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

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE:	September 11, 2006

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - West Virginia; Redesignation to
Attainment of the Wheeling (Marshall and Ohio Counties) Portion of the
Wheeling, WV-OH Ozone Nonattainment Area and Approval of the Area’s
Maintenance Plan (EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0682)

FROM:	Amy Caprio, Environmental Scientist

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Makeba Morris, Chief

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2006, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) formally submitted a redesignation request for the
Wheeling portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH interstate ozone nonattainment
area (the “Area”) to attainment of the eight-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  The Area is comprised of three
counties (Marshall and Ohio Counties, West Virginia (Wheeling) and
Belmont County, Ohio).  Also, on July 24, 2006, West Virginia submitted
a maintenance plan for Wheeling as a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, to assure continued attainment over the next 12 years.

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

A.  The area must meet the ozone NAAQS.

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

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

in emissions.

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

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

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

As identified above, Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division Directors, entitled,
“Proceedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment.”  The following is a discussion of how the State of West
Virginia’s July 24, 2006 submittal satisfies the five requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will discuss its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its
analysis of the redesignation request.

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

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average (2002-2004) of the monitored annual fourth-highest
daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration.  In the Area,
there is one ozone monitor, the Ohio County monitor, located within the
city limits of the City of Wheeling in Ohio County.  According to the
Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, which
establishes the procedure for interpreting ozone monitoring data under
the standard promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10, the Area is attaining the
ozone standard for the most recent three-year period of 2002-2004 and
2003-2005 (see Table 1 below).  The data collected at the ozone monitor
satisfies the CAA requirement that the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is
less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).  The State of West
Virginia’s request for redesignation of Wheeling indicates that the
data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  The States
use the Air Quality System (AQS) as the permanent database to maintain
its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for
accuracy.  In addition, as discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, WVDEP has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1: Wheeling, WV-OH  Nonattainment Area
Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values; Wheeling Monitor, AQS ID
54-069-0007

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2000	0.071

2001	0.088

2002	0.097

2003	0.076

2004	0.063

2005	0.089

The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.078 ppm

The average for the 3-year period of 2003 through 2005 is 0.076 ppm

The air quality data for 2002-2004 show that the Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm.  Also, the air quality data
for 2003-2005 show that the Area has attained the standard with a design
value of 0.076 ppm.  In addition, as discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, WVDEP has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by West Virginia and data taken from AQS indicates that
the Area has attained and continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Preliminary air monitoring data for 2006 also indicates that the Area is
attaining the 8-hour ozone standard.

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

EPA has determined that Wheeling has met all SIP requirements applicable
for purposes of 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 what requirements are
applicable to the area, and determined that the applicable portions of
the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section
110(k) of the CAA.  We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with
respect to applicable requirements.

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992)
describes EPA’s interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to
the timing of applicable requirements.  Under this interpretation, to
qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request.  See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).  Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request for an area remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation.  Section 175A(c) of the CAA.  Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).  See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis).

1.  Section 110 General SIP Requirements:

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

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

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

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

Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.

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

Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed to
be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.  In addition,
EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area’s
attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.  West Virginia and Ohio will still be subject to these
requirements after the Area is redesignated.  The section 110 and Part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area’s designation
and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request.  This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement.  See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 61 FR 20458
(May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995).  See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001).  Similarly,
with respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final
Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules
are not “an ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section
110(l) because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

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 in the 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 satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.

2.  The Wheeling, WV-OH area has a fully approved SIP for the purposes
of redesignation:

EPA has fully approved the West Virginia SIP for the purposes of
redesignation.  EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request.  Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR 25425
(May 12, 2003) and citations therein.  The Area was a 1-hour
attainment/unclassifiable area (See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991)) at
the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
on April 30, 2004.  Because the Area was never designated as a Part D
nonattainment area, there were no previous Part D SIP submittal
requirements for the Area.  Nor have any Part D submittal requirements
have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for
the Area.  All previous Part D SIP submittal requirements have been
fulfilled with the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for
Wheeling.  See 59 FR 45980 at 45981-45982 (September 6, 1994), 59 FR
45019 (September 6, 1994), and, 59 FR 65719 (December 21, 1994).
Because there are no current outstanding SIP submission requirements
applicable for the purposes of redesignation of Area, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.  As
indicated previously, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to
the area’s nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.  EPA also believes that no 8-hour Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation have yet become
due for the Area, and therefore they need not be approved into the SIP
prior to redesignation.

C.  Demonstration of Permanent and Enforceable Improvement

EPA believes that the States have demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.  Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules, in Wheeling, WV-OH are shown in
Table 2.

Table 2: Wheeling (Marshall and Ohio County, West Virginia) Total VOC
and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)1

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area2	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	3.0	14.8	2.3	3.4	23.5

Year 2004	3.0	15.4	2.3	2.8	23.5

Diff. (02-04)	0	+0.6	0	-0.6	0

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area2	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	152.2	3.4	5.6	5.5	166.7

Year 2004	85.8	3.4	7.3	4.7	101.2

Diff. (02-04)	-66.4	0	+1.7	-0.8	-65.5

1Fire emissions are assumed to remain constant

Belmont (Belmont County, Ohio) Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and
2004 (tpd)1

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad3	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	0.2	4.1	1.0	4.4	9.7

Year 2004	0.2	4.0	0.9	3.7	8.8

Diff. (02-04)	0	-0.1	-0.1	-0.8	-0.9

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad3	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	31.8	0.3	3.0	7.4	42.5

Year 2004	28.7	0.3	2.9	6.3	38.2

Diff. (02-04)	-3.1	0	-0.1	-1.1	-4.3

1 Emissions not exact, due to rounding

2 West Virginia indicates that f ire emissions are assumed to remain
constant

3Includes Marine, Aircraft, Rail (MAR)

Between 2002 and 2004, Wheeling VOC emissions stayed the same, and NOx
emissions were reduced by 65.5 tpd, due to the following permanent and
enforceable measures implemented or in the process of being implemented
in Wheeling:

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 NOx emissions.  Also,
between 2002 and 2004, Belmont VOC emissions were reduced by 0.9 tpd and
NOx emissions were reduced by 4.3 tpd.  Therefore, the entire Area is
seeing a decrease in VOC and NOx emissions, due to permanent and
enforceable measures.

