  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, West Virginia 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 [insert date 30
days from date of publication].  

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817 by one of the following methods:

A.  	Federal eRulemaking Portal:      HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .  Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.

B.	E-mail:   HYPERLINK "mailto:morris.makeba@epa.gov" 
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.

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     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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     HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or e-mail.  The    
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website is
an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the    
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  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     HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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



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 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 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

Year	Annual 4th 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

Year	Annual 4th 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
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(l) because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s
attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour)
NAAQS.” 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).  

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

Because the West Virginia 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 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)

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.   

						

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 date 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 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

	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 5002 (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.  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 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 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 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 7 shows
the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 7:  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 8:  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



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 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.

										

___________________________         	 _________/s/_______________

Dated:   January 4, 2007			Donald S. Welsh,

						Regional Administrator, 				

						Region III.				

  PAGE   4 

  PAGE   9 

  PAGE   34 

  PAGE   35 

  PAGE   45 

