UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

						May 1, 2007

SUBJECT:		Technical Support Document – Pennsylvania; Redesignation to
Attainment of the Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area and Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan and
2002 Base-Year Inventory

			S/S

FROM:	Christopher Cripps

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Linda Miller, Acting Chief  S/S

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On January 25, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (the
Reading Area) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) of 40 CFR 50.10.  The Reading Area is
comprised of the County of Berks.  Also, on January 25, 2007,
Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory
for the Reading Area, as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. 
PADEP submitted a supplement to the technical support for the
maintenance plan on April 12, 2007.  (Hereafter, when this document
states that the maintenance plan was submitted on January 25, 2007, this
document means that the maintenance plan was submitted on January 25,
2007, with a supplement submitted on April 12, 2007.)  The maintenance
plan will ensure continued attainment in the area for at least 10 years
after the area is redesignated.

The Reading Area was designated a subpart 1 or “basic” 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area in a final rule published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for
ozone during the years 2001-2003.  

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment.  Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation providing that: The CAA provides the requirements for
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment.  Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k); (3) the area has met all applicable requirements
under section 110 and part D of the CAA; (4) the air quality improvement
in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and (5) the area has a fully approved maintenance plan under section
175A of the CAA. 

II. What is EPA Analysis of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Request
to redesignate the Reading Area to Attainment?

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, entitled, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”  The
following is a discussion of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
January 25, 2007 submittal satisfies the five requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  The EPA will discuss its evaluation of the
maintenance plan under its analysis of the redesignation request.

A.  Was the Ozone NAAQS Attained in the Reading Area?

1.  8-hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.10

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 of the monitored annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration.  The air quality monitoring data
used for Pennsylvania’s redesignation request was the air quality data
for 2003 through 2005.  This monitor was located at on the premises of
the UGI Company at Morgantown Road and Prospect Avenue.  In 2006 the
monitoring location was changed to the Reading Department of Public
Safety, North 6th Street in Reading.  The PADEP concludes that the new
monitoring location continues monitoring of air quality data that is
representative of ozone levels in the Reading Area.  

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 Reading Area is
attaining the ozone standard for the most recent three-year period of
2003 through 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 8-hour average ozone concentration
is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).  The Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation of the Reading Area
indicates that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.  The PADEP uses the Air Quality System (AQS) as the permanent
database to maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and
content for accuracy. 

Table 1: Reading Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Values

UGI Co Mongantown Rd And Prospect St, Reading, Berks County,
Pennsylvania

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.080

2004	0.076

2005	0.085

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.080 ppm



The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Reading Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.080 ppm.  In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  EPA
believes this conclusion remains valid that based upon our review of the
available 2006 data because review of the 2006 data indicates that the
fourth highest monitored exceedance was 0.078 parts per million (ppm). 
(See Appendix A for the available 2006 data.)  The worst case design
value would be 0.079 ppm.  In summary, EPA has determined that the data
submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from the AQS indicates that the
Reading Area has attained and continues to attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.  

2.  1-hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.9

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS has a different form as well as limit.  The
1-hour ozone NAAQS is attained and maintained if the average number of
expected exceedances over a three year period is less than or equal to
1.  For the period 2003 through 2005, the average number of expected
exceedances was 0.3, which is less than 1.  In summary, for the period
2003 through 2005, EPA believes that the Reading Area is still in
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and taken from the AQS.  EPA believes this conclusion
remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because no
exceedances were recorded in the Reading Area in 2006.

Further details on this determination are found in Appendix A of this
document.  

B.  How has Pennsylvania Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA, and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) for Purposes of Redesignation?

 

EPA has determined that the Reading Area has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the  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, (requirements specific
to basic nonattainment areas), 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 Reading Area, and determined that the applicable
portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under
section 110(k).  SIPs must be 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 of an area to
attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due
for that area prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation
request.  See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor).  Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to
the area’s submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation.  See, section 175A(c) of the CAA and
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).  See also 68 FR at
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).