Nearly all of the reductions in NOx are attributable to the
implementation of the NOx SIP Call.  West Virginia has indicated in its
submittal that the implementation of the NOx SIP Call, with its
mandatory reductions in NOx emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs) and large industrial boilers (non-EGUs), reduced NOx emissions
throughout the Area.  NOx emissions from EGUs in Marshall and Ohio
Counties were reduced by 60.3 tpd between 2002 and 2004.  NOx emissions
from EGU’s in Belmont County were reduced by 3.1 tpd between 2002 and
2004.  Also, NOx emissions from non-EGU sources in Marshall and Ohio
Counties were reduced by 6.1 tpd between 2002 and 2004.  The WVDEP
believes that the improvement in ozone air quality from 2002 to 2004 was
the result of identifiable, permanent and enforceable reductions in
ozone precursor emissions for the same period.

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

Other regulations, such as the non-road diesel, 69 FR 39858 (June 29,
2004), the heavy duty engine and vehicle standards, 66 FR 5002 (January
18, 2001) and the new Tier 2 tailpipe standards for automobiles, 65 FR
6698 (January 10, 2000), are also expected to greatly reduce emissions
throughout the country and thereby reduce emissions impacting the Area
monitor.  The Tier 2 standards came into effect in 2004, and by 2030,
EPA expects that the new Tier 2 standards will reduce NOx emissions by
about 74 percent nationally.  EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term
improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

Conformity Process

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

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

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as
the construction

of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the
part of the State’s air

quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks.
“Conformity” to the SIP means

that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing

violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable progress towards
the NAAQS.  If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance
plans containing

MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget contained therein
“adequate” for

use in determining transportation conformity.  After EPA affirmatively
finds the submitted

MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can
be used by State

and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects “conform” to

the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.  EPA’s substantive
criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4).

EPA’s process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period,
and EPA’s adequacy finding.  This process for determining the adequacy
of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999
guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.”  This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
- Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1,
2004 (69 FR 40004).  EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making
its adequacy determinations.

The MVEBs for Wheeling are listed in Table 3 of this document for the
2004 (attainment year emissions, not a budget year), 2009, and 2018
years and are the projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources
plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety
margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only).  These emission budgets, when
approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity
determinations.

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

Year	NOx	VOC

2004*	4.7	2.8

2009	4.3	2.5

2018	1.7	1.4

* Attainment year mobile emissions, not a budget year.

2.  What is a Safety Margin?

A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which Wheeling met
the NAAQS.  The following example is for the 2018 safety margin:
Wheeling 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 Wheeling.  The total emissions from point, area,
mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 equaled 23.6 tpd of
VOC and 101.2 tpd of NOx.  The WVDEP projected emissions out to the year
2018 and projected a total of 14.9 tpd of VOC and 34.6 tpd of NOx from
all sources in Wheeling.  The safety margin for Wheeling for 2018 would
be the difference between these amounts, or 8.7 tpd of VOC and 66.6 tpd
of NOx.  The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including
the safety margins are projected to maintain the area's air quality
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels
are maintained at or below the attainment levels.  Table 4 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 4:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Wheeling

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

2004 Attainment	23.6	101.2

2009 Interim	14.8	72.9

2009 Safety Margin	8.8	28.3

2004 Attainment	23.6	101.2

2018 Final	14.9	34.6

2018 Safety Margin	8.7	66.6

The WVDEP allocated 0.56 tpd NOx and 0.33 tpd VOC 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 0.22
tpd NOx and 0.19 tpd VOC from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the
2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions
of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be
allocated to any other source category.  Table 5 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for Wheeling.

Table 5:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Wheeling

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

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	2.21	3.74

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.33	0.56

2009 MVEBs*	2.54	4.30

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	1.24	1.47

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.19	0.22

2018 MVEBs*	1.43	1.69

* Highway budgets are shown at a precision of two decimal places for
conformity purposes

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

3.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

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

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

The MVEBs for the Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 Wheeling MVEBs will
also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, click on the “Conformity”
button, then look for “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for
Conformity”).  Also, see the Wheeling mobile budget TSD.

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

The Wheeling, WV-OH  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 the Area,
because it was designated as attainment/unclassifiable.

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 this area.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that the
West Virginia’s 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 Wheeling redesignation request.  Because the State of West
Virginia submitted a complete redesignation request for Wheeling 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 Wheeling
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, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See
also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995).

EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect, because PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation.  The rationale for this view is described in
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”  West Virginia has
demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without
Part D NSR in effect in Wheeling, 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 Wheeling upon redesignation to attainment.  See
rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

E.  Maintenance Plan for Wheeling

1.  Maintenance Plan Requirements

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (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 Wheeling 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
Wheeling, 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 - West Virginia maintains its point source
emissions inventory data on the i-STEPS database, which is commercial
software.  Facilities subject to emissions inventory reporting
requirements were those operating point sources subject to Title V
permitting requirements.  Affected sources were identified from the
WVDEP’s Regulation 30 database, which is maintained by the WVDEP’s
Title V Permitting Group.  For the 2002 inventory, diskettes were
populated with i-STEPS software information, as well as source-specific
data from the previous year and sent to facilities for updates of their
2002 activity and emissions data.  The facilities then sent the
diskettes back to the State, where WVDEP staff quality assured the data
and submitted it to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) site as well as
to contractors for the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), a Regional Planning Organization
(RPO).

