referred
to
as
precursors
of
ozone.
The
CAA
establishes
a
process
for
air
quality
management
through
the
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS.

On
July
18,
1997,
EPA
promulgated
a
revised
8­
hour
ozone
standard
of
0.08
parts
per
million
(
ppm).
This
new
standard
is
more
stringent
than
the
previous
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
EPA
designated,
as
nonattainment,
any
area
violating
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
based
on
the
air
quality
data
for
the
three
years
of
2001­
2003.
These
were
the
most
recent
three
years
of
data
at
the
time
EPA
designated
8­
hour
areas.
The
Huntington­
Ashland
area
was
designated
as
basic
8­

hour
ozone
nonattainment
status
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
signed
on
April
25,
2004
and
published
on
April
30,
2004
(
69
FR
23857).
On
June
15,
2005
(
69
FR
at
23396),
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
was
revoked
in
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
(
as
well
as
most
other
areas
of
the
country).
See
40
CFR
50.9(
b);
69
FR
at
23396
(
April
30,
2004);
and
see
70
FR
44470
(
August
3,
2005).

The
CAA,
Title
I,
Part
D,
contains
two
sets
of
provisions
 
subpart
1
and
subpart
2 
that
address
planning
and
control
requirements
for
nonattainment
areas.
Subpart
1
(
which
EPA
refers
to
as
"
basic"
nonattainment)
contains
general,
less
prescriptive
requirements
for
nonattainment
areas
for
any
pollutant
 
including
ozone
 
governed
by
a
NAAQS.
Subpart
2
(
which
EPA
refers
to
as
7
"
classified"
nonattainment)
provides
more
specific
requirements
for
ozone
nonattainment
areas.

Some
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
are
subject
only
to
the
provisions
of
subpart
1.
Other
areas
are
also
subject
to
the
provisions
of
subpart
2.
Under
EPA's
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
rule,
signed
on
April
15,
2004,
an
area
was
classified
under
subpart
2
based
on
its
8­
hour
ozone
design
value
(
i.
e.,
the
3­
year
average
annual
fourth­
highest
daily
maximum
8­
hour
average
ozone
concentration),
if
it
had
a
1­
hour
design
value
at
or
above
0.121
ppm
(
the
lowest
1­
hour
design
value
in
the
CAA
for
subpart
2
requirements).
All
other
areas
are
covered
under
subpart
1,
based
upon
their
8­
hour
design
values.
In
2004,
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
was
designated
a
basic
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area
based
upon
air
quality
monitoring
data
from
2001­
2003,

and
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
subpart
1.

Under
40
CFR
part
50,
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
is
attained
when
the
3­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth­
highest
daily
maximum
8­
hour
average
ambient
air
quality
ozone
concentrations
is
less
than
or
equal
to
0.08
ppm
(
i.
e.,
0.084
ppm
when
rounding
is
considered).
See
69
FR
23857
(
April
30,
2004)
for
further
information.
Ambient
air
quality
monitoring
data
for
the
3­
year
period
must
meet
data
completeness
requirements.
The
data
completeness
requirements
are
met
when
the
average
percent
of
days
with
valid
ambient
monitoring
data
is
greater
than
90
percent,

and
no
single
year
has
less
than
75
percent
data
completeness
as
determined
in
Appendix
I
of
40
CFR
part
50.
The
ozone
monitoring
data
indicates
that
Huntington
has
a
design
value
of
0.081
ppm
for
the
3­
year
period
of
2002­
2004
and
a
design
value
of
design
value
of
0.076
ppm
for
the
3­
year
period
of
2003­
2005.
The
ozone
monitoring
data
from
the
3­
year
period
of
2003­
2005
indicates
that
Ashland
has
a
design
value
of
0.079
ppm.
Therefore,
the
ambient
ozone
data
for
8
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
indicates
no
violations
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Final
monitoring
data
for
2005
indicates
continued
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area.

B.
The
Huntington­
Ashland
Area
The
Huntington­
Ashland
area
consists
of
Cabell
and
Wayne
Counties,
West
Virginia
and
Boyd
County,
Kentucky.
Prior
to
its
designation
as
an
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area,
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
was
a
maintenance
area
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
NAAQS.

See
59
FR
65719
(
December
21,
1994).

On
May
17,
2006,
the
WVDEP
requested
that
Huntington
be
redesignated
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
The
redesignation
request
included
3
years
of
complete,
quality­
assured
data
for
the
period
of
2002­
2004,
indicating
that
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
for
ozone
had
been
achieved
in
Huntington.
The
data
satisfies
the
CAA
requirements
when
the
3­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth­
highest
daily
maximum
8­
hour
average
ozone
concentration
(
commonly
referred
to
as
the
area's
design
value)
is
less
than
or
equal
to
0.08
ppm
(
i.
e.,
0.084
ppm
when
rounding
is
considered).
Under
the
CAA,
a
nonattainment
area
may
be
redesignated
if
sufficient
complete,

quality­
assured
data
is
available
to
determine
that
the
area
has
attained
the
standard
and
the
area
meets
the
other
CAA
redesignation
requirements
set
forth
in
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E).

III.
What
are
the
Criteria
for
Redesignation
to
Attainment?
9
The
CAA
provides
the
requirements
for
redesignating
a
nonattainment
area
to
attainment.

Specifically,
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
of
the
CAA,
allows
for
redesignation,
providing
that:

(
1)
EPA
determines
that
the
area
has
attained
the
applicable
NAAQS;

(
2)
EPA
has
fully
approved
the
applicable
implementation
plan
for
the
area
under
section
110(
k);

(
3)
EPA
determines
that
the
improvement
in
air
quality
is
due
to
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions
in
emissions
resulting
from
implementation
of
the
applicable
SIP
and
applicable
Federal
air
pollutant
control
regulations
and
other
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions;

(
4)
EPA
has
fully
approved
a
maintenance
plan
for
the
area
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
175A;
and
(
5)
The
state
containing
such
area
has
met
all
requirements
applicable
to
the
area
under
section
110
and
Part
D.

EPA
provided
guidance
on
redesignation
in
the
General
Preamble
for
the
Implementation
of
Title
I
of
the
CAA
Amendments
of
1990,
on
April
16,
1992
(
57
FR
13498),
and
supplemented
this
guidance
on
April
28,
1992
(
57
FR
18070).
EPA
has
provided
further
guidance
on
processing
redesignation
requests
in
the
following
documents:

°
"
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
Design
Value
Calculations",
Memorandum
from
Bill
Laxton,
June
18,
1990;

°
"
Maintenance
Plans
for
Redesignation
of
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
Nonattainment
Areas,"
Memorandum
from
G.
T.
Helms,
Chief,
Ozone/
Carbon
Monoxide
Programs
Branch,
April
30,
1992;
10
°
"
Contingency
Measures
for
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)
Redesignations,"

Memorandum
from
G.
T.
Helms,
Chief,
Ozone/
Carbon
Monoxide
Programs
Branch,

June
1,
1992;

°
"
Procedures
for
Processing
Requests
to
Redesignate
Areas
to
Attainment,"
Memorandum
from
John
Calcagni,
Director,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,
September
4,
1992;

°
"
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
Actions
Submitted
in
Response
to
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)

Deadlines,"
Memorandum
from
John
Calcagni
Director,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,
October
28,
1992;

°
"
Technical
Support
Documents
(
TSD's)
for
Redesignation
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)
Nonattainment
Areas,"
Memorandum
from
G.
T.
Helms,
Chief,
Ozone/
Carbon
Monoxide
Programs
Branch,
August
17,
1993;

°
"
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
Requirements
for
Areas
Submitting
Requests
for
Redesignation
to
Attainment
of
the
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
On
or
After
November
15,
1992,"
Memorandum
from
Michael
H.
Shapiro,
Acting
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation,
September
17,

1993;

°
Memorandum
from
D.
Kent
Berry,
Acting
Director,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,

to
Air
Division
Directors,
Regions
1­
10,
"
Use
of
Actual
Emissions
in
Maintenance
Demonstrations
for
Ozone
and
CO
Nonattainment
Areas,"
dated
November
30,
1993;

°
"
Part
D
New
Source
Review
(
Part
D
NSR)
Requirements
for
Areas
Requesting
Redesignation
to
Attainment,"
Memorandum
from
Mary
D.
Nichols,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation,
October
14,
1994;
and
11
°
"
Reasonable
Further
Progress,
Attainment
Demonstration,
and
Related
Requirements
for
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas
Meeting
the
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard,"
Memorandum
from
John
S.
Seitz,
Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
May
10,
1995.

IV.
Why
Is
EPA
Taking
These
Actions?

On
May
17,
2006,
the
WVDEP
requested
redesignation
of
Huntington
to
attainment
for
the
8­

hour
ozone
standard.
On
May
17,
2006,
the
WVDEP
submitted
a
maintenance
plan
for
Huntington
as
a
SIP
revision,
to
assure
continued
attainment
over
the
next
12
years,
until
2018.