1.  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. 
General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of Title I, part A of the CAA.  These requirements include,
but are not limited to the following:

 

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOx SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).  However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area’s designation and classification in that State.  EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification 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 transport-related 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.  The Reading Area will still
be subject to these requirements after it 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 the applicability of conformity (i.e., for
redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement.  See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10,
1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995).  See also the discussion on
this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19,
2001).  Similarly, with respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in
its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx
SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable requirement’ for
purposes of section 110(1) because the NOx rules apply regardless of an
area’s attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the
1-hour) NAAQS.”  69 FR 23951 at 23983 (April 30, 2004).  This
statement made in the preamble to the April 30, 2004, final rule was
merely restating EPA’s longstanding interpretation:  The requirement
to submit revisions under the NOx SIP call continues to apply to areas
after redesignation to attainment and is not a requirement of section
110 and part D that is linked with an area's nonattainment status.  See
the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at
37799-37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR
at 53099, October 19, 2001).

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Therefore, EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the CAA.

2.  Part D Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the
basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas.  Section
182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification under section 181 of subpart 2 to Part D of the CAA.  The
Reading Area was classified as a subpart 1 basic nonattainment area by
an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858).  

However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).  South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist.  v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir.
2006) (hereafter “South Coast.”).  The Court held that certain
provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act.  The Court rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under Subpart 1
in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act.  The Court also
held that EPA improperly failed to retain  four measures required for
1-hour nonattainment areas under the  anti-backsliding provisions of
the regulations:   (1) nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2)
Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity
requirements for certain types of  federal actions.  The Court upheld
EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.

 

This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action.  For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation.  EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either circumstance
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions
of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.

a. Subpart 1 Nonattainment Requirements Specified by Section 172 

EPA believes that no subpart 1 requirements need to be approved prior to
redesignation.  Of the nonattainment plan provisions due under section
172, none were due prior to redesignation as section 172 sets the
deadline as no later than 3 years after resignation.  See 40 CFR 51
subpart X; see 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005.

b. Subpart 2 Requirements Specified by Section 182

With respect to the 8- hour standard, the court's ruling in South Coast
rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the
8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency.  Consequently,
it is possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be
reclassified under Subpart 2.  Although any future decision by EPA to
classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that
redesignation cannot now go forward.  This belief is based upon (1)
EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with
the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied.

First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Reading
Area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated to meet Subpart 1
requirements.  Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states
requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request.  September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division) See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17,
1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)(Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor).  See Sierra Club v EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation.  See, e.g. also 68 FR 25418, at
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted.  The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, See Sierra Club v. Whitman , 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date.  Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area.  The
Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse.  Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.” Id. at 68.  Similarly
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request.  

If this area initially had been classified for the 8-hour standard on
June 15, 2004, under the April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951) under
subpart 2, the first two part D, subpart 2 requirements required would
be: a 2002 base-year inventory pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA
and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B).

Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an emissions statement rule
for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the Reading Area,
and which satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour
standard.  This regulation is codified at Section 135.21 “Emission
statements” in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); see also 60 FR
2881, January 12, 1995.  

A separate Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared for this rulemaking
contains a detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania’s 2002 base-year
inventory for the Reading Area and concludes that this inventory can be
approved.  See “Technical Support Document (TSD) For Emissions
Inventories for the Reading Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Redesignation
request, Maintenance Plan and State Implementation Plan (SIP) Base Year
Inventory,” dated April 30, 2007.  EPA has determined that this
emission inventory requirement meets the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3) and that, if necessary, meets the emission inventory
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1).

Although any future decision by EPA to classify the Reading Area under
subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for this area,
EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of this area
cannot now go forward.  This belief is based upon (1) consideration of
the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements, such as the
emissions statement rule and 2002 base year inventory, that might be
applicable in the future; and, (2) EPA’s longstanding policy of
evaluating redesignation requests in accordance with only  the
requirements due at the time the request was submitted.  With respect to
the emissions statements and 2002 base year inventory requirements, EPA
believes that the emissions statement requirement is satisfied by the
current rule in the approved Pennsylvania SIP.  This rule is codified at
Section 135.21 “Emission statements” in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1); see also 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995.  With respect to
the 2002 base year inventory requirement, EPA can propose to approve the
base year inventory SIP as fulfilling the requirement of CAA section
172(c)(3) and if necessary CAA section 182(a) concurrently with the
maintenance plan.  