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

(ii) Area source emissions - In order to calculate the area source
emissions inventory the WVDEP took the annual values from the VISTAS
base year inventory and derived the typical 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 July 24, 2006.  Therefore, the WVDEP has consulted
with the Wheeling MPO, the Bel-O-Mar Regional Council (Bel-O-Mar), as
well as the West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) and the
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), to develop state MVEBs for the
West Virginia portion of the nonattainment area.  The ODOT maintains the
Travel Damand Model (TDM) for the Bel-O-Mar area and provided base year
and projection emissions data consistent with their most recent
available 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 Bel-O-Mar and ODOT to develop
highway emissions budgets for VOC and NOx.

Bel-O-Mar, WVDOT, and ODOT must evaluate future Long Range
Transportation Plans (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Programs
(TIP) 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 Wheeling (Marshall and Ohio Counties) portion of the
nonattainment area.

(iv) Mobile non-road emissions –  Emissions for the 2002 inventory
from nonroad sources were estimated in two steps.  First, emissions for
nonroad source categories that are included in the NONROAD model were
developed.  Second, emissions from sources not included in the NONROAD
model were estimated.

The 2002 mobile non-road emissions inventory was developed by WVDEP
staff using the NONROAD2005b Model.  NONROAD estimates fuel consumption
and emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter for all nonroad mobile source
categories except for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine
vessels (CMV).

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

(b) Maintenance Demonstration

(1) 8-Hour NAAQS

The submittal by WVDEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Wheeling 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 Wheeling through the year 2018.  The Wheeling maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25430-32
(May 12, 2003).

Table 6 specifies the Area’s VOC and NOx emissions for 2004, 2009, and
2018.  The West Virginia DEP and Ohio EPA chose 2009 as an interim year
in the 12-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the
VOC and NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004
attainment level during the time of the 12-year maintenance period.

Table 6:  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	85.8	28.7	114.5	61.7	21.1	82.8	26.2	19.0	45.2

	VOC	3.0	0.2	3.2	2.8	0.1	2.9	3.3	0.2	3.5

Area	NOx	3.4	0.3	3.7	1.8	0.4	2.2	2.0	0.4	2.4

	VOC	15.4	4.0	19.4	7.3	3.9	11.2	8.4	3.9	12.3

Nonroad3	NOx	7.3	2.9	10.2	5.2	2.5	7.7	4.6	1.9	6.5

	VOC	2.3	0.9	3.2	2.1	0.8	2.9	1.8	0.6	2.4

MVEBs4	NOx	4.7	6.3	11.0	4.3	4.7	9.0	1.7	1.9	3.6

	VOC	2.8	3.5	6.3	2.5	2.6	5.1	1.4	1.5	2.9

Total5	NOx	101.2	38.2	139.4	72.9	28.7	101.6	34.5	23.2	57.7

	VOC	23.5	8.6	32.2	14.7	7.4	22.1	14.9	6.2	21.1

1 WV emissions are total emissions for Ohio and Marshall Counties in
West Virginia

2 OH emissions are total emissions for Belmont County in Ohio, as
provided by Ohio EPA (see Appendix E)

3 Nonroad includes nonroad model results plus Commercial Marice Wessels,
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 totlal exactly due to rounding

Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or due
to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:

Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006); 66
FR 2001 (January 18, 2001); and

Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel
(2007/2010); 69 FR 39858 (June 29, 2004).

In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, CAIR, promulgated
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161) 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.

Currently, West Virginia has adopted 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 25161) Federal
Register publication.

(2)  1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

The Area was designated attainment/unclassifiable with respect to the
1-hour ozone standard in 1991.  See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

(c)  Monitoring Network - There is currently one monitor measuring ozone
in the Area, located in Ohio County and within the city limits of the
City of Wheeling, West Virginia.  West Virginia has committed to
continue to operate its current air quality monitor (located in Ohio
County) in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

The following should be noted:

Seasonal ozone monitoring at Wheeling, WV (Site ID: 540690007) began in
1982 and continued until the end of the 2003 ozone season due to the
relocation of the Division of Air Quality’s (DAQ) Northern Panhandle
Regional Office.  While a long term replacement for the Wheeling ozone
monitoring site was being established, an interim site, (540690009) was
established in Wheeling for the 2004 ozone monitoring season.  The site
was located approximately 4 miles south of the original.  A newly
established Wheeling monitoring site,<PHONE_NUMBER>) that is approximately
three tenths of a mile south of the long standing original site was
installed in late 2004 and was operational for the 2005 ozone season.
All three sites were located in the Ohio River Valley and within the
city limits of the City of Wheeling in Ohio County.  A map showing the
location of all three monitoring sites can be found in the Maintenance
Plan submitted by WVDEP, see Figure 1 of the state submittal.

Statistical analyses indicate that the three ozone monitoring sites in
the Wheeling area provided data that maintained the integrity of the 8
hour average ozone NAAQS assessment for the three year period 2002,
2003, and 2004 and the three year period 2003, 2004, and 2005 used for
this redesignation request.

The 4th highest 8-hour average concentration for each of the Ohio River
in-valley monitoring sites used in the NAAQS assessment calculation are
provided for years 1998 through 2005 in Table 7.  Of particular interest
for demonstrating the integrity of the Wheeling data and addressing the
monitoring site changes, are the close similarities of this statistic
for all in-valley stations each year for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and
2005.  A map showing the six in-valley sites can be found in the
Maintenance Plan submitted by WVDEP, see Figure 2 of the state
submittal.

Table 7: 4th Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentration (ppb)

 	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005

Parkersburg	94	95	87	84	95	83	69	84

Weirton	88	91	72	83	100	77	73	75

Stubenville	 	88	80	86	93	79	71	83

Wheeling	87	88	71	88	97	76	63	89

Data from the Wheeling interim site (54069009) would have to have shown
a 4th highest 8-hour average of 0.082 ppm in 2004 for the three year
average ozone concentration to violate the NAAQS for the period of 2002
through 2004.  An examination of the data from the other Ohio River
in-valley ozone monitoring sites also demonstrates that none of these
locations violated and all of them measured a 4th highest ozone average
well below 0.082 ppm during the 2004 ozone monitoring season.

