

[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 1474-1485]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-24]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817; FRL-8267-8]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
West Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, WV Portion of the 
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 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 Parkersburg portion of 
the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH interstate area (herein referred to as 
the ``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 
Wood County, West Virginia (Parkersburg) portion of the Area be 
redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Area is 
comprised of two counties (Wood County, West Virginia and Washington 
County, Ohio). EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation 
request for the Parkersburg portion of the Area. In conjunction with 
its redesignation request, the WVDEP submitted a SIP revision 
consisting of a maintenance plan for Parkersburg that provides for 
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years. 
EPA is proposing to make a determination that Parkersburg has attained 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based upon three years of complete, quality-
assured ambient air quality ozone monitoring data for 2002-2004. EPA's 
proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on 
its determination that Parkersburg has met the criteria for 
redesignation to attainment specified in 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 Parkersburg 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 February 12, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0817 by one of the following methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-

line instructions for submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817, 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.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0817. 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.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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 http://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

[[Page 1475]]

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 
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, 
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 Are the Actions EPA Is 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 Parkersburg Maintenance Plan Adequate and 
Approvable?
VIII. Proposed Actions
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take?

    On September 8, 2006 WVDEP formally submitted a request to 
redesignate Parkersburg from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour 
NAAQS for ozone. On September 8, 2006 West Virginia submitted a 
maintenance plan for Parkersburg as a SIP revision, to ensure continued 
attainment over the next 12 years. Parkersburg is comprised of Wood 
County, West Virginia. Parkersburg is currently designated as a basic 
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that 
Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve 
the maintenance plan SIP revision for Parkersburg, 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 Area for the next 12 years. Additionally, EPA is 
announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified 
in the Parkersburg 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 Area. In a 
separate submittal, the State of Ohio is establishing MVEBs for the 
remainder of this area (i.e., Washington 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.

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 
Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status in a 
Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). On June 15, 2005, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was 
revoked in the Area (as well as most other areas of the country). See 
40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (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 ``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 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 concentration 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 Parkersburg has a design value of 0.082 
ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and a design value of design 
value of 0.078 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005. The ozone 
monitoring data indicates that Marietta

[[Page 1476]]

has a design value of 0.084 ppm for the 3-year period of 2002-2004 and 
a design value of 0.081 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005. 
Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the 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 Area.

B. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area

    The Area consists of Wood County, West Virginia and Washington 
County, Ohio. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area, Parkersburg was a maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment NAAQS. See rulemakings for Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 
10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994).
    On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP requested that Parkersburg 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 ozone 
NAAQS had been achieved in Parkersburg. The data satisfies the CAA 
requirements that 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) must be 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?

    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;
     ``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.

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP requested redesignation of 
Parkersburg to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and submitted 
a maintenance plan for Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg 
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. Parkersburg was redesignated to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS on September 6, 1994 (59 FR 45978), and the initial 1-
hour ozone maintenance plan provided for maintenance through 2005. 
Marietta was designated Unclassifiable/Attainment under the 1-hour 
ozone standard. See 40 CFR Part 81.336 (Revised as of July 2001). 
Section 51.905(e) of the ``Final Rule To 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

[[Page 1477]]

modifications to a 1-hour maintenance plan SIP after 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 instead 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. EPA has determined that Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg for the next 12 years, until 2018. The 
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future 
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the 
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for transportation conformity purposes 
for 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009....................................................     4.1     3.0
2018....................................................     2.0     1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is proposing to determine that the 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 September 8, 2006 
submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
CAA.

A. The Parkersburg-Marietta Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to determine that the 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 must be collected and 
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the 
Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained 
at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required 
for demonstrating attainment.
    There are two ozone monitors in the Area, one located in Wood 
County, West Virginia and one located in Washington County, Ohio. As 
part of its redesignation request, West Virginia submitted ozone 
monitoring data for the years 2000-2005 for the Area. This data has 
been quality assured and was recorded in AQS. The fourth high 8-hour 
daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year averages, are 
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

   Table 2.--Parkersburg's Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Wood
                   County Monitor, AQS ID 54-107-1002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual 4th
                          Year                             high reading
                                                               (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000....................................................           0.087
2001....................................................           0.084
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 2003 through 2005 is 0.078 ppm.


  Table 3.--Marietta's Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Washington
                   County Monitor, AQS ID 39-167-0004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual 4th
                          Year                             high reading
                                                               (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000....................................................           0.082
2001....................................................           0.085
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 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm.

