Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-01-12T05:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE:	November 21, 2006	

							

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - West Virginia; Redesignation to
Attainment of the Parkersburg, West Virginia Portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Ozone Nonattainment Area and Approval of the
Area’s Maintenance Plan (EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817)

FROM:	Amy Caprio, Environmental Scientist			

		Air Quality Planning Branch

								

TO:		File								

THRU:	Makeba Morris, Chief		 

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2006, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) formally submitted a redesignation request for the
Parkersburg portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH interstate ozone
nonattainment area (the “Area”) to attainment of the eight-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  The Area is
comprised of two counties (Wood County, West Virginia and Washington
County, Ohio).  Also, On September 8, 2006, West Virginia submitted a
maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, to assure continued attainment over the next 12 years.  The
State is also requesting that the EPA approve the maintenance plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan update.    

The Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the
health-based standards for ozone.  Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA, the following five criteria must be met for an ozone nonattainment
area to be redesignated to attainment:

A.  The area must meet the ozone NAAQS.

B.  The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k). 

C.  The area must show improvement in air quality due to permanent and
enforceable reductions 

in emissions. 

D. The area must meet all requirements applicable under section 110 and
Part D.

E.  The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan under section
175A of the CAA. 

II. EPA Analysis of the State of West Virginia’s Request

As identified above, Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division Directors, entitled,
“Proceedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment.”  The following is a discussion of how the State of West
Virginia’s September 8, 2006 submittal satisfies the five requirements
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will discuss its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its
analysis of the redesignation request.  

A.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH
Area

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average (2002-2004) of the monitored annual fourth-highest
daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration.  In the Area,
there are two ozone monitors, one in Wood County, West Virginia (the
Parkersburg Monitor) and one in Washington County, Ohio (the Marietta
Monitor).  According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, which establishes the procedure for interpreting ozone
monitoring data under the standard promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10, the Area
is attaining the ozone standard for 2002-2004 and 2003-2005 (see Table 1
below).  The data collected at the ozone monitors satisfy the CAA
requirement that the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is less than or
equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).  The State of West Virginia’s
request for redesignation of Parkersburg indicates that the data was
quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  The States use the
Air Quality System (AQS) 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. 
   

			

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1: Parkersburg, WV Nonattainment Area Fourth
Highest 8-hour Average Values; Wood County Monitor, AQS ID 54-107-1002

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2002	0.095

2003	0.083

2004	0.069

2005	0.084

The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.082 ppm

The average for the 3-year period of 2003 through 2005 is 0.078 ppm

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Marietta, OH  Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest
8-hour Average Values; Washington County Monitor, AQS ID 39-167-0004

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2002	0.095

2003	0.080

2004	0.077

2005	0.088

The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period of 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

The air quality data for 2002-2004 show that the Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.082 ppm for Parkersburg and a design
value of 0.084 ppm for Marietta.  Also, the air quality date for
2003-2005 indicates that the Area is continuing to attain the 8-hour
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm in Parkersburg and a design
value of 0.081 ppm in Marietta.  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
AQS indicates that the Area has attained and continues to attain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

						

B.  Fully approved SIP under Section 110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has determined that Parkersburg 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 all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). 
In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to Parkersburg, 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 at 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, 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 25162).  However, the section 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 Ohio will still be subject to these
requirements after the 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
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).  

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 Ohio will still be subject to these
requirements after the 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 24826 (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, Ohio redesignation 65 FR at 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation 66 FR at 53099 (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 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).  

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

2.  Parkersburg 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 at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.  Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg was a 1-hour
maintenance area, all previous Part D SIP submittal requirements were
fulfilled at the time Parkersburg was redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS or have been fulfilled with the September 8, 2006
submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan.  See rulemakings for
Parkersburg (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994) and (59 FR 45019, September
6, 1994).  Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements
applicable for the purposes of redesignation of Parkersburg, the
applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.
 