A review of the total number of annual exceedances (above 84 ppb) also
indicates a corresponding improvement in air quality.  Such exceedances
fell from 11 in 2002 to 0 in 2004 and 6 in 2005.

EPA regulations contemplate that the monitoring network may change over
time, regardless of whether or not an area is currently designated as
attainment.

(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,
West Virginia requires ambient and source emissions data to track
attainment and maintenance.  The WVDEP proposes to fully update its
point, area, and mobile emission inventories at 3-year intervals as
required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) to assure
that its growth projections relative to emissions in these areas are
sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS.  The
WVDEP will review stationary source VOC and NOx emissions by review of
annual emissions statements and by update of its emissions inventories.
The area source inventory will be updated using the same techniques as
the 2002 ozone inventory.  However, some source categories may be
updated using historic activity levels determined from Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) data or West Virginia University/Regional
Research Institute (WVU/RRI) population estimates.  The mobile source
inventory model will be updated by obtaining county-level VMT from the
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, Bel-O-Mar, using methodology
similar to that used for transportation conformity purposes.  The WVDEP
shall also continue to operate the existing ozone monitoring station in
the areas pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance period
and submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS system.

(e) The Maintenance Plan’s Contingency Measures - The contingency plan
provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation.  Section 175A of the Act requires that
a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the measure(s).

The ability of Wheeling to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOx emissions in the
area 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 significant 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 – Then WVDEP will evaluate existing control measures to
ascertain if additional regulatory revisions are necessary to maintain
the ozone standard.  The maintenance plan also states that an exceedance
pattern would include, but is not limited to, the measurement of five
exceendances or more occurring at the same monitor during a calendar
year.

(ii) In the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs
at the Ohio County, West Virginia monitor - The maintenance plan states
that in the event that a violation of the ozone standard occurs at the
Ohio County, West Virginia ozone monitor the State of West Virginia will
select and adopt 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 if necessary;

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 draft rule within 6 months of selection of measure;

File draft rule as an emergency rule with Secretary of State’s Office
(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 the area
by the start of the following ozone season.

(f) An Additional Provision of the Maintenance Plan - The State’s
maintenance plan for Wheeling 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 will
not exhibit substantial increases between consecutive periodic year
inventories.  Therefore, if significant unanticipated emissions growth
occurs, it is expected that point sources would be the cause.  40 CFR
Part 51, the CERR (67 FR 39602) requires that states submit an annual
inventory of criteria pollutants for large point sources with actual
emissions greater than or equal to any of the emission thresholds to
EPA.  Any significant increases that occur can be identified from these
reports without waiting for a periodic inventory.  This gives West
Virginia the capability to identify needed regulations by source, source
category and pollutant and to begin the rule promulgation process, if
necessary, in an expeditious manner.

The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a
maintenance plan:  attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan.  EPA believes that the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by West Virginia for Wheeling meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act.

2.  Requirement for Continued Maintenance

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

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:

Wheeling has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that satisfies
section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Also, the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality
monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I recommend that the maintenance
plan for Wheeling be approved and the area be redesignated to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV.  LIST OF EPA GUIDANCE MEMOS AND DOCUMENTS

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

“Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

“Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

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

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

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

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment
Areas,” dated November 30, 1993;

“Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and

“Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

1   For information of the recodification of the RACT rules approved by
the September 17, 1992 final rule that is cited in the notices related
to redesignation of the Area, see 60 FR 6022 at 6022, February 1, 1995.

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   18

  PAGE   21


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67162-67163]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-147-000.
    Applicants: PJS Capital LLC.
    Description: PJS Capital LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1: PJS
Capital, LLC Electric Tariff Original Volume No 1 to be effective 10/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-148-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Company submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate
Restrictions to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-149-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2158R1 Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
NITSA NOA to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-150-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 176 of Florida Power Corporation to
be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-151-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 194 of Florida Power Corporation to
be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-152-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revised Rate Schedule No. 199 of Florida Power
Corporation to be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-153-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 210 of Florida Power Corporation to
be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-154-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 213 of Florida Power Corporation to
be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-155-000.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company.
    Description: Union Electric Company submits tariff filing per
35.15: Withdrawal of RS 94 to be effective 12/18/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-156-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Company submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing--MBS Tariff Sect 17.0 Limitations to
be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-157-000.
    Applicants: Elwood Energy, LLC.
    Description: Elwood Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate Restrictions to be
effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-158-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC.
    Description: Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate
Restrictions to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-159-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate
Restrictions to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-160-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Retail, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Retail, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing--MBR Tariff Order of Affiliate Restrictions to be
effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-161-000.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy LLC.
    Description: Bishop Hill Energy LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization & Request for Waivers &
Approval to be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-162-000
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC
    Description: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization & Request for
Waivers & Approval to be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-163-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2012 NESCOE Budget to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-164-000.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy III LLC.
    Description: Bishop Hill Energy III LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization & Request for
Waivers & Approval to be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 14, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES11-50-000.
    Applicants: AEP Generating Company, AEP Texas North Power Company,
AEP Texas Central Company, Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan
Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Public
Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company,
Wheeling Power Company.
    Description: Supplemental Application under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities of AEP
Generating Company.
    Filed Date: 10/21/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111021-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 31, 2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 21, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28000 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Erin Malone,<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Cheminova, Inc.

P# 4G8247

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (P#4G8247) from Cheminova, Inc.,
1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209-2510 proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a
temporary tolerance for residues of Flutriafol in or on the raw
agricultural commodity corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed
at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); corn, sweet, forage at 5 parts per
million (ppm); corn, sweet, stover at 15 parts per million (ppm). EPA
has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding
the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

Plant metabolism.

The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. The major
residue in apples, oilseed rape, sugar beet and cereals treated with
flutriafol is the parent compound.