Concurrently,
West
Virginia
is
requesting
that
EPA
approve
the
maintenance
plan
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
CAA
175A(
b)
with
respect
to
the
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
plan
update.
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
the
maintenance
plan
to
fulfill
the
requirement
of
section
175A(
b)
for
submission
of
a
maintenance
plan
update
eight
years
after
Huntington
was
redesignated
to
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
EPA
believes
that
such
an
update
must
ensure
that
the
maintenance
plan
in
the
SIP
provides
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
for
a
period
of
20
years
after
an
area
is
initially
redesignated
to
attainment.
EPA
can
propose
approval
because
the
maintenance
plan,
which
demonstrates
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
through
2018,

also
demonstrates
maintenance
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
through
2018,
even
though
the
latter
standard
is
no
longer
in
effect.
Huntington
was
redesignated
to
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
on
December
21,
1994
(
59
FR
45985),
and,
the
initial
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
plan
provided
for
maintenance
through
2005.
Ashland
was
redesignated
to
attainment
of
the
1­

hour
ozone
NAAQS
on
June
29,
1995
(
60
FR
33748).
Section
51.905(
e)
of
the
"
Final
Rule
To
12
Implement
the
8­
Hour
Requirements
­
Phase
1"
April
30,
2004
(
69
FR
23999)
specifies
the
conditions
that
must
be
satisfied
before
EPA
may
approve
a
modification
to
a
1­
hour
maintenance
plan
which:
(
1)
removes
the
obligation
to
submit
a
maintenance
plan
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
eight
years
after
approval
of
the
initial
1­
hour
maintenance
plan
and/
or
(
2)

removes
the
obligation
to
implement
contingency
measures
upon
a
violation
of
the
1­
hour
NAAQS.
EPA
believes
that
section
51.905(
e)
of
the
final
rule
allows
a
State
to
make
either
one
or
both
of
these
modifications
to
a
1­
hour
maintenance
plan
SIP
once
EPA
approves
a
maintenance
plan
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.
The
maintenance
plan
will
not
trigger
the
contingency
plan
upon
a
violation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
but
upon
a
violation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
EPA
believes
that
the
8­
hour
standard
is
now
the
proper
standard
which
should
trigger
the
contingency
plan
now
that
the
1­
hour
NAAQS
has
been
revoked
and
now
that
approval
of
the
maintenance
plan
would
allow
the
State
to
remove
a
violation
of
the
1­
hour
NAAQS
obligation
from
the
SIP.
EPA
has
determined
that
Huntington
has
attained
the
standard
and
has
met
the
requirements
for
redesignation
set
forth
in
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E).

V.
What
Would
be
the
Effect
of
These
Actions?

Approval
of
the
redesignation
request
would
change
the
designation
of
Huntington
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
found
at
40
CFR
part
81.
It
would
also
incorporate
into
the
West
Virginia
SIP
a
maintenance
plan
ensuring
continued
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
in
Huntington
for
the
next
12
years,
until
2018.
The
maintenance
plan
includes
contingency
measures
to
remedy
any
future
violations
of
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
(
should
13
they
occur),
and
identifies
the
MVEBs
for
NOx
and
VOC
for
transportation
conformity
purposes
for
the
years
2004,
2009
and
2018.
These
MVEBs
are
displayed
in
the
following
table:

Table
1:
Motor
Vehicle
Emissions
Budgets
in
Tons
per
Day
(
tpd)
Year
NOx
VOC
2004
11.5
6.0
2009
8.7
4.6
2018
4.1
3.0
VI.
What
is
EPA's
Analysis
of
the
State's
Request?

EPA
is
proposing
to
determine
that
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
that
all
other
redesignation
criteria
have
been
met.
The
following
is
a
description
of
how
the
WVDEP's
May
17,
2006
submittal
satisfies
the
requirements
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
of
the
CAA.

A.
The
Huntington­
Ashland
Area
Has
Attained
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
EPA
is
proposing
to
determine
that
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
For
ozone,
an
area
may
be
considered
to
be
attaining
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
if
there
are
no
violations,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
50.10
and
Appendix
I
of
part
50,
based
on
three
complete,
consecutive
calendar
years
of
quality­
assured
air
quality
monitoring
data.
To
attain
this
standard,
the
3­
year
average
of
the
fourth­
highest
daily
maximum
8­
hour
average
ozone
concentrations
measured
at
each
monitor,
within
the
area,
over
each
year
must
not
exceed
the
ozone
standard
of
0.08
ppm.
Based
on
the
rounding
convention
described
in
40
CFR
part
50,
Appendix
I,
the
standard
is
attained
if
the
design
value
is
0.084
ppm
or
below.
The
data
14
must
be
collected
and
quality­
assured
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
58,
and
recorded
in
the
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System
(
AIRS).
The
monitors
generally
should
have
remained
at
the
same
location
for
the
duration
of
the
monitoring
period
required
for
demonstrating
attainment.

In
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
there
is
one
ozone
monitor,
located
in
Cabell
County,
West
Virginia
and
one
ozone
monitor
in
Boyd
County,
Kentucky
that
measure
air
quality
with
respect
to
ozone.
As
part
of
its
redesignation
request,
West
Virginia
submitted
ozone
monitoring
data
for
the
years
2002­
2005
for
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area.
This
data
has
been
quality
assured
and
is
recorded
in
AIRS.
The
fourth
high
8­
hour
daily
maximum
concentrations,
along
with
the
three­
year
averages,
are
summarized
in
Tables
2
and
3.

Table
2:
Huntington's
Fourth
Highest
8­
hour
Average
Values;
Cabell
Monitor,
AIRS
ID
54­
011­
0006
Year
Annual
4th
High
Reading
(
ppm)
2002
0.097
2003
0.080
2004
0.066
2005
0.082
The
average
for
the
3­
year
period
2002
through
2004
is
0.081
ppm
The
average
for
the
3­
year
period
2003
through
2005
is
0.076
ppm
Table
3:
Ashland's
Fourth
Highest
8­
hour
Average
Values;
Boyd
Monitor,
AIRS
ID
21­
019­
0017
Year
Annual
4th
High
Reading
(
ppm)
2002
0.102
2003
0.088
2004
0.068
2005
0.082
15
The
average
for
the
3­
year
period
2002
through
2004
is
0.086
ppm
The
average
for
the
3­
year
period
2003
through
2005
is
0.079
ppm
The
air
quality
data
for
2003­
2005
show
that
the
entire
Huntington­
Ashland
area
has
attained
the
standard
with
a
design
value
of
0.076
ppm
for
Huntington
and
a
design
value
of
0.079
ppm
for
Ashland.
The
data
collected
at
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
monitors
satisfy
the
CAA
requirement
that
the
3­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth­
highest
daily
maximum
8­
hour
average
ozone
concentration
is
less
than
or
equal
to
0.08
ppm.
The
WVDEP's
request
for
redesignation
for
Huntington
indicates
that
the
data
was
quality
assured
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
58.

The
WVDEP
uses
AIRS
as
the
permanent
database
to
maintain
its
data
and
quality
assures
the
data
transfers
and
content
for
accuracy.
In
addition,
as
discussed
below
with
respect
to
the
maintenance
plan,
WVDEP
has
committed
to
continue
monitoring
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
58.
In
summary,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
data
submitted
by
West
Virginia
and
data
taken
from
AIRS
indicates
that
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.

B.
The
Huntington­
Ashland
Area
Has
Met
All
Applicable
Requirements
Under
Section
110
and
Part
D
of
the
CAA
and
Has
a
Fully
Approved
SIP
Under
Section
110(
k)
of
the
CAA
EPA
has
determined
that
Huntington
has
met
all
SIP
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
this
redesignation
under
section
110
of
the
CAA
(
General
SIP
Requirements)
and
that
it
meets
all
applicable
SIP
requirements
under
Part
D
of
Title
I
of
the
CAA,
in
accordance
with
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)(
v).
In
addition,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
SIP
is
fully
approved
with
respect
to
16
all
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation
in
accordance
with
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)(
ii).
In
making
these
proposed
determinations,
EPA
ascertained
what
requirements
are
applicable
to
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area,
and
determined
that
the
applicable
portions
of
the
SIP
meeting
these
requirements
are
fully
approved
under
section
110(
k)
of
the
CAA.
We
note
that
SIPs
must
be
fully
approved
only
with
respect
to
applicable
requirements.

The
September
4,
1992
Calcagni
memorandum
("
Procedures
for
Processing
Requests
to
Redesignate
Areas
to
Attainment,"
Memorandum
from
John
Calcagni,
Director,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,
September
4,
1992)
describes
EPA's
interpretation
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
with
respect
to
the
timing
of
applicable
requirements.
Under
this
interpretation,
to
qualify
for
redesignation,
states
requesting
redesignation
to
attainment
must
meet
only
the
relevant
CAA
requirements
that
came
due
prior
to
the
submittal
of
a
complete
redesignation
request.
See
also
Michael
Shapiro
memorandum,
September
17,
1993,
and
60
FR
12459,
12465­

66
(
March
7,
1995)
(
redesignation
of
Detroit­
Ann
Arbor).
Applicable
requirements
of
the
CAA
that
come
due
subsequent
to
the
area's
submittal
of
a
complete
redesignation
request
remain
applicable
until
a
redesignation
is
approved,
but
are
not
required
as
a
prerequisite
to
redesignation.
Section
175A(
c)
of
the
CAA.
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
375
F.
3d
537
(
7th
Cir.
2004).