C.  Demonstration of Permanent and Enforceable Improvement

EPA believes that the States have demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the 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 the Area are shown in Table 2.
   

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total*

Year 2002	1.8	7.6	2.8	4.8	17.0

Year 2004	2.1	7.8	2.8	4.0	16.7

Diff. (02-04)	+0.3	+0.2	0	-0.8	-0.3

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total* 

Year 2002	2.6	0.7	4.9	6.1	14.3

Year 2004	2.6	0.7	6.2	5.7	15.2

Diff. (02-04)	0	0	+1.3	-0.4	+0.9

Marietta Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad	Mobile	Total* 

Year 2002	2.1	3.0	1.3	4.4	10.8

Year 2004	2.1	2.9	1.2	3.6	9.8

Diff. (02-04)	0	-0.1	-0.1	-0.8	-1.0

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad	Mobile	Total* 

Year 2002	94.6	0.2	5.3	5.7	105.8

Year 2004	71.9	0.2	5.0	4.9	82.0

Diff. (02-04)	-22.7	0	-0.3	-0.8	-23.8

* Emissions not exact due to rounding

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions in the Area were reduced by
approximately 1.3 tpd, and NOx emissions in the Area were reduced by
22.9 tpd.  The reductions and anticipated future reductions, are due to
the following permanent and enforceable measures.  

						

Programs Currently in Effect	

(a)  National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV);

(b)  Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards; and,

(c)  Clean Diesel Program.

West Virginia has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and NOx emissions.
 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.  

Although there are no electric generating units (EGUs) in Wood County,
West Virginia the WVDEP, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has identified
permanent and enforceable reductions in NOx emissions from EGUs in the
Washington County, Ohio portion of the Area.  In addition, the WVDEP has
identified permanent and enforceable reductions in NOx emissions from
the implementation of the NOx SIP call from EGUs and large industrial
boilers located in counties adjacent to the Area, such as Pleasant
County, West Virginia.  

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 (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 38958 (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 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 contributed to the long-term
improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the Area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.   

						

Conformity Process

1.  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
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 NAAQS.  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).

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 Parkersburg are listed in Table 3 of this document for the
2004 (attainment year emissions), 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.

Table 3: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd)

Year	NOx	VOC

2009	4.1	3.0

2018	2.0	1.9

			

2.  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: 
Parkersburg first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to
2004 time period.  The State used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for Parkersburg.  The total emissions
from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004
equaled 16.7 tpd of VOC and 15.2 tpd of NOx.  The WVDEP projected
emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of 13.6 tpd of VOC
and 9.4 tpd of NOx from all sources in Parkersburg.  The safety margin
for 2018 would be the difference between these amounts, or 3.1 tpd of
VOC and 5.8 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 4 shows
the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 4:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Parkersburg 

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (tpd)

2004 Attainment	16.7	15.2

2009 Interim	14.0	11.8

2009 Safety Margin	2.7	3.4

2004 Attainment	16.7	15.2

2018 Final	13.6	9.4

2018 Safety Margin	3.1	5.8

The WVDEP allocated 0.39 tpd VOC and 0.54 tpd NOx to the 2009 interim
VOC projected on-road 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 0.25
tpd VOC and 0.27 tpd NOx 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 longer available, and may no longer be
allocated to any other source category.  Table 8 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for Parkersburg. 

Table 5:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Parkersburg*

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (tpd)

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	2.6	3.6

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.4	0.5

2009 MVEBs	3.0	4.1

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	1.7	1.8

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.3	0.3

2018 MVEBs	2.0	2.1

* Numbers not exact due to rounding

It should be noted that the above MVEBs are to be used by the
transportation authorities to assure that transportation plans,
programs, and projects for the West Virginia portion of the
nonattainment area are consistent with, and conform to, the maintenance
plan of acceptable air quality in Wood County. 

			

3.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Parkersburg 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.

						

4.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Parkersburg Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Parkersburg 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 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 Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg 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”).