Analytical method.

Adequate enforcement analytical methods for determining flutriafol in/on
appropriate raw agricultural commodities and processed commodities are
available for the established and proposed tolerances.

Magnitude of residues.

Crop Field Trials

There are no available residue data for sweet corn.  The proposed
maximum use rate for flutriafol on sweet corn is the same as the
currently registered use rate on field corn and popcorn. Consequently,
Cheminova believes that the field corn data are applicable to this
petition and support the proposed temporary tolerance for sweet corn at
the same level.  For example, the existing tolerance for corn, field,
grain is 0.01 ppm (which corresponds to the LOQ).

Field trial data have been generated for flutriafol and three triazole
metabolites on field corn.  Twenty trials were conducted in major field
corn growing regions during the 2009 growing season.  Two decline trials
were conducted, and data on field corn processed commodities were
provided from one site.

The LOQ and LOD for flutriafol in corn matrices were 0.01 ppm and 0.003
ppm, respectively.  Results from the decline trials show that flutriafol
residues were <LOQ (<0.01 ppm) in all grain samples collected at each of
the five sampling intervals, up to 21 days after the last application
(DALA).

Field corn commodity and processed samples were also analyzed for the
three metabolites, 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazole alanine (TA), and
triazole acetic acid (TAA).  The LOQ for each metabolite was 0.01 ppm.
No residues of metabolites T and TAA >LOQ were found in treated grain,
whereas TA residues ranged from <LOQ to 0.112 ppm.

For dietary exposure assessment, EPA has concluded that the residues of
concern in field corn and popcorn consist of flutriafol (free and
conjugated) and defluorinated flutriafol.  Total residues of concern are
estimated by multiplying the measured parent flutriafol residue by a
factor of 2.2X.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.

The acute oral LD50 is 1140 mg/kg bw and 1480 mg/kg bw in male and
female rats, respectively. The acute dermal LD50 of flutriafol is >2000
mg/kg bw in rats. The acute inhalation LC50 in rats is >5.20 mg/L.
Flutriafol displayed mild eye irritation in rabbits. It is not a skin
irritant to rabbits. Flutriafol is not a skin sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty.

Flutriafol was evaluated for possible mutagenic/genotoxic effects in in
vitro and in vivo test systems. In these studies flutriafol was not
mutagenic in either bacterial or mammalian cells at concentrations that
were not highly cytotoxic in the presence and absence of metabolic
activation in vitro. No clastogenic potential in in vitro and in vivo
cytogenetic studies was demonstrated, and no induction of forward
mutations was observable in vitro. Furthermore, flutriafol did not
induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in vivo, and no clastogenicity was
observable in germ cells of mice. Overall, the data indicate that
flutriafol has no genotoxic/mutagenic potential in vitro and in vivo.

In three genotoxicity studies flutriafol was not mutagenic in either
bacterial or mammalian cells at concentrations that were not highly
cytotoxic in the presence and absence of metabolic activation in vitro.
No clastogenic potential in the in vitro chromosome aberration study was
demonstrated. These results are consistent with the conclusions of the
originally submitted genotoxicity studies.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

A two-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats was conducted with
flutriafol at doses of 0, 60, 240 or 1000 ppm in the diet. The parental
NOAEL was 240 ppm (calculated by EPA to be 20.6 mg/kg bw/day in males
and 21.9 mg/kg bw/day in females) based on reduced body weight gain and
food consumption, and effects on the liver (increased liver weights,
centrilobular hypertrophy and fatty changes). The NOAEL for
developmental and reproductive toxicity was 240 ppm (20.6 mg/kg bw/day
for males and 21.9 mg/kg bw/day for females) based on reduced litter
sizes and effects on the liver (fatty change/vacuolation).

In a second two-generation reproduction study, flutriafol was
administered to groups of rats at concentrations of 0, 30, 80, 150 and
300 ppm in the diet. In the P and F1 parental generations, dietary
exposure to flutriafol resulted in centrilobular hepatocellular
hypertrophy at 300 ppm. These findings correlated with increased liver
to body weight ratios in P parental animals, which are indicative of an
adaptive change to metabolic activation by a xenobiotic and not a toxic
response due to the administration of flutriafol. At 150 ppm, 80 ppm and
30 ppm, no test item-related effects were noted.

There were no treatment-related differences in reproductive parameters
between treated animals and controls. There were no treatment-related
differences in litter parameters between treated groups and controls.
Based on these results, 300 ppm (15.6 mg/kg bw/day for males and 20.7
mg/kg bw/day for females) is the NOAEL for parental toxicity and is the
NOEL for effects on reproductive function. The NOEL for parental
toxicity is 150 ppm. The results of this new study confirm the earlier
study that flutriafol is not a reproductive toxicant to rats.

In the rat developmental toxicity study, flutriafol was orally
administered at doses of 0, 2, 5, 10 or 75 mg/kg bw/day. The maternal
toxicity NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain and
food consumption. The developmental toxicity NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day
based on increased late resorptions and specific
malformations/variations, including hyoid arch absent, interrupted,
and/or misshapen.

In the rabbit developmental study, flutriafol was administered at doses
of 0, 2.5, 7.5 or 15 mg/kg bw/day. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was
7.5 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain and food consumption.
The NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 7.5 mg/kg bw/day based on an
increase in post-implantation losses and a reduction in the number of
viable fetuses.

Flutriafol is neither a reproductive nor developmental toxicant in the
absence of paternal/maternal toxicity.

Subchronic toxicity.

The short-term toxicity of flutriafol was investigated in several
subchronic studies including a 90-day feeding study in rats and a 90-day
study in dogs. A 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats was also
performed.

The 90-day rat feeding study was conducted with dietary concentrations
of 0, 20, 200 or 2000 ppm. The NOAEL of 200 ppm (14 mg/kg bw/day for
males and 22 mg/kg bw/day for females) was based on decreased body
weight gain and food consumption and liver toxicity (increased absolute
and relative liver weights, increased endoplasmic reticulum
proliferation in the male rats and increased APDM activity).