See
also
68
FR
25424,
25427
(
May
12,
2003)
(
redesignation
of
St.
Louis).

1.
Section
110
General
SIP
Requirements:

Section
110(
a)(
2)
of
Title
I
of
the
CAA
delineates
the
general
requirements
for
a
SIP,
which
include
enforceable
emissions
limitations
and
other
control
measures,
means,
or
techniques,
17
provisions
for
the
establishment
and
operation
of
appropriate
devices
necessary
to
collect
data
on
ambient
air
quality,
and
programs
to
enforce
the
limitations.
The
general
SIP
elements
and
requirements
set
forth
in
section
110(
a)(
2)
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:

°
Submittal
of
a
SIP
that
has
been
adopted
by
the
state
after
reasonable
public
notice
and
hearing;

°
Provisions
for
establishment
and
operation
of
appropriate
procedures
needed
to
monitor
ambient
air
quality;

°
Implementation
of
a
source
permit
program;
provisions
for
the
implementation
of
Part
C
requirement
(
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD));

°
Provisions
for
the
implementation
of
Part
D
requirements
for
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)

permit
programs;

°
Provisions
for
air
pollution
modeling;
and
°
Provisions
for
public
and
local
agency
participation
in
planning
and
emission
control
rule
development.

Section
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
requires
that
SIPs
contain
certain
measures
to
prevent
sources
in
a
state
from
significantly
contributing
to
air
quality
problems
in
another
state.
To
implement
this
provision,
EPA
has
required
certain
states
to
establish
programs
to
address
transport
of
air
pollutants
in
accordance
with
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
October
27,
1998
(
63
FR
57356),
amendments
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
May
14,
1999
(
64
FR
26298)
and
March
2,
2000
(
65
FR
11222),
and
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR),
May
12,
2005
(
70
FR
25161).
However,
the
section
18
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
requirements
for
a
state
are
not
linked
with
a
particular
nonattainment
area's
designation
and
classification
in
that
state.
EPA
believes
that
the
requirements
linked
with
a
particular
nonattainment
area's
designation
and
classifications
are
the
relevant
measures
to
evaluate
in
reviewing
a
redesignation
request.
The
transport
SIP
submittal
requirements,
where
applicable,
continue
to
apply
to
a
state
regardless
of
the
designation
of
any
one
particular
area
in
the
state.

Thus,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
requirements
should
be
construed
to
be
applicable
requirements
for
purposes
of
redesignation.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
the
other
section
110
elements
not
connected
with
nonattainment
plan
submissions
and
not
linked
with
an
area's
attainment
status
are
not
applicable
requirements
for
purposes
of
redesignation.
West
Virginia
and
Kentucky
will
still
be
subject
to
these
requirements
after
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
is
redesignated.
The
section
110
and
Part
D
requirements,
which
are
linked
with
a
particular
area's
designation
and
classification,
are
the
relevant
measures
to
evaluate
in
reviewing
a
redesignation
request.
This
policy
is
consistent
with
EPA's
existing
policy
on
applicability
of
conformity
(
i.
e.,

for
redesignations)
and
oxygenated
fuels
requirement.
See
Reading,
Pennsylvania,
proposed
and
final
rulemakings
61
FR
53174­
53176
(
October
10,
1996),
62
FR
24816
(
May
7,
1997);

Cleveland­
Akron­
Lorain,
Ohio,
final
rulemaking
61
FR
20458
(
May
7,
1996);
and
Tampa,

Florida,
final
rulemaking
60
FR
62748
(
December
7,
1995).
See
also
the
discussion
on
this
issue
in
the
Cincinnati
redesignation
65
FR
37890
(
June
19,
2000),
and
in
the
Pittsburgh
redesignation
66
FR
50399
(
October
19,
2001).
Similarly,
with
respect
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
rules,
EPA
noted
in
its
Phase
1
Final
Rule
to
Implement
the
8­
hour
Ozone
NAAQS,
that
the
NOx
SIP
Call
rules
19
are
not
"
an
`
applicable
requirement'
for
purposes
of
section
110(
l)
because
the
NOx
rules
apply
regardless
of
an
area's
attainment
or
nonattainment
status
for
the
8­
hour
(
or
the
1­
hour)

NAAQS."
69
FR
23951,
23983
(
April
30,
2004).

EPA
believes
that
section
110
elements
not
linked
to
the
area's
nonattainment
status
are
not
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation.
Any
section
110
requirements
that
are
linked
to
the
Part
D
requirements
for
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
are
not
yet
due,
because,
as
we
explain
later
in
this
notice,
no
Part
D
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation
under
the
8­
hour
standard
became
due
prior
to
submission
of
the
redesignation
request.

Because
the
West
Virginia
and
Kentucky
SIPs
satisfy
all
of
the
applicable
general
SIP
elements
and
requirements
set
forth
in
section
110(
a)(
2),
EPA
concludes
that
West
Virginia
and
Kentucky
have
satisfied
the
criterion
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
regarding
section
110
of
the
Act.

2.
Part
D
Nonattainment
Area
Requirements
Under
the
8­
Hour
Standard
The
Huntington­
Ashland
area
was
designated
a
basic
nonattainment
area
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Sections
172­
176
of
the
CAA,
found
in
subpart
1
of
Part
D,
set
forth
the
basic
nonattainment
requirements
for
all
nonattainment
areas.
As
discussed
previously,
there
are
no
outstanding
Part
D
submittals
under
the
1­
hour
standard
for
this
area.

Section
182
of
the
CAA,
found
in
subpart
2
of
Part
D,
establishes
additional
specific
requirements
depending
on
the
area's
nonattainment
classification.
The
Huntington­
Ashland
20
area
was
classified
as
a
subpart
1
nonattainment
area;
therefore,
no
subpart
2
requirements
apply
to
this
area.

With
respect
to
the
8­
hour
standard,
EPA
proposes
to
determine
that
the
West
Virginia
and
Kentucky
SIPs
meet
all
applicable
SIP
requirements
under
Part
D
of
the
CAA,
because
no
8­

hour
ozone
standard
Part
D
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation
became
due
prior
to
submission
of
the
area's
redesignation
request.
Because
the
State
submitted
a
complete
redesignation
request
for
Huntington
prior
to
the
deadline
for
any
submissions
required
under
the
8­
hour
standard,
we
have
determined
that
the
Part
D
requirements
do
not
apply
to
Huntington
for
the
purposes
of
redesignation.

In
addition
to
the
fact
that
Part
D
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation
did
not
become
due
prior
to
submission
of
the
redesignation
request,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
interpret
the
general
conformity
and
NSR
requirements
as
not
requiring
approval
prior
to
redesignation.

With
respect
to
section
176,
Conformity
Requirements,
section
176(
c)
of
the
CAA
requires
states
to
establish
criteria
and
procedures
to
ensure
that
Federally
supported
or
funded
projects
conform
to
the
air
quality
planning
goals
in
the
applicable
SIP.
The
requirement
to
determine
conformity
applies
to
transportation
plans,
programs,
and
projects
developed,
funded
or
approved
under
Title
23
U.
S.
C.
and
the
Federal
Transit
Act
("
transportation
conformity")
as
well
as
to
all
other
Federally
supported
or
funded
projects
("
general
conformity").
State
conformity
revisions
must
21
be
consistent
with
Federal
conformity
regulations
relating
to
consultation,
enforcement
and
enforceability
that
the
CAA
required
the
EPA
to
promulgate.

EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
interpret
the
conformity
SIP
requirements
as
not
applying
for
purposes
of
evaluating
the
redesignation
request
under
section
107(
d)
since
state
conformity
rules
are
still
required
after
redesignation
and
federal
conformity
rules
apply
where
state
rules
have
not
been
approved.
See
Wall
v.
EPA,
265
F.
3d
426,
438­
440
(
6th
Cir.
2001),
upholding
this
interpretation.
See
also
60
FR
62748
(
Dec.
7,
1995).