Furthermore, with respect to other subpart 2 requirements, for the
reasons indicated above, EPA believes it would be inequitable to
evaluate a redesignation request based on Subpart 2 requirements that
might apply in the future based upon a future, higher classification
under subpart 2.  If the Reading Area is classified under subpart 2 at
some point in the future, the base year inventory and emissions
statement requirements would apply to the area under any subpart 2
classification, and, whether or not Pennsylvania submitted a complete
redesignation request before what ever due date is established for these
two requirements is not an issue because EPA believes that Pennsylvania
has satisfied these two requirements.  As for any other subpart 2
requirements which may become due, EPA believes it would be especially
inequitable to evaluate a redesignation request based on retroactive
application of Subpart 2 requirements resulting from a higher
classification that might apply in the future based upon a higher
classification due to a future revision of the classification table for
the 8-hour standard.

c. Other Subpart 1 and 2 Requirements under Part D

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and
NSR requirements of part D 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.

In the case of the Reading Area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Reading Area need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program (under subpart 1 or 2) be approved prior
to redesignation.  First, 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.  The rationale
for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.''   See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at
12467-68); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469-70);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23, 2001); Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21, 1996).  

In the case of the Reading Area, the Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations
in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly
apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to ozone
attainment areas within the OTR.  Therefore, upon redesignation to
attainment, the Reading Area will become subject to Pennsylvania’s
Part D NSR applicable to attainment areas in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR).  The OTR requirements are more stringent than those required in
marginal, moderate or subpart 1 “basic” ozone nonattainment areas:
the OTR requirements are more stringent because a lower threshold for
what constitutes a major stationary source of VOC emissions is required
than that required in marginal, moderate or subpart 1 “basic” ozone
nonattainment areas and a higher offset ratio is required than that
required in marginal, or subpart 1 “basic” ozone nonattainment
areas.  The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP
explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to
attainment areas within the OTR.  Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP also imposes
the NSR requirements on major sources of NOx emissions as required by
section 182(f) of the CAA.  

On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania’s
NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 Part D NSR
regulations that cover the Reading Area.

All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment.  The
section 184 requirements include reasonably available control technology
(RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and Stage II
vapor recovery or a comparable measure.  In the case of the Reading
Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will be applicable
after redesignation.  On, October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully
approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision consisting of
Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the
Reading Area.  The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the
Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the requirements for NSR of section
184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR.  

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  See 61 FR
53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997 (Reading,
Pennsylvania Redesignation).  The rationale for this is based on two
considerations.  First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the
section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after
redesignation to attainment.  Therefore, the State remains obligated to
have NSR, as well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation.  Second,
the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not
apply to the area by virtue of the area's nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an
action changing an area's designation.  See 61 FR 53174 at 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).  

c. Conclusion

Thus, Pennsylvania has met all applicable part D requirements under the
8-hour standard for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.

3.  Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard 

a. Requirements under the 1-Hour Standard

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Reading Area was 1-hour maintenance area which had been a former
nonattainment area classified under subpart 2 as moderate nonattainment.
 

The Reading Area had been designated and classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard.  See 56 FR 56694 at 56822,
November 6, 1991.  On May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24826), EPA approved a request
to redesignate the Reading area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard and approved a maintenance plan SIP revision.  In order to
redesignate the area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA
determined that Pennsylvania had fulfilled all Part D requirements
applicable to the Reading Area as a consequence of its classification as
a moderate ozone nonattainment.  See Reading final (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997) and proposed rules (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996).

Furthermore, with respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard,
the Reading Area was an attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act
section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard.    SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 The Court’s ruling in South Coast does not impact
redesignation requests for these types of areas.  First, there are no
conformity requirements that are relevant for redesignation requests,
including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP. 
Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes
of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state
conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See 40
CFR 51.390.  See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation.  See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa,
FL redesignation).  

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Second, with respect to the other anti-backsliding
provisions for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not
properly retained, the Reading Area is an attainment area subject to a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR and contingency
measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.

Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter any requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.

One of the former moderate area elements, basic I/M, was part of
Pennsylvania’s contingency measures plan.  Pennsylvania’s January
25, 2007, maintenance plan SIP revision for the Reading Area amends the
approved 1-hour maintenance plan by removing I/M from the contingency
plan.  In December 2003, Pennsylvania implemented an OTR enhanced I/M
program in Berks County.  The January 25, 2007, maintenance plan SIP
revision removes this from the contingency plan portion of the approved
1-hour maintenance plan.  

c.  Conclusion

Thus, Pennsylvania has met all applicable part D requirements under the
1-hour standard for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.

4.  The Reading Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of
Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for the Reading Area under section 110(k) of the CAA.  EPA
may relay on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. 
See Calcagni Memo at p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein. 