In the 90-day study in dogs, flutriafol was administered at
concentrations of 0, 1, 5 or 15 mg/kg bw/day via capsule. The NOAEL was
5 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain in females, changes in
hematology and clinical chemistry parameters in both sexes, and effects
in the livers of males and females and in the spleens of the males at
the 15 mg/kg bw/day.

In the 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, there was no evidence of
systemic toxicity and the NOAEL was >1000 mg/kg bw/day.

Chronic toxicity.

A one-year oral study in the dog was conducted at concentrations of 0,
1, 5 or 20 mg/kg bw/day. The NOAEL was 5 mg/kg bw/day based on adverse
liver findings (increased liver weights, increased lipid content of
hepatocytes, and increased alkaline phosphatase, albumin and
triglycerides), increased adrenal cortical vacuolation of the zona
fasciculate, and increased hemosiderin deposition in the spleen and
liver of both sexes; decreased body weight gain, and increased adrenal
weights in females.

In a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study, flutriafol was
administered in the diet to rats at doses of 0, 20, 200 or 2000 ppm. The
NOAEL was 200 ppm (calculated by EPA to be 10.0 mg/kg bw/day in males
and 12.2 mg/kg bw/day in females) based on reduced body weight, body
weight gain, and food consumption in both sexes and adverse liver
effects (increased liver weights, fatty change, bile duct
proliferation/cholangiolarfibrosis, hemosiderin accumulation in Kupffer
cells and centrilobular hypertrophy) and clinical chemistry findings.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in this study.

In a two-year oncogenicity study, flutriafol was administered in the
diet to mice at doses of 0, 10, 50 or 200 ppm. The NOAEL was 50 ppm
(calculated by EPA to be 5.9 mg/kg bw/day in males and 7.4 mg/kg bw/day
in females) based on reduced body weight and body weight gain in males
and females, increased liver weight, and hepatocellular hypertrophy and
centrilobular fatty change in the liver. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in this study.

Neurotoxicity.

In an acute neurotoxicity study, rats were administered flutriafol by
gavage at doses of 0, 125, 250 or 750 mg/kg bw. EPA concluded that the
systemic NOAEL was 250 mg/kg bw based on decreased body weight gain and
food consumption and clinical signs of toxicity indicative of a moribund
condition. The neurotoxicity NOAEL was >750 mg/kg bw.

In a subchronic neurotoxicity study, flutriafol was administered in the
diet to rats at doses of 0, 500, 1500 or 3000 ppm. The systemic NOAEL
was 1500 ppm (84.3 mg/kg bw/day in males and 97.6 mg/kg bw/day in
females) based on decreased body weight gain and decreased absolute and
relative food consumption. The neurotoxicity NOAEL was >3000 ppm (>172.1
mg/kg bw/day in males and >185.0 mg/kg bw/day in females).

	7. Immunotoxicity.

In an immunotoxicity study, flutriafol was administered to 10
Crl:CD1(ICR) female mice/group in the diet at dose levels of 0, 50, 250,
500 and 1000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 9.8, 46.8, 94.0 and 208.0 mg/kg
bw/day, respectively) for 28 consecutive days. Immunotoxicity was
evaluated by assessment of the spleen IgM antibody response to the
T-dependent antigen, sheep red blood cells (sRBCs). The NOAEL for
general toxicity in female CD-1 mice was 50 ppm (9.8 mg/kg bw/day) based
on increased absolute and relative liver weights and hematology effects
(decreased mean corpuscular volume). There were no significant effects
on absolute and relative spleen weights, spleen cell number and spleen
IgM antibody response to the T cell-dependent antigen, sheep
erythrocytes at any dose level. Therefore, the immunotoxic NOEL is 1000
ppm (208 mg/kg bw/day), the highest dose tested.

	8. Animal Metabolism.

Based on a series of studies, flutriafol is extensively metabolized in
the rat and the metabolic processes are well understood.

Flutriafol was quantitatively absorbed after oral administration to rats
and the extent of absorption was in the range of 90% to 99% of the
administered dose. Flutriafol is rapidly distributed, metabolized and
eliminated in rats for all dosing regimens after oral administration.
After single oral administration 78% and 91% of the dose given was
excreted in urine and bile/feces within 72 hours and 47% to 79% of the
dose was eliminated with bile. Only 0.8% to 10.4% of the dose given was
directly excreted with feces. After repeated oral administration,
excretion in urine and feces 24 hours after the first and last dose was
comparable. The major route of excretion was urinary accounting for
approximately 50% to 61% of the daily dose excreted within 24 hours
after dosing, while fecal excretion accounted for approximately 30% to
40%. Residues in carcass 168 hours after the last of 14 daily doses of
flutriafol were found to be less than 3% of administered doses.
Flutriafol is distributed systemically resulting in highest tissue
levels in whole blood, kidneys, liver, and muscle within the range of
0.7% to 1.46 % of daily dose.

The metabolites identified indicated that the 2-fluorophenyl ring of
flutriafol was the main site for biotransformation. The initial
metabolic step probably involved epoxidation followed by either
rearrangement to form the dihydrodiol isomers of flutriafol or to form
hydroxy or dihydroxy metabolites. The hydroxyl groups on these primary
metabolites may then be either conjugated with glucuronic acid or
methylated. A second, minor route, for the metabolism of flutriafol was
via the removal of the triazole ring to form 1-(2
fluorophenyl)-1-(4-fluorophenyl)-ethandiol, which is then conjugated
with glucuronic acid.

The results demonstrated that absorption, distribution, metabolism, and
excretion of flutriafol was comparable in both sexes and also similar
after single low, single high, or repeated low-dose scenario. The data
indicate that flutriafol and/or its metabolites do not bioaccumulate.

