Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans: Charleston, WV Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Nonattainment Area; Adequacy Status

This Notice document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

For related information, Open Docket Folder

[FRL-9903-79-Region 3]

Adequacy Status of the Submitted Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans for the Charleston, West Virginia 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Nonattainment Area for Transportation Conformity Purposes


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


Notice of adequacy.


In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has made insignificance findings through the transportation conformity adequacy process, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), for directly emitted fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NO X) in the Charleston, West Virginia 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area. West Virginia submitted the insignificance findings with the redesignation requests and maintenance plans submittal on December 6, 2012. As a result of EPA's findings, the Charleston, West Virginia nonattainment area is no longer required to perform a regional emissions analysis for directly emitted PM 2.5, or NO X, as part of future PM 2.5 conformity determinations for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.


Effective on December 19, 2013.

For Further Information Contact

Gregory Becoat, Environmental Scientist, Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-2036; .

Supplementary Information

Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region III sent a letter to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection on October 29, 2013 stating that EPA has made insignificance findings, through the adequacy process, for PM 2.5 and NO X for the Charleston, WV 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area, as the State had requested in its redesignation requests and maintenance plans submittal. Receipt of the submittal was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site. No comments were received. The findings letter is available at EPA's conformity Web site: .

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which EPA determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a July 1, 2004 preamble starting at 69 FR 40038 and used the information in these resources in making this adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if EPA finds a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's conformity Web site: .


42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: November 14, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-28967 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
Comment Period Closed
ID: EPA_FRDOC_0001-14978
View original printed format:

Document Information

Date Posted: Dec 4, 2013
RIN: Not Assigned
Federal Register Number: 2013-28967
Show More Details  


Comments Received*

Docket Information

This document is contained in

* This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency’s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document.

Document text and images courtesy of the
Federal Register