The Reading Area was 1-hour maintenance area which had been a former
nonattainment area classified as moderate at the time of its designation
as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by the April 30, 2004
designations final rule (69 FR 23858).  Therefore, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.

C.  Was the Air Quality Improvement in the Reading Area is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting from
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions?

EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.  EPA approved
Pennsylvania’s SIP control strategy for the Reading Area, including
enforceable rules and the emissions reductions achieved as a result of
those rules.  Emission reductions attributable to these rules are shown
in Table 2.

Table 2:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 tons per day
(tpd)



Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 *	4.7	21.8	 8.4	20.1	55.0

2004 **	4.7	21.7	 8.1	17.0	51.5

Diff.(02-04)	0.0	  0.1	0.3	  3.1	  3.5

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 *	14.5	2.1	10.9	34.1	61.6

2004 **	 16.0	2.1	10.3	29.8	58.2

Diff (02-04)	-1.5	0.0	0.6	4.3	  3.4



*  The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
banked emission credits of 0.048 tpd (18 tons per year (tpy)) of VOC and
0.025 tpd (9.42 tpy) of NOX as indicated in Technical Appendix A-4 to
Pennsylvania’s SIP submission.

	**  The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked emission credits as indicated in Technical Appendix A-4
to Pennsylvania’s SIP submission.

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions the Reading Area decreased by 6.4
percent from 55.0 tpd to 51.5 tpd; NOx emissions decreased by 5.5
percent from 61.6 tpd to 58.2 tpd.  These reductions and anticipated
future reductions are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures:  

1.  Stationary Area Source Measures

Pennsylvania adopted revisions to the VOC requirements for solvent
cleaning operations in 25 Pa. Code section 129.63 that became effective
beginning on December 22, 2001.  For heated solvent cleaning machines,
in most respects, the provisions of section 129.63 reflect the
technology and operating requirements in the federal maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) requirements for solvent cleaning machines. 
The more important emission reduction component of the revised solvent
cleaning regulation was the requirement related to solvent vapor
pressure for solvent used in cold cleaning machines.  This component of
the revised solvent cleaning requirements resulted in an estimated 66
percent reduction of the VOC emissions from this category of sources. 
The provisions requiring the use of low vapor pressure solvents in cold
cleaning machines became effective on December 22, 2002.  The emission
reduction resulting from this requirement would be reflected in the 2004
inventory.  EPA approved the program on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2206).

Pennsylvania adopted a portable fuel container regulation, 25 Pa. Code,
Chapter 130, Subchapter A to address VOC loss resulting from permeation
through portable gasoline containers, evaporative loss through container
openings, and from spillage during the filling of small tanks on
machines such as lawn mowers, chain saws, jet skis, and the like.  These
regulations required that portable fuel containers manufactured after
January 1, 2003 for sale in Pennsylvania meet certain requirements.  (A
“sell–through” provision allowed the sale during 2003 of
containers manufactured before January 1, 2003).  The PADEP predicted
that the portable fuel container regulation would be fully phased in
over a 10-year period; i.e., approximately 10 percent of the existing
containers would be replaced each year.  Emission reduction estimates
for the program reflect this phased-in replacement of the containers. 
EPA approved the regulation on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70893).

2.  Highway Vehicle Sources

While VMT increased approximately four percent between 2002 and 2004,
highway vehicle emissions decreased.  These decreases can be
attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (an increased
proportion of cleaner (Federal Tier 1) light-duty vehicles in the fleet,
an increased proportion of cleaner heavy-duty highway vehicles (Federal
1998 + 2002/2004 standards) and implementation of the vehicle emissions
inspection program. 

The emission reductions from the programs covering fleet turnover are
permanent reductions.  The effects of fleet turnover between 2002 and
2004 (that is, more vehicles subject to tighter tailpipe standards
became part of Pennsylvania’s fleet) produced emission reductions
between 2002 and 2004. 

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAAA of 1990 include NOx
and VOC limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light-duty
gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards began to be phased in starting
in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were also reduced in
gasoline-powered cars starting with model year 1998. 

In 1999, more stringent new light-duty vehicle standards became
effective with the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program. 
Pennsylvania’s New Motor Vehicle Control Program regulations (25 Pa.
Code Chapter 126, subchapter D) were approved by EPA on December 28,
1999 (64 FR 72564).  These regulations allowed automobile manufacturers
to comply with NLEV instead of the incorporated California Low Emission
Vehicle (CA LEV) requirements through model year 2005.  These
regulations affected vehicles 6,000 pounds and less and were the ones in
effect for new motor vehicles in the baseline year, 2002.