9. Metabolite Toxicology

Data regarding the potential toxicity of the three metabolites common to
triazoles have been developed and submitted by the US Triazole Task
Force. The Task Force has entered into a data access agreement with
Cheminova A/S by which it has authorized Cheminova to rely on all of the
studies, data and information that the Task Force has submitted to EPA.
This includes the comprehensive risk assessment of these three
metabolites. Cheminova hereby incorporates and relies on the Task Force
studies, data and information in support of its pesticide action. This
includes relying on the T-D metabolite risk assessment submitted to the
EPA by the Task Force.

10. Endocrine Disruption

All guideline studies conducted to characterize the toxicological
profile showed no endocrine-related toxicity or tumorigenicity.

C. Aggregate Exposure

Dietary exposure.

Temporary tolerances are proposed for residues of flutriafol on corn,
sweet, K+CWHR; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet, stover.  These
temporary tolerances, which reflect direct foliar application, will
replace the existing tolerances for sweet corn commodities as a
rotational crop.

For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary (food and drinking
water) exposure, an exposure assessment including sweet corn commodities
in addition to all of the registered and pending crops was conducted
using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Consumption Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID) software, consumption data derived from the
2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES),
assuming tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated.  Estimated
potential concentrations in drinking water were incorporated directly
into the dietary exposure assessments to provide total aggregate dietary
exposure estimates.

For the purpose of dietary exposure assessment, it is assumed that the
residues of concern for all commodities are parent flutriafol and the
three triazole metabolites designated as T, TA and TAA.  Adjustment
factors to account for potential residues of conjugated or defluorinated
flutriafol metabolites are included as appropriate in risk assessment
calculations for corn, cotton, peanut, wheat and triticale commodities.

Non-dietary exposure.

Flutriafol is currently not registered for use on any residential
non-food site.  Therefore, residential exposure to flutriafol residues
will be through dietary exposure only.

D. Cumulative Effects

Flutriafol is a member of the triazole class of fungicides.  Other
members of this class are registered for use in the United States.
Although flutriafol and other triazoles may have similar fungicidal
modes of action, there are no available data to determine whether
flutriafol has a common mechanism of mammalian toxicity with other
triazoles or information on how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment.  Therefore, for the purposes of this
tolerance petition no assumption has been made with regard to cumulative
exposure with other compounds having a common mode of action.

E. Safety Determination

U.S. population.

Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on
the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that total
food and drinking water exposure to flutriafol from all registered,
pending and proposed crop uses will be 1.08% of the aPAD and 19.4% of
the cPAD for the overall US population.  For females 13-49 years old,
the population-specific aPAD is 0.075 mg/kg bw and estimated acute
dietary exposures accounted for 29.03% of the aPAD.  EPA generally has
no concern for exposures below 100% of the PAD because the PAD
represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposures will
not pose appreciable risks to human health.  Thus, it can be concluded
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to residues arising from the proposed tolerances that
are the subject of this petition and all approved and pending uses of
flutriafol.

Infants and children.

t can be concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to
flutriafol from all proposed crop uses will be ≤2.58% of the aPAD and
≤62.4% of the cPAD for infants and children.

In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and
children to residues of flutriafol, the data from developmental toxicity
studies in both the rat and rabbit and a reproduction study in rats have
been considered.

The developmental toxicity studies evaluate potential adverse effects on
the developing animal resulting from pesticide exposure to the mother
during prenatal development.  The reproduction study evaluates effects
from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating
animals through two generations, as well as any observed systemic
toxicity.

EPA has concluded that there is no increased quantitative sensitivity to
infants and children based on the developmental and reproductive studies
conducted with flutriafol.  Therefore, infants and children are
adequately protected and an additional uncertainty factor for infants
and children is not warranted.

F. International Tolerances

Codex Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) were established in 2012 for
residues of flutriafol for the following commodities: banana (0.3 ppm);
coffee beans (0.15 ppm); peanut (0.15 ppm); peanut fodder (20 ppm);
peppers, sweet (including pimento or pimiento) (1 ppm); peppers chili,
dried (10 ppm); pome fruits (0.3 ppm); soya bean (dry) (0.4 ppm); wheat
(0.15 ppm); wheat bran, unprocessed (0.3 ppm); and wheat straw and
fodder, dry (8 ppm). Codex MRLs are under review for grapes (0.8 ppm)
and dried grapes (2 ppm). There are no established tolerances for
flutriafol on any crops in Canada and Mexico.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8666-8667]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04106]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0276; FRL-9971-08]

Final Test Guidelines; Series 810--Product Performance Test
Guidelines; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of the following 810 Series
final test guidelines: General Considerations for Testing Public Health
Antimicrobial Pesticides--Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test
Guideline 810.2000; Sterilants, Sporicides, and Decontaminants--
Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2100; and
Disinfectants for Use on Environmental Surfaces--Guidance for Efficacy
Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline

810.2200. These test guidelines are part of a series of test guidelines
established by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances. The test
guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies
and protocols for testing that is intended to provide data to inform
regulatory decisions. The test guidelines provide guidance for
conducting the tests, and are also used by EPA, the public, and
companies that are subject to data submission requirements under one or
more statutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thao Pham, Antimicrobials Division
(7510P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    EPA is announcing the availability of three final test guidelines:
General Considerations for Testing Public Health Antimicrobial
Pesticides--Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline
810.2000; Sterilants, Sporicides, and Decontaminants--Guidance for
Efficacy Testing, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2100; and Disinfectants for
Use on Environmental Surfaces--Guidance for Efficacy Testing, OCSPP
Test Guideline 810.2200.
    These final test guidelines are part of a series of test guidelines
established by OCSPP for use in testing pesticides and chemical
substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FFDCA) section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a),
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7
U.S.C. 136 et seq.), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15
U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The test guidelines serve as a compendium of
accepted scientific methodologies and protocols for testing that is
intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions under TSCA,
FIFRA, and/or FFDCA.
    The test guidelines provide guidance for conducting tests, and are
also used by EPA, the public, and companies that are subject to data
submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. As guidance
documents, the test guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any
outside parties, and EPA may depart from the test guidelines where
circumstances warrant and without prior notice. At places in this
guidance, the Agency uses the word ``should.'' In this guidance, use of
``should'' with regard to an action means that the action is
recommended rather than mandatory. The procedures contained in the test
guidelines are recommended for generating the data that are the subject
of the particular test guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures
may be appropriate in specific situations. You may propose alternatives
to the recommendations described in the test guidelines, and the Agency
will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be
required to conduct testing of pesticides and chemical substances for
submission to EPA under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket for this document. The docket for this action, identified
by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0276, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    2. Electronic access to the OCSPP test guidelines. To access OCSPP
test guidelines electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm. You may also access the test guidelines in
http://www.regulations.gov, grouped by series under docket ID numbers:
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0576.