EPA
has
also
determined
that
areas
being
redesignated
need
not
comply
with
the
requirement
that
a
NSR
program
be
approved
prior
to
redesignation,
provided
that
the
area
demonstrates
maintenance
of
the
standard
without
Part
D
NSR
in
effect,
because
PSD
requirements
will
apply
after
redesignation.
The
rationale
for
this
view
is
described
in
a
memorandum
from
Mary
Nichols,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation,
dated
October
14,
1994,
entitled,
"
Part
D
NSR
Requirements
or
Areas
Requesting
Redesignation
to
Attainment."
West
Virginia
has
demonstrated
that
the
area
will
be
able
to
maintain
the
standard
without
Part
D
NSR
in
effect
in
Huntington,
and
therefore,
West
Virginia
need
not
have
a
fully
approved
Part
D
NSR
program
prior
to
approval
of
the
redesignation
request.
West
Virginia's
SIP­
approved
PSD
program
will
become
effective
in
Huntington
upon
redesignation
to
attainment.
See
rulemakings
for
Detroit,

MI
(
60
FR
12467­
12468,
March
7,
1995);
Cleveland­
Akron­
Lorrain,
OH
(
61
FR
20458,
20469­

70,
May
7,
1996);
Louisville,
KY
(
66
FR
53665,
October
23,
2001);
Grand
Rapids,
Michigan
(
61
FR
31834­
31837,
June
21,
1996).
22
3.
Huntington
has
a
fully
approved
SIP
for
the
purposes
of
redesignation
EPA
has
fully
approved
the
West
Virginia
SIP
for
the
purposes
of
this
redesignation.
EPA
may
rely
on
prior
SIP
approvals
in
approving
a
redesignation
request.
Calcagni
Memo,
p.
3;

Southwestern
Pennsylvania
Growth
Alliance
v.
Browner,
144
F.
3d
984,
989­
90
(
6th
Cir.
1998),

Wall
v.
EPA,
265
F.
3d
426
(
6th
Cir.
2001),
plus
any
additional
measures
it
may
approve
in
conjunction
with
a
redesignation
action.
See
68
FR
25425
(
May
12,
2003)
and
citations
therein.

The
Huntington­
Ashland
area
was
a
1­
hour
maintenance
area
at
the
time
of
its
designation
as
a
basic
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area
on
April
30,
2004.
Because
Huntington
was
a
1­
hour
maintenance
area,
all
previous
Part
D
SIP
submittal
requirements
were
fulfilled
at
the
time
the
area
was
redesignated
to
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
or
have
been
fulfilled
with
the
submittal
of
the
8­
hour
maintenance
plan
for
the
area.
See
rulemakings
for
Huntington,
WV
(
59
FR
45980
at
45981­
45982,
September
6,
1994);
(
59
FR
45019,
September
6,
1994);
and,
(
59
FR
65719,
December
21,
1994).
Because
there
are
no
outstanding
SIP
submission
requirements
applicable
for
the
purposes
of
redesignation
of
Huntington,
the
applicable
implementation
plan
satisfies
all
pertinent
SIP
requirements.
As
indicated
previously,
EPA
believes
that
the
section
110
elements
not
connected
with
Part
D
nonattainment
plan
submissions
and
not
linked
to
the
area's
nonattainment
status
are
not
applicable
requirements
for
purposes
of
redesignation.
EPA
also
believes
that
no
8­
hour
Part
D
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation
have
yet
become
due
for
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area,
and
therefore
they
need
not
be
approved
into
the
SIP
prior
to
redesignation.
23
4.
The
Air
Quality
Improvement
in
the
Huntington­
Ashland
Area
Is
Due
to
Permanent
and
Enforceable
Reductions
in
Emissions
Resulting
from
Implementation
of
the
SIP
and
Applicable
Federal
Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations
and
Other
Permanent
and
Enforceable
Reductions
EPA
believes
that
the
States
have
demonstrated
that
the
observed
air
quality
improvement
in
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
is
due
to
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions
in
emissions
resulting
from
implementation
of
the
SIP,
Federal
measures,
and
other
state­
adopted
measures.
Emissions
reductions
attributable
to
these
rules
in
Huntington
are
shown
in
Table
4.

Table
4:
Total
VOC
and
NOx
Emissions
for
2002
and
2004
(
tpd)

Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOC)

Year
Point
Area
*
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Year
2002
1.1
11.7
4.1
6.8
23.7
Year
2004
1.3
12.1
4.3
6.0
23.7
Diff.
(
02­
04)
+
0.2
+
0.4
+
0.2
­
0.8
0
Nitrogen
Oxides
(
NOx)
Year
Point
Area
*
Nonroad
Mobile
Total
Year
2002
12.4
1.2
14.0
11.4
39.0
Year
2004
7.4
1.2
17.3
11.5
37.4
Diff.
(
02­
04)
­
5.0
0
+
3.3
+.
10
­
1.6
*
Fire
emissions
are
assumed
to
remain
constant
Between
2002
and
2004,
VOC
emissions
stayed
the
same,
and
NOx
emissions
were
reduced
by
1.6
tpd,
due
to
the
following
permanent
and
enforceable
measures
implemented
or
in
the
process
of
being
implemented
in
Huntington:

Programs
Currently
in
Effect
(
a)
National
Low
Emission
Vehicle
(
NLEV);

(
b)
Motor
vehicle
fleet
turnover
with
new
vehicles
meeting
the
Tier
2
standards;
and,
24
(
c)
Clean
Diesel
Program.

West
Virginia
has
demonstrated
that
the
implementation
of
permanent
enforceable
emissions
controls
have
reduced
local
VOC
and
NOx
emissions.
All
of
the
reductions
in
VOC
are
attributable
to
mobile
and
nonroad
source
emission
controls
such
as
Federally
mandated
Tier
2
Vehicle
and
Gasoline
Sulfur
Program
and
the
Clean
Diesel
Program.

Nearly
all
of
the
reductions
in
NOx
are
attributable
to
the
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call.

West
Virginia
has
indicated
in
its
submittal
that
the
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
with
its
mandatory
reductions
in
NOx
emissions
from
Electric
Generating
Units
(
EGUs)
and
large
industrial
boilers
(
non­
EGUs),
reduced
NOx
emissions
throughout
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area.

NOx
emissions
from
EGUs
in
Huntington
were
reduced
by
0.3
tpd
between
2002
and
2004.

Also,
NOx
emissions
from
non­
EGU
sources
in
Huntington
were
reduced
by
4.7
tpd
between
2002
and
2004.
Reductions
in
NOx
emissions
from
the
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
from
EGUs
and
non­
EGUs
in
counties
adjacent
to
the
Huntington
(
Cabell
and
Wayne
Counties),

such
as
Boyd
(
the
other
county
in
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area)
and
Lawrence
Counties
in
Kentucky
and
Putnam
County
in
West
Virginia
have
also
occurred.
The
WVDEP
believes
that
the
improvement
in
ozone
air
quality
from
2002
to
2004
was
the
result
of
identifiable,
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions
in
ozone
precursor
emissions
for
the
same
period.

Additionally,
WVDEP
has
identified,
but
not
quantified,
additional
reductions
in
VOC
emissions
that
will
be
achieved
as
a
co­
benefit
of
the
reductions
in
the
emission
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
25
(
HAPs)
as
a
result
of
implementation
of
EPA's
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
standards.

Other
regulations,
such
as
the
non­
road
diesel,
69
FR
39858
(
June
29,
2004),
the
heavy
duty
engine
and
vehicle
standards,
66
FR
5002
(
January
18,
2001)
and
the
new
Tier
2
tailpipe
standards
for
automobiles,
65
FR
6698
(
January
10,
2000),
are
also
expected
to
greatly
reduce
emissions
throughout
the
country
and
thereby
reduce
emissions
impacting
the
Huntington­

Ashland
area
monitors.
The
Tier
2
standards
came
into
effect
in
2004,
and
by
2030,
EPA
expects
that
the
new
Tier
2
standards
will
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
about
74
percent
nationally.

EPA
believes
that
permanent
and
enforceable
emissions
reductions
are
the
cause
of
the
longterm
improvement
in
ozone
levels
and
are
the
cause
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
achieving
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

5.
Huntington
has
a
fully
approved
maintenance
plan
pursuant
to
section
175A
of
the
CAA
In
conjunction
with
its
request
to
redesignate
Huntington
to
attainment
status,
West
Virginia
submitted
a
SIP
revision
to
provide
for
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
in
Huntington
for
at
least
12
years
after
redesignation.
West
Virginia
is
requesting
that
EPA
approve
this
SIP
revision
as
meeting
the
requirement
of
CAA
175A(
b)
and
replace
the
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
plan
update
requirement.

Under
40
CFR
51.905(
e),
the
EPA
may
approve
a
SIP
revision
requesting
the
removal
of
the
obligation
to
implement
contingency
measures
upon
a
violation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
26
when
the
State
submits
and
EPA
approves
an
attainment
demonstration
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
for
an
area
initially
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
or
a
maintenance
SIP
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
for
an
area
initially
designated
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.

The
rationale
behind
40
CFR
51.905(
e)
is
to
ensure
that
Huntington
maintains
the
applicable
ozone
standard
(
the
8­
hour
standard
in
areas
where
the
1­
hour
standard
has
been
revoked).
EPA
believes
this
rationale
analogously
applies
to
areas
that
were
not
initially
designated,
but
are
redesignated
as
attainment
with
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
Therefore,
EPA
intends
to
treat
redesignated
areas
as
though
they
had
been
initially
designated
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
and
accordingly
proposes
to
relieve
Huntington
of
its
maintenance
plan
obligations
with
respect
to
the
1­
hour
standard.
Once
approved,
the
maintenance
plan
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
will
ensure
that
the
SIP
for
Huntington
meets
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
regarding
maintenance
of
the
applicable
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

What
is
required
in
a
maintenance
plan?