In 1999, EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV, referred
to as the Tier 2 standards (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).  Tier 2 was
phased in beginning with the 2004 model year.  The new Motor Vehicle
Control Program (25 Pa. Code section 126, Subchapter D) adopted in 1998
includes the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program which incorporated the
CA LEV program by reference.  The regulation allowed automakers to
comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania
program until Model Year (MY) 2006.  In order to participate in NLEV,
Pennsylvania was required to adopt language that extended its
“commitment” to NLEV until MY 2006.  Because automobile
manufacturers had to comply with the more stringent regulations (NLEV
vs. Tier 2), the Federal Tier 2 program governs new vehicles sold in
Pennsylvania in the attainment year, 2004. 

EPA’s Tier 2 regulation also required the reduction of sulfur in
gasoline beginning in 2004.  In the first year of the program, sulfur
levels were capped at 300 ppm and annual refinery corporate averages
were limited to no more than 120 ppm.  This analysis used the default
assumptions provided in MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for
conventional fuel sold in the Reading Area.

EPA has promulgated national regulations for heavy-duty engines and
vehicles (over 14,000 pounds) (65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000), starting
with model year 2004.  In addition, a consent decree with the major
heavy-duty engine manufacturers required, among other terms, that diesel
engines made by these companies comply with these 2004 standards two
model years early, in model year 2002.  Pennsylvania includes these
programs, as provided in the MOBILE model for the base year 2002 and
2004.

In December 2003, Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program into the Reading Area.  The program
applies to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under, model years
1975 and newer.  For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program consists of an
annual on-board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure test.  For
subject vehicles 1995 and older, the program consists of an annual
visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are
present, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap
pressure test.  These regulations can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter
177.  Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program as a SIP
revision on December 1, 2003, and EPA approved the revision on October
6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

3.  Nonroad Sources

EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel-powered
(“compression ignition”) and gasoline-powered (“spark ignition”)
nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and applications (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).  Information on these federal rules, including
their implementation dates, can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nonroad"  www.epa.gov/nonroad .  PADEP used the
Federal control measure assumptions built into the NONROAD model
(NONROAD2005) to estimate emissions for all milestone years.  No control
programs were anticipated to affect aircraft and railroad locomotive
emissions between 2002 and 2004.  These programs are codified at 40 CFR
parts 89 to 91 and 1039, 1048 and 1051.  

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the
implementation of permanent and enforceable emission controls have
reduced local VOC and NOx emissions in the Reading Area.

III.  What is EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan for the Reading
Area?

A.  Background and General

1.  General Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA

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.  

Under section 175A(a) of the CAA, a maintenance plan must provide for
maintenance of the standard for at least ten years after the area is
redesignated to attainment.  Under section 175A(b), the SIP must revised
to provide for maintenance for a further ten-year period beyond the
initial 10-year period.  Under section 175A, the SIP must provide for
maintenance for a minimum of twenty (2) years after redesignation. 
Pennsylvania submitted the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan to also
fulfill Section 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
demonstrate maintenance until 2018 which is over twenty years after the
Reading Area’s 1997 redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.  This TSD will evaluate the maintenance plan in light of any
applicable requirements under section 175A with respect to both the
1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2.  Pennsylvania’s Maintenance Plan Submission

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Reading Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted for approval under section
175A of the CAA the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill
section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard as well as the
section 175A(b) requirement for a 1-hour maintenance plan.  
Pennsylvania submitted the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill
Section 175A(a) by demonstrating that the Reading Area: will maintain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation as
required by section 175A(a); and, will continue to maintain the 1-hour
NAAQS until 2018 which is a total of 21 years after the area was
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS as required by section
175A(b) of the CAA.  Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Reading Area meets the
applicable requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the
applicable 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards.

B.  What is the Attainment Inventory for the Reading Area?

An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.  The PADEP
determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year was 2004. 
That year establishes a reasonable year within the three-year attainment
period of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.  These
2004 levels of emissions are representative of attainment of both the
1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The 2004 inventory is consistent with
EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions
of VOC and NOx during 2004, and consists of a list of sources and their
associated emissions.  (See Table 5).  The Technical Appendices
submitted with this redesignation request contain more detailed
information for each sector on the emissions inventories required for
this redesignation. 