D.  The Area Must Meet All Requirements Applicable Under Section 110 and
Part D

The 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 Area was classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment
area; therefore, no subpart 2 requirements apply to the Area.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that the
West Virginia and Ohio 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 on September 8, 2006.  Because the
State submitted a complete redesignation request for Parkersburg 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
Parkersburg 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 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 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See also 60
FR 62748 (December 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 Parkersburg, 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 Parkersburg upon redesignation to attainment.  See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at 12467- 68);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21, 1996).  

E.  Maintenance Plan for Parkersburg					

1.  Maintenance Plan Requirements

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after redesignation.  A
maintenance plan consists of the following requirements as outlined in
section 175A of the CAA: (a) an attainment inventory; (b) a maintenance
demonstration; (c) a monitoring network; (d) verification of continued
attainment; and, (e) a contingency 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 Parkersburg
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
Parkersburg, 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 (see also Emissions
Inventory Technical Support Document):

  

(i) Point source emissions - There are no EGUs in Parkersburg so
documentation of procedures for developing ozone season day emissions is
unnecessary.  For the non-EGUs WVDEP used data supplied by facilities
that is maintained in their i-STEPs database.  This data is the same
data WVDEP supplied to the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
for the 2002 periodic inventory requirement.    

 

(ii) Area source emissions - In order to calculate the area source
emissions inventory the WVDEP took the annual values from the Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) base
year inventory and derived the typical 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 MVEBs.  This applies to the maintenance plan
submitted by WVDEP on September 8, 2006.  Therefore, the WVDEP has
consulted with the Parkersburg MPO, the Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate
Planning Commission (WWW) to develop state MVEBs for the West Virginia
portion of the Area.  The WWW 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 WWW, to develop highway
emissions budgets for VOC and NOx.  The WWW 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 NAAQS.  It should be noted that the MVEBs and budgets only
represent the Parkersburg, West Virginia (Wood County) portion of the
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 for the Area are
summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions in table 6,
which cover the demonstration of maintenance for the Area.  EPA has
concluded that West Virginia has adequately derived and documented the
2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for Parkersburg.  

(b) Maintenance Demonstration 

(1) 8-Hour NAAQS

On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP submitted a SIP revision to supplement
its September 8, 2006 redesignation request.  The submittal by WVDEP
consists of the maintenance plan as required by section 175A(a) of the
CAA.  The Parkersburg 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
Parkersburg through the year 2018 (175A(a) states that Parkersburg must
submit a plan for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after the redesignation).  The Parkersburg maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, Supra,
Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra.  See also 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at
25418, 25430-32.

Table 6 shows the Area’s 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 overall VOC and
NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment
level during the time of the 12-year maintenance period. 

Table 6:  Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Nonattainment Area Summary of
Emissions

(All emissions in tpd for an ozone season day)

 	Emissions in tpd 

	2004	2009	2018

	WV1	OH2	Total	WV1	OH2	Total 	WV1	OH2	Total

Point 	NOx	2.6	71.9	74.5	2.6	15.1	17.7	2.8	22.0	24.8

	VOC	2.1	2.1	4.2	1.4	2.3	3.7	1.7	2.7	4.4

Area	NOx	0.7	0.2	0.9	0.7	0.2	0.9	0.8	0.3	1.1

	VOC	7.8	2.9	10.7	7.2	2.8	10.0	8.0	2.9	10.9

Nonroad3	NOx	6.2	5.0	11.2	4.4	4.2	8.6	3.8	3.6	7.4

	VOC	2.8	1.2	4.0	2.4	1.0	3.4	2.0	0.8	2.8

MVEBs4	NOx	5.7	4.9	10.6	4.1	3.6	7.7	2.0	1.8	3.8

	VOC	4.0	3.4	7.4	3.0	2.6	5.6	1.9	1.7	3.6

Total5	NOx	15.2	82.0	97.2	11.8	23.1	34.9	9.4	27.7	37.1

	VOC	16.7	9.6	26.3	14.0	8.7	22.7	13.6	8.1	21.7

1 WV emissions are total emissions for Wood County in West Virginia

2 OH emissions are total emissions for Washington County in Ohio, as
provided by Ohio EPA  

3 Nonroad includes NONROAD model results plus Commercial Marine Vessels,
Railroad and Airports

4 MVEBs for 2004 are actual; budgets established for 2009 and 2018
include 15% reallocation from the safety margin

5 Sums may not total exactly due to rounding

							