Section
175A
of
the
CAA
sets
forth
the
elements
of
a
maintenance
plan
for
areas
seeking
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment.
Under
section
175A,
the
plan
must
demonstrate
continued
attainment
of
the
applicable
NAAQS
for
at
least
10
years
after
approval
of
a
redesignation
of
an
area
to
attainment.
Eight
years
after
the
redesignation,
the
State
must
submit
a
revised
maintenance
plan
demonstrating
that
attainment
will
continue
to
be
maintained
for
the
next
10­
year
period
following
the
initial
10­
year
period
(
12
years
in
Huntington's
case).
To
address
the
possibility
of
future
NAAQS
violations,
the
maintenance
plan
must
contain
such
contingency
measures,
with
a
schedule
for
implementation,
as
EPA
deems
necessary
to
assure
27
prompt
correction
of
any
future
8­
hour
ozone
violations.
Section
175A
of
the
CAA
sets
forth
the
elements
of
a
maintenance
plan
for
areas
seeking
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment.
The
Calcagni
memorandum
dated
September
4,
1992,
provides
additional
guidance
on
the
content
of
a
maintenance
plan.
An
ozone
maintenance
plan
should
address
the
following
provisions:

(
a)
an
attainment
emissions
inventory;

(
b)
a
maintenance
demonstration;

(
c)
a
monitoring
network;

(
d)
verification
of
continued
attainment;
and
(
e)
a
contingency
plan.

Analysis
of
the
Huntington
Maintenance
Plan
(
a)
Attainment
Inventory
­
An
attainment
inventory
includes
the
emissions
during
the
time
period
associated
with
the
monitoring
data
showing
attainment.
An
attainment
year
of
2004
was
used
for
Huntington
since
it
is
a
reasonable
year
within
the
3­
year
block
of
2002­
2004
and
accounts
for
reductions
attributable
to
implementation
of
the
CAA
requirements
to
date.

The
WVDEP
prepared
comprehensive
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
inventories
for
Huntington,

including
point,
area,
mobile
on­
road,
and
mobile
non­
road
sources
for
a
base
year
of
2002.

To
develop
the
NOx
and
VOC
base
year
emissions
inventories,
WVDEP
used
the
following
approaches
and
sources
of
data:
28
(
i)
Point
source
emissions
­
West
Virginia
maintains
its
point
source
emissions
inventory
data
on
the
i­
STEPS
database,
which
is
commercial
software
purchased
from
a
vendor,
Pacific
Environmental
Services.
Facilities
subject
to
emissions
inventory
reporting
requirements
were
those
operating
point
sources
subject
to
Title
V
permitting
requirements.
Affected
sources
were
identified
from
the
WVDEP's
Regulation
30
database
which
is
maintained
by
the
WVDEP's
Title
V
Permitting
Group.
For
the
2002
inventory,
diskettes
were
populated
with
i­
STEPS
software
information,
as
well
as
source­
specific
data
from
the
previous
year
and
sent
to
facilities
for
updates
of
their
2002
activity
and
emissions
data.
The
facilities
then
sent
the
diskettes
back
to
the
State
and,
where
WVDEP
staff
quality
assured
the
data
and
submitted
it
to
EPA's
Central
Data
Exchange
(
CDX)
site
as
well
as
to
contractors
for
the
Visibility
Improvement
State
and
Tribal
Association
of
the
Southeast
(
VISTAS),
a
Regional
Planning
Organization
(
RPO).

WVDEP
used
EPA's
Clean
Air
Markets
Division
(
CAMD)
actual
data
to
calculate
2002
summer
daily
NOx
emissions
from
EGUs.
To
calculate
summer
weekday
NOx
emissions
WVDEP
used
EPA's
CAMD
data
for
the
date
range
of
June
1,
2002
through
August
31,
2002.
WVDEP
staff
filtered
the
resulting
NOx
data
to
select
West
Virginia
sources
(
Ceredo
and
Big
Sandy
peaking
stations).
The
NOx
data
was
downloaded,
all
weekend
days
were
deleted
and
the
remaining
emissions
were
added
together,
and
the
total
was
divided
by
65.
Since,
CAMD
data
does
not
require
VOC
emissions
reporting,
WVDEP
used
VISTAS
summer
daily
VOC
emissions
values
for
2002.

(
ii)
Area
source
emissions
­
In
order
to
calculate
the
area
source
emissions
inventory
the
WVDEP
took
the
annual
values
from
the
VISTAS
base
year
inventory
and
derived
the
typical
29
ozone
summer
weekday,
using
procedures
outlined
in
the
EPA's
Emissions
Modeling
Clearinghouse
(
EMCH)
Memorandum,
"
Temporal
Allocation
of
Annual
Emissions
Using
EMCH
Temporal
Profiles,
April
29,
2002."
This
enabled
WVDEP
to
arrive
at
the
"
typical"

summer
day
emissions.

(
iii)
On­
road
mobile
source
emissions
­
VISTAS
developed
2002
on­
road
mobile
(
highway)

emissions
inventory
data
based
on
vehicle
miles
traveled
(
VMT)
updates
provided
by
WVDEP.

VISTAS
also
estimated
future
emissions
based
upon
expected
growth
for
the
future
years
2009
and
2018.
However,
federal
Transportation
Conformity
requirements
dictate
that
the
WVDEP
consult
with
the
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(
MPO)
responsible
for
transportation
planning
in
developing
SIP
revisions
which
may
establish
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
(
MVEB).
This
applies
to
the
maintenance
plan
submitted
by
WVDEP
on
May
17,
2006.

Therefore,
the
WVDEP
has
consulted
with
the
Huntington
MPO,
the
KYOVA
Interstate
Planning
Commission
(
KYOVA).
The
KYOVA
provided
base
year
and
projection
emissions
data
consistent
with
their
most
recent
available
Travel
Demand
Model
(
TDM)
results
along
with
EPA's
most
recent
emission
factor
model,
MOBILE6.2.
The
WVDEP
used
these
data
to
estimate
highway
emissions
and,
in
consultation
with
the
KYOVA,
to
develop
highway
emissions
budgets
for
VOC
and
NOx.
The
KYOVA
must
evaluate
future
Long
Range
Transportation
Plans
and
Transportation
Improvement
Programs
to
ensure
that
the
associated
emissions
are
equal
to
or
less
then
the
final
emissions
budgets.
The
budgets
are
designed
to
facilitate
a
positive
conformity
determination
while
ensuring
overall
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
30
NAAQS.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
MVEBs
and
budgets
only
represent
the
Huntington,
West
Virginia
(
Cabell
and
Wayne
Counties)
portion
of
the
nonattainment
area.

(
iv)
Mobile
non­
road
emissions
 
The
2002
mobile
non­
road
emissions
inventory
was
developed
by
WVDEP
staff
using
the
NONROAD2005b
Model.

The
2004
attainment
year
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
Huntington
are
summarized
along
with
the
2009
and
2018
projected
emissions
for
Huntington
in
tables
5
and
6,
which
covers
the
demonstration
of
maintenance
for
this
portion
of
the
area.
EPA
has
concluded
that
West
Virginia
has
adequately
derived
and
documented
the
2004
attainment
year
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
for
Huntington.

(
b)
Maintenance
Demonstration
­
On
May
17,
2006,
the
WVDEP
submitted
a
SIP
revision
to
supplement
its
May
17,
2006
redesignation
request.
The
submittal
by
WVDEP
consists
of
the
maintenance
plan
as
required
by
section
175A
of
the
CAA.
The
Huntington
plan
shows
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
by
demonstrating
that
current
and
future
emissions
of
VOC
and
NOx
remain
at
or
below
the
attainment
year
2004
emissions
levels
throughout
Huntington
through
the
year
2018.
The
Huntington
maintenance
demonstration
need
not
be
based
on
modeling.
See
Wall
v.
EPA,
265
F.
3d
426
(
6th
Cir.
2001);
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
375
F.
3d
537
(
7th
Cir.
2004).
See
also
66
FR
53094,
53099­
53100
(
October
19,
2001),
68
FR
25430­

32
(
May
12,
2003).
31
Tables
5
and
6
specify
the
Huntington
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
for
2004,
2009,
and
2018.
The
WVDEP
chose
2009
as
an
interim
year
in
the
12­
year
maintenance
demonstration
period
to
demonstrate
that
the
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
are
not
projected
to
increase
above
the
2004
attainment
level
during
the
time
of
the
12­
year
maintenance
period.