    The air quality data for 2002-2004 show that the entire 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 
data for 2003-2005 show that the entire Area is still attaining the 
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm for Parkersburg and a design 
value of 0.081 ppm for Marietta. The data collected at the 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 Parkersburg indicates that the data were quality 
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The WVDEP uses 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. In summary, EPA has 
determined that the data submitted by West Virginia and data taken from 
AQS indicates that the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. Parkersburg 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 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

[[Page 1478]]

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 are 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(1) 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 SIP satisfies all of the applicable 
general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), 
EPA concludes that West Virginia has 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 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 SIP meets 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

[[Page 1479]]

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 position 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).
3. 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 29977, June 10, 1994) and (59 FR 45978, 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. The Air Quality Improvement in the 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 State has 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 
4.

                    Table 4.--Parkersburg Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                         Point         Area         Nonroad       Mobile        Total*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 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.

[[Page 1480]]

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.

D. Parkersburg Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 
Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Parkersburg to 
attainment status, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to provide 
for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Parkersburg for at least 
12 years after redesignation. West Virginia is requesting that EPA 
approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 
175A(a) and 175A(b). Section 175A(a) was met with the September 8, 2006 
submission of the maintenance plan, because it states that Parkersburg 
will maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. Section 175A(b) was met with the September 8, 2006 
submission of the maintenance plan, because it will replace the 1-hour 
ozone maintenance plan update requirement that was due 8 years after 
redesignation of Parkersburg to attainment.
    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 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 Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg 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 Parkersburg 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(a), 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. Section 175A(b) states that 
eight years after redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, 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. 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 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 Parkersburg 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 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:
    (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 (a WVDEP maintained 
database that contains the states point source emission information).
    (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

[[Page 1481]]

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 5, 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--On September 8, 2006 the WVDEP 
submitted a SIP revision. The SIP submittal by WVDEP consists of the 
maintenance plan as required by section 175A 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. 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 5 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 5.--Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Nonattainment Area Summary of Emissions
                                 [All emissions in tpd for an ozone season day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Emissions in tpd
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2004                       2009                       2018
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  WV \1\   OH \2\   Total    WV \1\   OH \2\   Total    WV \1\   OH \2\   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
Nonroad: \3\

    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
MVEBs: \4\
    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
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Total: \5\
    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 5002 (January 18, 2001); and

[[Page 1482]]

     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. West Virgina projected 
to achieve a 64 percent reduction and a 62 percent reduction in 
NOX emissions by 2009 and 2018, respectively in the Area. 
The future year NOX emissions decreases are largely 
attributable to the implementation of CAIR which West Virginia projects 
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.
    (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 ensure 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 ensure 
that its growth projections relative to emissions in Parkersburg are 
sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS. If 
the inventories indicate 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

[[Page 1483]]

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 within 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 new point sources would be the cause. West 
Virginia regulation 45CSR29 requires significant point source emitters 
in nearby 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. 
WVDEP believes this will give 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.

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

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    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. An 
MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated 
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. An 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 ensuring 
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 consults this guidance and follows this 
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.
    The MVEBs for Parkersburg are listed in Table 1 of this document 
for 2009 and 2018. These are the projected emissions for the on-road 
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the 
MVEBs. 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

[[Page 1484]]

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 6 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

         Table 6.--2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Parkersburg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC          NOX
                Inventory Year                   emissions    emissions
                                                   (tpd)        (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 7 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Parkersburg.

          Table 7.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Parkersburg*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Inventory year                    emissions   emissions
                                                     (tpd)       (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source projected           2.6         3.6
 emissions......................................
2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs...........         0.4         0.5
2009 MVEBs......................................         3.0         4.1
2018 projected on-road mobile source projected           1.7         1.8
 emissions......................................
2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs...........         0.3         0.3
2018 MVEBs......................................         2.0         2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers not exact due to rounding.

C. 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.

D. 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/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm
, (once there, click 

on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP 
Submissions'').

VIII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that Parkersburg has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation of 
the Parkersburg portion of the 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 
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this 
redesignation request would change the designation of Parkersburg from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also 
proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for Parkersburg, 
submitted on September 8, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. 
EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for Parkersburg 
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 Parkersburg 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 FR 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

[[Page 1485]]

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 
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 (59 FR 22951, 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 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 Parkersburg 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.).
    This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of Parkersburg 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.

    Dated: January 4, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E7-249 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