Table 5:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	NonRoad	Mobile	Total

VOC	4.7	21.7	 8.1	17.0	51.5

NOx	  16.0	2.1	10.3	29.8	58.2



To develop the NOx and VOC base-year emission inventories, PADEP used
the approaches and sources of data listed below.  More information on
the compilation of the 2002 base-year emissions inventory can be found
in the Appendices to this submittal. 

1.  Point Source Emissions

Pennsylvania requires larger facilities to submit annual production
figures and emission calculations each year.  Throughput data are
multiplied by emission factors from the Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE) Data System and are based on Source Classification Code (SCC). 
Each process has at least one SCC assigned to it.  If the facilities
provide more accurate emission data based upon other factors, this data
supersedes that calculated using SCC codes.  For the 2004 attainment
inventory, emissions from stationary point sources have been compiled
from the submissions described in the previous section for the
compilation of the 2002 base year.

2.  Stationary Area Source Emissions

Pennsylvania developed emissions from area sources using emission
factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary
point sources.  Emission factors may also be derived from research and
guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and
AP-42 factors.  Throughput estimates are derived from county-level
activity data, by apportioning national or statewide activity data to
counties, from census numbers, and from county employee numbers.  County
employee numbers are based upon North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are specific to the
industry covered.  More specific information on the procedure used for
each industry type is contained in Pennsylvania 2002 Area Source
Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimation Methods, (E.H. Pechan &
Associates, Inc., February 2004) which is contained in the Technical
Appendix.  For the 2004 attainment inventory, area sources were
projected from the 2002 inventory.  The factors used for the temporal
allocation of projections to 2004 from the 2002 baseline inventory were
provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association
(MARAMA), which is performing air quality modeling for the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic States.  

3.  On-Road Mobile Sources

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE6.2 to estimate
highway vehicle emissions.  The Reading Area’s highway vehicle
emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates
of VMT by vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information
specific to the Reading Area where appropriate.  The Reading Area
highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE6.2 and
PENNDOT estimates of VMT by vehicle type, and roadway type.  More
information on highway methods is available in the Technical Appendices
(Appendix C) of the submittal.  The estimates used information specific
to the Reading Area where appropriate. 

4.  Non-road  Sources

The 2002 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD
model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors.  NONROAD does not estimate emissions from
aircraft or locomotives.  For 2002 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  There are no
commercial aircraft operations in the Reading Area.  For 2002 aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operations
statistics from   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com  and
emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved
model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  The 2004
emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source categories were
estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD model estimates
emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and
compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types and includes
growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from
aircraft or locomotives. For 2004 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected
emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption information
and EPA emission and conversion factors.  There are no commercial
aircraft operations in the Reading Area.  For 2004 aircraft emissions,
PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operation statistics from 
 HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com , and emission
factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model,
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  Growth was calculated
using estimates of small airport activity from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)’s or APO terminal area forecast detailed report. 


C.  How is Maintenance Demonstrated?

On January 25, 2007, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required
by section 175A of the CAA.  The Reading Area’s maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and continued maintenance of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of
VOC and NOx remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emission levels
throughout the Reading Area through the year 2018.  A maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, Supra;
Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra.  See also 66 FR at 53099-53100;  68 FR at
25430-32.

Tables 6 and 7 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Reading Area
for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in
the 10-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 10-year maintenance period.

Table 6:  Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category	2004 VOC Emissions	2009 VOC Emissions	2018 VOC Emissions

Point 	 4.7	  3.4	  4.3

Area	21.7	21.6	24.0

Mobile*	17.0	13.1	 7.5

Non-road	  8.1	  6.7	  5.6

Total	51.5	44.8	41.4



*  Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

Table 7:  Total NOx Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category	2004 NOx Emission	2009 NOx Emissions	2018 NOx

Emissions

Point 	         16.0	16.8	19.2

Area	           2.1	  2.2	2.3

Mobile*	29.8	21.3	9.0

Non-road	10.3	  8.4	5.4

Total	58.2	48.7	35.9

	Totals may vary due to rounding.  See Appendices.

* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

2.  Summary of Control Measures

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

a. Stationary Point Sources

(i)  Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) --The Federal CAIR regulations (70
FR 25162, May 12, 2005) will transition from the NOx SIP Call electronic
generating unit regulations in 2009 and continue to ensure that large
electric generation facilities upwind of the area will maintain
background emissions at or below 2002 levels while any new facilities
locating within the area will be required to obtain both offsets and
allowances that will ensure ambient equivalence with regard to ozone
production potential.  Pennsylvania and other nearby States are required
to adopt a regulation implementing CAIR or its equivalent.  On April 28,
2006 (71 FR 23528), EPA promulgated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
to reduce the interstate transport of NOx and sulfur dioxides that
contribute significantly to nonattainment and maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  The electric generating units (EGUs) in the
CAIR-covered States will be regulated under the FIPs until revisions to
SIPs for the implementation of the CAIR requirements are approved by
EPA.  Because Pennsylvania did not adopt its own CAIR requirements and
submit them to EPA as a SIP revision by September 2006, the FIP remains
operative, imposing the Federal program upon CAIR-affected EGUs in
Pennsylvania.  Therefore, allowances for CAIR-regulated sources will be
limited to no more than the allowances issued pursuant to the FIP but
may purchase additional allowances under the cap-and-trade rule in the
FIP.  The Reading Area has one source that is directly regulated by
CAIR.  Pennsylvania conservatively estimated that CAIR would not result
in reduction at this facility.  However, CAIR will reduce the quantity
of ozone and ozone precursors transported from upwind areas and sources
into the Reading Area.

(ii) NOx SIP Call -- In response to the Federal NOx SIP Call rule,
Pennsylvania adopted NOx control regulations for large industrial
boilers and internal combustion engines, electric generating units, and
cement plants which became effective between May 1, 2002-2005 (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001).  While one affected source is located in the
Reading Area, Pennsylvania conservatively estimated that no net
reductions would occur at this facility.  Upwind reductions continue to
assist in maintaining the standard in the Reading Area.  

b.  Stationary Area Sources

(i) Portable Fuels - Pennsylvania adopted  a portable fuel container
regulation, 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 130, Subchapter A to address VOC loss
resulting from permeation through portable gasoline containers,
evaporative loss through container openings, and from spillage during
the filling of small tanks on machines such as lawn mowers, chain saws,
jet skis, and the like.  These regulations required that portable fuel
containers manufactured after January 1, 2003 for sale in Pennsylvania
meet certain requirements.  (A “sell–through” provision allowed
the sale during 2003 of containers manufactured before January 1, 2003).
 The PADEP predicted that the portable fuel container regulation would
be fully phased in over a 10-year period; i.e., approximately 10 percent
of the existing containers would be replaced each year.  Emission
reduction estimates for the program reflect this phased-in replacement
of the containers.  The regulation was submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision on March 26, 2003 and approved it on December 8, 2004 (69 FR
70893).

(ii) Consumer Products - The Pennsylvania consumer products regulation
applies statewide to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or
manufactures certain consumer products on or after January 1, 2005, for
use in the Commonwealth.  This rule includes general provisions, VOC
standards, provisions for exemptions, provisions for innovative
products, administrative requirements, reporting requirements,
provisions for variances, test methods, and provisions for alternative
control plans for consumer products.  The regulation was submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision on March 26, 2003, and approved on December 8,
2004 (69 FR 70895).

(iii) Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings - The
Pennsylvania architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings
rule applies statewide to any person who supplies, sells, offers for
sale, or manufacturers, blends or repackages an AIM coating for use
within the Commonwealth, as well as a person who applies or solicits the
application of an AIM coating within the Commonwealth.  The rule does
not apply to the following:  (1) any AIM coating that is sold or
manufactured for use outside the Commonwealth or for shipment to other
manufacturers for reformulation or repackaging; (2) any aerosol coating
product; or (3) any AIM coating that is sold in a container with a
volume of one liter (1.057 quarts) or less.  The rule sets specific VOC
content limits, in grams per liter, for AIM coating categories with a
compliance date of January 1, 2005.  Manufacturers ensure compliance
with the limits by reformulating coatings and substituting coatings with
compliant coatings that are already in the market.  The rule contains
VOC content requirements for a wide variety of field-applied coatings,
including graphic arts coatings, lacquers, primers, and stains.  The
rule also contains provisions for a variance from the VOC content
limits, which can be issued only after public hearing and with
conditions for achieving timely compliance.  In addition, the rule
contains administrative requirements for labeling and reporting.  There
are a number of test methods that would be used to demonstrate
compliance with this rule.  Some of these test methods include those
promulgated by EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management District of
California (SCAQM).  The methods used to test coatings must be the most
current approved method at the time testing is performed.  