Table
5:
Total
VOC
Emissions
for
2004­
2018
(
tpd)
Source
Category
2004
VOC
Emissions
2009
VOC
Emissions
2018
VOC
Emissions
Mobile1
6.0
4.6
3.0
Nonroad
4.3
3.9
3.2
Area2
12.1
11.2
12.4
Point
1.3
0.9
1.1
Total3
23.7
20.6
19.7
1
2004
emissions
are
actual;
Emission
budgets
are
established
for
2009
and
2018
and
include
a
reallocation
from
the
safety
margin
2
Fire
emissions
are
assumed
to
remain
constant
3
Sums
may
not
total
exactly
due
to
rounding
Table
6:
Total
NOx
Emissions
2004­
2018
(
tpd)

Source
Category
2004
NOx
Emissions1
2009
NOx
Emissions
2018
NOx
Emissions
Mobile1
11.5
8.7
4.1
Nonroad
17.3
13.4
12.6
Area2
1.2
1.3
1.5
Point
7.4
8.1
8.8
Total3
37.4
31.5
27.0
1
2004
emissions
are
actual;
Emission
budgets
are
established
for
2009
and
2018
and
include
a
reallocation
from
the
safety
margin
2
Fire
emissions
are
assumed
to
remain
constant
3
Sums
may
not
total
exactly
due
to
rounding
32
Additionally,
the
following
mobile
programs
are
either
effective
or
due
to
become
effective
and
will
further
contribute
to
the
maintenance
demonstration
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS:

°
Heavy
duty
diesel
on­
road
(
2004/
2007)
and
low­
sulfur
on­
road
(
2006);
66
FR
2001
(
January
18,
2001);
and
°
Non­
road
emissions
standards
(
2008)
and
off­
road
diesel
fuel
(
2007/
2010);
69
FR
39858
(
June
29,
2004).

In
addition
to
the
permanent
and
enforceable
measures,
CAIR,
promulgated
May
12,
2005
(
70
FR
25161)
should
have
positive
impacts
on
West
Virginia
and
Kentucky's
air
quality.
CAIR,

which
will
be
implemented
in
the
eastern
portion
of
the
country
in
two
phases
(
2009
and
2015),

should
reduce
long
range
transport
of
ozone
precursors,
which
will
have
a
beneficial
effect
on
air
quality
in
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area.

Currently,
West
Virginia
is
in
the
process
of
adopting
rules
to
address
CAIR
through
state
rules
45CSR39,
45CSR40,
and
45CSR41,
which
require
annual
and
ozone
season
NOx
reductions
from
EGUs
and
ozone
season
NOx
reductions
from
non­
EGUs.
These
rules
will
be
submitted
to
EPA
as
a
SIP
revision
by
September
11,
2006
as
required
in
the
May
12,
2005
(
70
FR
25161)

Federal
Register
publication.

Based
upon
the
comparison
of
the
projected
emissions
and
the
attainment
year
emissions
along
with
the
additional
measures,
EPA
concludes
that
WVDEP
has
successfully
demonstrated
that
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
should
be
maintained
in
Huntington.
33
(
c)
Monitoring
Network
­
There
is
currently
two
monitor
measuring
ozone
in
the
Huntington­

Ashland
area,
one
in
Cabell
County,
West
Virginia
and
one
in
Boyd
County,
Kentucky.
West
Virginia
will
continue
to
operate
its
current
air
quality
monitor
(
located
in
Cabell
County)
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
58.

(
d)
Verification
of
Continued
Attainment
­
The
State
of
West
Virginia
has
the
legal
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
specified
measures
necessary
to
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS.

Additionally,
Federal
programs
such
as
Tier
2/
Low
Sulfur
Gasoline
Rule,
2007
On­
Road
Diesel
Engine
Rule,
and
Federal
Non­
road
Engine/
Equipment
Rules
will
continue
to
be
implemented
on
a
national
level.
These
programs
help
provide
the
reductions
necessary
for
the
Huntington­

Ashland
area
to
maintain
attainment.

In
addition
to
maintaining
the
key
elements
of
its
regulatory
program,
West
Virginia
requires
ambient
and
source
emissions
data
to
track
attainment
and
maintenance.
The
WVDEP
proposes
to
fully
update
its
point,
area,
and
mobile
emission
inventories
at
3­
year
intervals
as
required
by
the
Consolidated
Emissions
Reporting
Rule
(
CERR)
to
assure
that
its
growth
projections
relative
to
emissions
in
these
areas
are
sufficiently
accurate
to
assure
ongoing
attainment
with
the
NAAQS.
The
WVDEP
will
review
stationary
source
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
by
review
of
annual
emissions
statements
and
by
update
of
its
emissions
inventories.
The
area
source
inventory
will
be
updated
using
the
same
techniques
as
the
2002
ozone
inventory.
However,

some
source
categories
may
be
updated
using
historic
activity
levels
determined
from
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis
(
BEA)
data
or
West
Virginia
University/
Regional
Research
Institute
(
WVU/
RRI)
population
estimates.
The
mobile
source
inventory
model
will
be
updated
by
34
obtaining
county­
level
VMT
from
the
West
Virginia
Department
of
Transportation
(
WVDOT)

for
the
subject
year
and
calculating
emissions
using
the
latest
approved
MOBILE
model.

Alternatively,
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
may
be
obtained
in
consultation
with
the
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(
MPO),
the
KYOVA,
using
methodology
similar
to
that
used
for
Transportation
Conformity
purposes.
The
WVDEP
shall
also
continue
to
operate
the
existing
ozone
monitoring
stations
in
the
areas
pursuant
to
40CFR58
throughout
the
maintenance
period
and
submit
quality­
assured
ozone
data
to
EPA
through
the
AIRS
system.

(
e)
The
Maintenance
Plan's
Contingency
Measures
­
The
contingency
plan
provisions
are
designed
to
promptly
correct
a
violation
of
the
NAAQS
that
occurs
after
redesignation.
Section
175A
of
the
Act
requires
that
a
maintenance
plan
include
such
contingency
measures
as
EPA
deems
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
State
will
promptly
correct
a
violation
of
the
NAAQS
that
occurs
after
redesignation.
The
maintenance
plan
should
identify
the
events
that
would
"
trigger"

the
adoption
and
implementation
of
a
contingency
measure(
s),
the
contingency
measure(
s)
that
would
be
adopted
and
implemented,
and
the
schedule
indicating
the
time
frame
by
which
the
State
would
adopt
and
implement
the
measure(
s).

The
ability
of
Huntington
to
stay
in
compliance
with
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
after
redesignation
depends
upon
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
in
Huntington
remaining
at
or
below
2004
levels.
The
State's
maintenance
plan
projects
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
to
decrease
and
stay
below
2004
levels
through
the
year
2018.
The
State's
maintenance
plan
lays
out
two
situations
where
the
need
to
adopt
and
implement
a
contingency
measure
to
further
reduce
emissions
would
be
triggered.
Those
situations
are
as
follows:
35
(
i)
If
the
triennial
inventories
indicate
emissions
growth
in
excess
of
10
percent
of
the
2002
baseyear
inventory
or
if
a
monitored
air
quality
exceedance
pattern
indicates
that
an
ozone
NAAQS
violation
may
be
imminent
­
The
maintenance
plan
states
that
an
exceedance
pattern
would
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
the
measurement
of
three
exceedances
or
more
occurring
at
the
same
monitor
during
a
calendar
year.
The
plan
also
states
that
comprehensive
tracking
inventories
will
also
be
developed
every
3
years
using
current
EPA­
approved
methods
to
assure
that
its
growth
projections
relative
to
emissions
in
Huntington
are
sufficiently
accurate
to
assure
ongoing
attainment
with
the
NAAQS.
If
the
2002
base­
year
inventory
or
a
monitored
air
quality
exceedance
pattern
occurs,
the
following
measure
will
be
implemented:

C
WVDEP
will
evaluate
existing
control
measures
to
ascertain
if
additional
regulatory
revisions
are
necessary
to
maintain
the
ozone
standard.

(
ii)
In
the
event
that
a
violation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
occurs
at
either
the
Cabell
County,

West
Virginia
or
the
Boyd
County,
Kentucky
monitor
­
The
maintenance
plan
states
that
in
the
event
that
a
violation
of
the
ozone
standard
occurs
at
either
the
Cabell
County,
West
Virginia
or
the
Boyd
County,
Kentucky
ozone
monitor,
the
State
of
West
Virginia,
in
consultation
with
EPA
Region
III,
will
implement
one
or
more
of
the
following
measures
to
assure
continued
attainment:

C
Extend
the
applicability
of
45CSR21
(
VOC/
RACT
rule)
to
include
source
categories
previously
excluded
(
e.
g.,
waste
water
treatment
facilities);

C
Revised
new
source
permitting
requirements
requiring
more
stringent
emissions
control
technology
and/
or
emissions
offsets;
36
C
NOx
RACT
requirements;

C
Regulations
to
establish
plant­
wide
emissions
caps
(
potentially
with
emissions
trading
provisions);

C
Establish
a
Public
Awareness/
Ozone
Action
Day
Program,
a
two
pronged
program
focusing
on
increasing
the
public's
understanding
of
air
quality
issues
in
the
region
and
increasing
support
for
actions
to
improve
the
air
quality,
resulting
in
reduced
emissions
on
days
when
the
ozone
levels
are
likely
to
be
high.