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 25162) should have positive impacts on West Virginia
and Ohio’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 Area.  The Area is projected to
achieve a 64 percent reduction and a 62 percent reduction in NOx
emissions by 2009 and 2018, respectively.  The future year NOx emissions
decreases are largely attributable to the implementation of CAIR which
is projected to result in a decrease of 83 percent and 74 percent for
2009 and 2018 from EGU sources located in Washington County, Ohio.  

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 were submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision by September 11, 2006 as required in the May 12, 2005 (70 FR
25162) 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 the Area.  

(2)  1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

Parkersburg was redesignated to maintenance with respect to the 1-hour
ozone standard in 1994.  See 59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994) and (59 FR
45019, September 6, 1994). 

EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan as meeting the CAA
section 175A(b) requirement that a second 10 year maintenance plan be
submitted for the previous 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  The 1-hour ozone
standard is no longer in effect, but for anti-backsliding purposes West
Virginia was still required to meet the second maintenance plan
requirement.  West Virginia has met this requirement with their
September 8, 2006 maintenance plan submission.   

(c)  Monitoring Network – The Area currently has two ozone monitors,
one in Wood County, West Virginia and one in Washington County, Ohio. 
West Virginia will continue to operate its current air quality monitor
(located in Wood 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 Area to maintain attainment.  

In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program,
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
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 MPO, the WWW,
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 AQS.   

West Virginia also commits to submit a revision of the SIP eight years
after final approval of the State’s redesignation request to provide
for maintenance of the NAAQS for a total of 20 years as required by the
CAA.  

(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 Parkersburg to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOx emissions in
Parkersburg 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:

(i) If the triennial inventories indicate emissions growth above the
2004 maintenance base-year 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 six 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 Parkersburg are
sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS.  If
the inventories indicate significant emissions growth above the 2004
maintenance base-year inventory or a monitored air quality exceedance
pattern occurs, the following measure will be implemented:  		

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 any monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta Area - The maintenance plan
states that in the event that a violation of the ozone standard occurs
at any monitor in the Parkersburg-Marietta Area, the State of West
Virginia, will implement one or more of the following measures to assure
continued attainment:

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

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

NOx RACT requirements;

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

Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations;

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.  

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.  	

Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of occurrence;

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

Develop rule within 6 months of selection of measure;

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

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.  

Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of occurrence;

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

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

(f) An Additional Provision of the Maintenance Plan - The State’s
maintenance plan for Parkersburg 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, Wayne, Kanawha, Putnam and Wood to
submit annual emission statements which contain 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 Parkersburg meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act. 			

2.  Requirement for Continued Maintenance

Section 175A(b) of the CAA will also require the State of West Virginia
to submit a revision to the SIP eight years after the original
redesignation request is approved to provide for maintenance of the
NAAQS in Weirton for total of 20 years following redesignation to
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS.  West Virginia commits to this SIP
revision.  

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:

Weirton has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that satisfies
section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
Also, the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality
monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I recommend that the maintenance
plan for Parkersburg be approved and the Area be redesignated to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  I also recommend that the
maintenance plan submittal be considered fully approvable for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS second 10 year maintenance plan update.    

IV.  LIST OF EPA GUIDANCE MEMOS AND 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;

“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 

“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. 

  PAGE   1 

  PAGE   17 

  PAGE   20