III. Overview

A. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of final test guidelines under
Series 810, entitled ``Product Performance Test Guidelines'' and
identified as OCSPP Test Guidelines 810.2000, 810.2100, and 810.2200.
The OCSPP 810 Test Guideline Series addresses antimicrobial pesticide
products with public health uses or that bear public health claims for
which product performance (efficacy) test data are required to be
submitted to the Agency to support registration or amended
registration, including, but not limited to the requirements of 40 CFR
158.2220(a)(2). These guidelines provide an update to the 2012 OCSPP
Guidelines 810.2000, 810.2100, and 810.2200 and supersede previous
efficacy testing guidance for sterilants, sporicides, decontaminants,
and disinfectant products.
    All studies initiated one year after the final publication date
should utilize the revised guidelines for testing.

B. How was this final test guideline developed?

    The updated test guidelines integrate agency policies and revised
test methods that have been released after the 2012 publication of the
810 guideline series. The availability of public draft test guidelines
for public comment was announced in a June 17, 2015 Federal Register
notice (80 FR 34638) (FRL-9927-37). The public draft test guidelines
were placed in the EPA Docket for public access. These final test
guidelines were reformatted for ease of navigation and reading and
incorporate changes resulting from the public comments received in
response to the 2015 public draft test guidelines. The Agency is also
making available in the docket a Response to Comments document that
summarizes changes to the 2015 draft guidelines and addresses issues
raised in the public comment submissions.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: February 6, 2018.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-04106 Filed 2-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


United States Environmental Protection Agency

Air Division

Technical Support Document

For The

Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Rule 102, Definitions

Cynthia G. Allen

September 2010

AGENCY:	Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Submittal Date:	July 20, 2010

Adoption Date:	March 11, 2010

Completeness Date:	August 25, 2010

Submitted Rule:	Rule 102, Definitions

Applicable SIP:	Submitted on September 7, 1999 (adopted on July 1, 1999
and 				approved on February 3, 2000) (65 FR 5262)

Rule Summary:

Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) Rule 102,
Definitions, is being amended to update the Exempt Compounds list to
conform to the Exempt Compounds list of the EPA.  Four definitions have
also been added to the Rule along with modifications to Standard
Conditions and minor formatting.

Compounds that have low atmospheric photochemical reactions are
considered to have a negligible level of reactivity.  It has been
EPA’s policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of
reactivity do not need to be regulated to reduce ozone.  The EPA lists
negligibly reactive compounds in its regulation a (at 40 CFR 51.100(s))
and excludes them from the definition of VOCs.

The following list of negligibly reactive compounds has been added to
the exempt compounds list (Section N):

3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca)

1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb)

1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee)

Difluorokmethane (HFC-32)

Ethylfluoride (HFC-161)

1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa)

1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca)

1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea)

1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb)

1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa)

1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea)

1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc)

Chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31)

1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a)

1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a)

1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3 or HFE-7100)

2-difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptabluoropropane
(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3)

1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane (C4F9OC2H5 or HFE-7200)

2-(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptabluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5)

Methyl Acetate

1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane (n-C3F7OCH3 or HFE-7000)

3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane
(HFE-7500)

1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptaflurorpropane (HFC 227ea)

Methyl formate (HCOOCH3)

1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-tribluoromethyl-pentane
(HFE-7300)

Dimethyl Carbonate

Propylene Carbonate

Two special provisions/limitations for unique negligibly reactive
compounds, which include Tertiary Butyl Acetate, have been added to the
definition of Exempt Compounds.

Four additional definitions have also been added to the rule.  The new
definitions include:

Affected Pollutants

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Volatile Organic Compounds

To maintain consistency with EPA, ARB, and other air districts,
KCAPCD’s ‘Standard Conditions’ have been updated as follows:

Gas test temperature has been changed from 60 degrees Fahrenheit to 68
degrees Fahrenheit; and

Gas test pressure has been changed from 29.92 inches of mercury to 14.7
pounds per square inch (760-millimeters of mercury).

	Kern County APCD does not anticipate any emissions changes or any
significant impacts to regulated sources or the APCD resulting from the
amendments to Rule 102.

EPA Evaluation

	Amended Rule 102 poses no significant cost to industry and no
significant environmental impact.

	EPA is recommending approval of Kern County APCD Rule 102 under section
110(k) as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and Part D of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990.

Attachments

1.	Submitted Rule 102, Definitions (adopted March 11, 2010).

2.	SIP Approved Rule 102 (adopted July 1, 1999).

3.	Strikeout/underline version of Rule 102.


Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US  12/19/2007 05:32 PM	To 	Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeremy Arling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,  <EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc 	 	bcc 	 	Subject 	Fw: Evaluation of the ability of Iodomethane to replace Methyl Bromide in  2008

FYI - This is the final version that will do in the docket.

----- Forwarded by Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US on 12/19/2007 05:31 PM ----- Karen Kopp/DC/USEPA/US  12/19/2007 05:26 PM	 	To 	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 	cc 	Richard Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Christine Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 	Subject 	Evaluation of the ability of Iodomethane to replace Methyl Bromide in 2008