C
Initiate
one
or
more
of
the
following
voluntary
local
control
measures:

(
1)
Bicycle
and
Pedestrian
Measures
­
A
series
of
measures
designed
to
promote
bicycling
and
walking
including
both
promotional
activities
and
enhancing
the
environment
for
these
activities;

(
2)
Reduce
Engine
Idling
­
Voluntary
programs
to
restrict
heavy
duty
diesel
engine
idling
times
for
both
trucks
and
school
buses;

(
3)
Voluntary
Partnership
with
Ground
Freight
Industry
­
A
voluntary
program
using
incentives
to
encourage
the
ground
freight
industry
to
reduce
emissions;

(
4)
Increase
Compliance
with
Open
Burning
Restrictions
­
Increase
public
awareness
of
the
existing
open
burning
restrictions
and
work
with
communities
to
increase
compliance;
and
(
5)
School
Bus
Engine
Retrofit
Program
­
Have
existing
school
bus
engines
retrofitted
to
lower
emissions.

The
following
schedule
for
adoption,
implementation
and
compliance
applies
to
the
contingency
measures
concerning
the
option
of
implementing
regulatory
requirements.
37
C
Confirmation
of
the
monitored
violation
within
45
days
of
occurrence;

C
Measure
to
be
selected
within
3
months
after
verification
of
a
monitored
ozone
standard
violation;

C
Develop
rule
within
6
months
of
selection
of
measure;

C
File
rule
with
state
secretary
(
process
takes
up
to
42
days);

C
Applicable
regulation
to
be
fully
implemented
with
in
6
months
after
adoption.

The
following
schedule
for
adoption,
implementation
and
compliance
applies
to
the
voluntary
contingency
measures.

C
Confirmation
of
the
monitored
violation
within
45
days
of
occurrence;

C
Measure
to
be
selected
within
3
months
after
verification
of
a
monitored
ozone
standard
violation;

C
Initiation
of
program
development
with
local
governments
within
Huntington
by
the
start
of
the
following
ozone
season.

(
f)
An
Additional
Provision
of
the
Maintenance
Plan
­
The
State's
maintenance
plan
for
Huntington
has
an
additional
provision.
That
provision
states
that
based
on
the
2002
inventory
data
and
calculation
methodology,
it
is
expected
that
area
and
mobile
source
emissions
would
not
exhibit
substantial
increases
between
consecutive
periodic
year
inventories.
Therefore,
if
significant
unanticipated
emissions
growth
occurs,
it
is
expected
that
point
sources
would
be
the
cause.
West
Virginia
regulation
45CSR29
requires
significant
point
source
emitters
in
six
counties,
including
Cabell
and
Wayne,
to
submit
annual
emission
statements
which
contain
38
emission
totals
for
VOCs
and
NOx.
Any
significant
increases
that
occur
can
be
identified
from
these
reports
without
waiting
for
a
periodic
inventory.
This
gives
West
Virginia
the
capability
to
identify
needed
regulations
by
source,
source
category
and
pollutant
and
to
begin
the
rule
promulgation
process,
if
necessary,
in
an
expeditious
manner.

The
maintenance
plan
adequately
addresses
the
five
basic
components
of
a
maintenance
plan:

attainment
inventory,
maintenance
demonstration,
monitoring
network,
verification
of
continued
attainment,
and
a
contingency
plan.
EPA
believes
that
the
maintenance
plan
SIP
revision
submitted
by
West
Virginia
for
Huntington
meets
the
requirements
of
section
175A
of
the
Act.

VII.
Are
the
Motor
Vehicle
Emissions
Budgets
Established
and
Identified
in
the
Huntington
Maintenance
Plan
Adequate
and
Approvable?

A.
What
Are
the
Motor
Vehicle
Emissions
Budgets
(
MVEBs)?

Under
the
CAA,
States
are
required
to
submit,
at
various
times,
control
strategy
SIPs
and
maintenance
plans
in
ozone
areas.
These
control
strategy
SIPs
(
i.
e.
RFP
SIPs
and
attainment
demonstration
SIPs)
and
maintenance
plans
identify
and
establish
MVEBs
for
certain
criteria
pollutants
and/
or
their
precursors
to
address
pollution
from
on­
road
mobile
sources.
In
the
maintenance
plan
the
MVEBs
are
termed
"
on­
road
mobile
source
emissions
budgets."
Pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
93
and
51.112,
MVEBs
must
be
established
in
an
ozone
maintenance
plan.
A
MVEB
is
the
portion
of
the
total
allowable
emissions
that
is
allocated
to
highway
and
transit
vehicle
use
and
emissions.
A
MVEB
serves
as
a
ceiling
on
emissions
from
an
area's
planned
transportation
system.
The
MVEB
concept
is
further
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
November
39
24,
1993,
transportation
conformity
rule
(
58
FR
62188).
The
preamble
also
describes
how
to
establish
and
revise
the
MVEBs
in
control
strategy
SIPs
and
maintenance
plans.

Under
section
176(
c)
of
the
CAA,
new
transportation
projects,
such
as
the
construction
of
new
highways,
must
"
conform"
to
(
i.
e.,
be
consistent
with)
the
part
of
the
State's
air
quality
plan
that
addresses
pollution
from
cars
and
trucks.
"
Conformity"
to
the
SIP
means
that
transportation
activities
will
not
cause
new
air
quality
violations,
worsen
existing
violations,
or
delay
timely
attainment
of
or
reasonable
progress
towards
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.
If
a
transportation
plan
does
not
"
conform,"
most
new
projects
that
would
expand
the
capacity
of
roadways
cannot
go
forward.
Regulations
at
40
CFR
part
93
set
forth
EPA
policy,

criteria,
and
procedures
for
demonstrating
and
assuring
conformity
of
such
transportation
activities
to
a
SIP.

When
reviewing
submitted
"
control
strategy"
SIPs
or
maintenance
plans
containing
MVEBs,
EPA
must
affirmatively
find
the
MVEB
budget
contained
therein
"
adequate"
for
use
in
determining
transportation
conformity.
After
EPA
affirmatively
finds
the
submitted
MVEB
is
adequate
for
transportation
conformity
purposes,
that
MVEB
can
be
used
by
State
and
Federal
agencies
in
determining
whether
proposed
transportation
projects
"
conform"
to
the
state
implementation
plan
as
required
by
section
176(
c)
of
the
CAA.
EPA's
substantive
criteria
for
determining
"
adequacy"
of
a
MVEB
are
set
out
in
40
CFR
93.118(
e)(
4).
40
EPA's
process
for
determining
"
adequacy"
consists
of
three
basic
steps:
public
notification
of
a
SIP
submission,
a
public
comment
period,
and
EPA's
adequacy
finding.
This
process
for
determining
the
adequacy
of
submitted
SIP
MVEBs
was
initially
outlined
in
EPA's
May
14,

1999
guidance,
"
Conformity
Guidance
on
Implementation
of
March
2,
1999,
Conformity
Court
Decision."
This
guidance
was
finalized
in
the
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments
for
the
"
New
8­
Hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
and
Miscellaneous
Revisions
for
Existing
Areas;
Transportation
Conformity
Rule
Amendments
­
Response
to
Court
Decision
and
Additional
Rule
Change"
on
July
1,
2004
(
69
FR
40004).
EPA
follows
this
guidance
and
rulemaking
in
making
its
adequacy
determinations.

The
MVEBs
for
Huntington
are
listed
in
Table
1
of
this
document
for
the
2004,
2009,
and
2018
years
and
are
the
projected
emissions
for
the
on­
road
mobile
sources
plus
any
portion
of
the
safety
margin
allocated
to
the
MVEBs
(
safety
margin
allocation
for
2009
and
2018
only).
These
emission
budgets,
when
approved
by
EPA,
must
be
used
for
transportation
conformity
determinations.

B.
What
Is
a
Safety
Margin?

A
"
safety
margin"
is
the
difference
between
the
attainment
level
of
emissions
(
from
all
sources)

and
the
projected
level
of
emissions
(
from
all
sources)
in
the
maintenance
plan.
The
attainment
level
of
emissions
is
the
level
of
emissions
during
one
of
the
years
in
which
the
area
met
the
NAAQS.
The
following
example
is
for
the
2018
safety
margin:
Huntington
first
attained
the
8­

hour
ozone
NAAQS
during
the
2002
to
2004
time
period.
The
State
used
2004
as
the
year
to
41
determine
attainment
levels
of
emissions
for
Huntington.
The
total
emissions
from
point,
area,

mobile
on­
road,
and
mobile
non­
road
sources
in
2004
equaled
23.7
tpd
of
VOC
and
37.4
tpd
of
NOx.
The
WVDEP
projected
emissions
out
to
the
year
2018
and
projected
a
total
of
19.7
tpd
of
VOC
and
27.0
tpd
of
NOx
from
all
sources
in
Huntington.
The
safety
margin
for
2018
would
be
the
difference
between
these
amounts,
or
4.0
tpd
of
VOC
and
10.4
tpd
of
NOx.
The
emissions
up
to
the
level
of
the
attainment
year
including
the
safety
margins
are
projected
to
maintain
the
area's
air
quality
consistent
with
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
The
safety
margin
is
the
extra
emissions
reduction
below
the
attainment
levels
that
can
be
allocated
for
emissions
by
various
sources
as
long
as
the
total
emission
levels
are
maintained
at
or
below
the
attainment
levels.

Table
7
shows
the
safety
margins
for
the
2009
and
2018
years.

Table
7:
2009
and
2018
Safety
Margins
for
Huntington
Inventory
Year
VOC
Emissions
(
tpd)
NOx
Emissions
(
tpd)

2004
Attainment
23.7
37.4
2009
Interim
20.6
31.5
2009
Safety
Margin
3.1
5.9
2004
Attainment
23.7
37.4
2018
Final
19.7
27.0
2018
Safety
Margin
4.0
10.4
The
WVDEP
allocated
1.1
tpd
NOx
and
0.6
tpd
VOC
to
the
2009
interim
VOC
projected
onroad
mobile
source
emissions
projection
and
the
2009
interim
NOx
projected
on­
road
mobile
source
emissions
projection
to
arrive
at
the
2009
MVEBs.
For
the
2018
MVEBs
the
WVDEP
allocated
0.5
tpd
NOx
and
0.4
tpd
VOC
from
the
2018
safety
margins
to
arrive
at
the
2018
MVEBs.
Once
allocated
to
the
mobile
source
budgets
these
portions
of
the
safety
margins
are
no
42
longer
available,
and
may
no
longer
be
allocated
to
any
other
source
category.
Table
8
shows
the
final
2009
and
2018
MVEBS
for
Huntington.

Table
8:
2009
and
2018
Final
MVEBs
for
Huntington
Inventory
Year
VOC
Emissions
(
tpd)
NOx
Emissions
(
tpd)

2009
projected
on­
road
mobile
source
projected
emissions
4.0
7.6
2009
Safety
Margin
Allocated
to
MVEBs
0.6
1.1
2009
MVEBs
4.6
8.7
2018
projected
on­
road
mobile
source
projected
emissions
2.6
3.6
2018
Safety
Margin
Allocated
to
MVEBs
0.4
0.5
2018
MVEBs
3.0
4.1
C.
Why
Are
the
MVEBs
Approvable?

The
2009
and
2018
MVEBs
for
Huntington
are
approvable
because
the
MVEBs
for
NOx
and
VOC,
including
the
allocated
safety
margins,
continue
to
maintain
the
total
emissions
at
or
below
the
attainment
year
inventory
levels
as
required
by
the
transportation
conformity
regulations.

D.
What
Is
the
Adequacy
and
Approval
Process
for
the
MVEBs
in
the
Huntington
Maintenance
Plan?

The
MVEBs
for
the
Huntington
maintenance
plan
are
being
posted
to
EPA's
conformity
Web
site
concurrent
with
this
proposal.
The
public
comment
period
will
end
at
the
same
time
as
the
public
comment
period
for
this
proposed
rule.
In
this
case,
EPA
is
concurrently
processing
the
action
on
the
maintenance
plan
and
the
adequacy
process
for
the
MVEBs
contained
therein.
In
43
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
find
the
MVEBs
adequate
and
also
proposing
to
approve
the
MVEBs
as
part
of
the
maintenance
plan.
The
MVEBs
cannot
be
used
for
transportation
conformity
until
the
maintenance
plan
update
and
associated
MVEBs
are
approved
in
a
final
Federal
Register
notice,
or
EPA
otherwise
finds
the
budgets
adequate
in
a
separate
action
following
the
comment
period.

If
EPA
receives
adverse
written
comments
with
respect
to
the
proposed
approval
of
the
Huntington
MVEBs,
or
any
other
aspect
of
our
proposed
approval
of
this
updated
maintenance
plan,
we
will
respond
to
the
comments
on
the
MVEBs
in
our
final
action
or
proceed
with
the
adequacy
process
as
a
separate
action.
Our
action
on
the
Huntington
MVEBs
will
also
be
announced
on
EPA's
conformity
Web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oms/
traq,
(
once
there,
click
on
the
"
Conformity"
button,
then
look
for
"
Adequacy
Review
of
SIP
Submissions
for
Conformity").

VIII.
Proposed
Actions
EPA
is
proposing
to
determine
that
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
approve
the
redesignation
of
the
Huntington
portion
of
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
EPA
has
evaluated
West
Virginia's
redesignation
request
and
determined
that
it
meets
the
redesignation
criteria
set
forth
in
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
of
the
CAA.
EPA
believes
that
the
redesignation
request
and
monitoring
data
demonstrate
that
the
Huntington­
Ashland
area
has
attained
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
The
final
approval
of
this
redesignation
request
would
change
the
designation
of
Huntington
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
44
standard.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
approve
the
associated
maintenance
plan
for
Huntington,

submitted
on
May
17,
2006,
as
a
revision
to
the
West
Virginia
SIP.
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
the
maintenance
plan
for
Huntington
because
it
meets
the
requirements
of
section
175A
as
described
previously
in
this
notice.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
approve
the
MVEBs
submitted
by
West
Virginia
for
Huntington
in
conjunction
with
its
redesignation
request.
EPA
is
soliciting
public
comments
on
the
issues
discussed
in
this
document.
These
comments
will
be
considered
before
taking
final
action.

IX.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
this
proposed
action
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
and
therefore
is
not
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
For
this
reason,
this
action
is
also
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,

or
Use"
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
28355
(
May
22,
2001)).
This
action
merely
proposes
to
approve
state
law
as
meeting
Federal
requirements
and
imposes
no
additional
requirements
beyond
those
imposed
by
state
law.
Redesignation
of
an
area
to
attainment
under
section
107(
d)(
3)(
e)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
does
not
impose
any
new
requirements
on
small
entities.
Redesignation
is
an
action
that
affects
the
status
of
a
geographical
area
and
does
not
impose
any
new
regulatory
requirements
on
sources.
Redesignation
of
an
area
to
attainment
under
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
does
not
impose
any
new
requirements
on
small
entities.
Redesignation
is
an
action
that
affects
the
status
of
a
geographical
area
and
does
not
impose
any
new
regulatory
requirements
on
sources.
Accordingly,
the
Administrator
certifies
that
this
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
45
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
under
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.).
Because
this
rule
proposes
to
approve
pre­
existing
requirements
under
state
law
and
does
not
impose
any
additional
enforceable
duty
beyond
that
required
by
state
law,
it
does
not
contain
any
unfunded
mandate
or
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
as
described
in
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
Public
Law
104­
4).
This
proposed
rule
also
does
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
by
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
nor
will
it
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
because
it
merely
proposes
to
affect
the
status
of
a
geographical
area,
does
not
impose
any
new
requirements
on
sources,
or
allow
the
state
to
avoid
adopting
or
implementing
other
requirements,
and
does
not
alter
the
relationship
or
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
proposed
rule
also
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
because
it
is
not
economically
significant.

In
reviewing
SIP
submissions,
EPA's
role
is
to
approve
state
choices,
provided
that
they
meet
the
criteria
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
this
context,
in
the
absence
of
a
prior
existing
requirement
for
the
State
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS),
EPA
has
no
authority
to
disapprove
a
SIP
submission
for
failure
to
use
VCS.
It
would
thus
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
for
46
EPA,
when
it
reviews
a
SIP
submission,
to
use
VCS
in
place
of
a
SIP
submission
that
otherwise
satisfies
the
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Redesignation
is
an
action
that
affects
the
status
of
a
geographical
area
and
does
not
impose
any
new
requirements
on
sources.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
do
not
apply.
As
required
by
section
3
of
Executive
Order
12988
(
61
FR
4729,
February
7,
1996),
in
issuing
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
has
taken
the
necessary
steps
to
eliminate
drafting
errors
and
ambiguity,
minimize
potential
litigation,
and
provide
a
clear
legal
standard
for
affected
conduct.
EPA
has
complied
with
Executive
Order
12630
(
53
FR
8859,

March
15,
1988)
by
examining
the
takings
implications
of
the
rule
in
accordance
with
the
"
Attorney
General's
Supplemental
Guidelines
for
the
Evaluation
of
Risk
and
Avoidance
of
Unanticipated
Takings"
issued
under
the
executive
order.
This
rule
proposing
to
approve
the
redesignation
of
the
Huntington
area
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
the
associated
maintenance
plan,
and
the
MVEBs
identified
in
the
maintenance
plan,
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.).
47
This
rule
proposing
to
approve
the
redesignation
of
Huntington
to
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
the
associated
maintenance
plan,
and
the
MVEBs
identified
in
the
maintenance
plan,
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.).

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
52
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Nitrogen
oxides,
Ozone,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Volatile
organic
compounds.

40
CFR
Part
81
Air
pollution
control,
National
Parks,
Wilderness
Areas.

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

/
s/
___________________________
____________________________
Dated:
July
6,
2006
William
T.
Wisniewski,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
III.