The AIM program is contained in 25 PA Code Chapter 130, subpart C.  It
was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 3, 2003, with a
supplement submitted on October 19, 2004.  The program was approved by
EPA on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68080).

c.  Highway Vehicle Sources

Highway vehicle emissions of both VOC and NOx will continue to decrease,
as more vehicles subject to cleaner new car standards replace older
vehicles subject to less stringent new vehicle standards, and the fleet
as a whole emits fewer emissions, compensating for the increase in VMT. 


(i) Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs for Passenger Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks

In 2009 and 2018, vehicles manufactured to meet Federal standards
through Tier 0, 1, and 2 will still be in Pennsylvania’s fleet.

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAAA of 1990 include NOx
and VOC limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light-duty
gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards began to be phased in starting
in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were also reduced in
gasoline-powered cars starting with model year (MY) 1998.  

In 1998, under the authority of section 177 of the CAA, the Commonwealth
adopted the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (28 Pa.B. 5873, December
5, 1998).  The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by
reference emission standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks
identical to the low emission standards adopted by California, except
that it does not incorporate by reference the California zero emissions
vehicle (ZEV) or emissions control warranty systems statement
provisions.  

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the National Low
Emissions Vehicle (NLEV) program as a compliance alternative to the
Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles program.  The NLEV program became effective
in the OTR in 1999.  Pennsylvania’s New Motor Vehicle Control Program
regulations (25 Pa Code Sections 126.401-441) allowed automobile
manufacturers to comply with NLEV instead of the California Low Emission
Vehicle (CA LEV) program through MY 2005.  These regulations affected
vehicles 6,000 pounds and less and were the regulations in effect for
new motor vehicles in the baseline year, 2002.

In 1999, EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV (Tier 2)
(65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), starting with the 2004 MY.  In order to
participate in NLEV, Pennsylvania was required to adopt language that
extended its “commitment” to NLEV until MY 2006.  In practical
terms, the NLEV program was replaced for model year 2004 and later by
the more stringent Federal Tier 2 vehicle emissions regulations and
vehicle manufacturers operating the NLEV program became subject to the
Tier 2 requirements.  Therefore, this plan assumes that the Federal Tier
2 program governs new vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the attainment
year, 2004.  The incorporated CA LEV requirements are applicable in the
Commonwealth for MY 2006 and each model year thereafter.  The same
regulation required the reduction of sulfur in gasoline beginning in
2004.  In the first year of the program, sulfur levels were capped at
300 ppm and annual refinery corporate averages were limited to no more
than 120 ppm.  This analysis uses the default assumptions provided in
MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for conventional fuel sold in the
Reading Area

(ii) Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program for Passenger Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks

The New Motor Vehicle Control Program, which includes the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles Program, incorporated the California Low Emission Vehicle
:Program (CA LEV) by reference, which allowed automakers to comply with
the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania program until MY
2006.  Under the existing program, compliance with the CA LEV
requirements was required as of MY 2006.  Pennsylvania is currently
undergoing rulemaking to delay compliance with the Pennsylvania Clean
Vehicles Program until MY 2008.  Emissions for all maintenance plan
milestone years were estimated based on compliance with the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles Program according to the methodology described in section
7.4.1 of “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 for Emissions
Inventory Preparation,” published by EPA’s Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (OTAQ), in January, 2002.  This methodology is further
explained in Appendix C.  In order to provide conservative estimates of
emissions, Pennsylvania is assuming in its MOBILE modeling that the
Federal Tier 2 program applies to subject vehicles sold in Pennsylvania
from MY 2004 through MY 2007, and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program applies to subject vehicles sold in model year 2008 and beyond.

(iii) Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs

EPA promulgated more stringent national regulations for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles (over 14,000 pounds) starting with model year 2004
(65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000).  In addition, a consent decree with the
major heavy-duty engine manufacturers required, among other terms, that
diesel engines made by these companies comply with these 2004 standards
two model years early, in model year 2002.  Pennsylvania includes these
programs as provided in the MOBILE model.

In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control
Program for model years starting after May 2004.  The program
incorporates California standards by reference and requires model year
2005 and subsequent new heavy-duty highway engines to be those certified
by California.  California standards are more stringent than federal
standards for the two model years between expiration of the consent
decree discussed above and the implementation of more stringent federal
standards affecting model year 2007 and beyond.  However, EPA’s MOBILE
model already assumes that the engines would comply with consent decree
standards, even without an enforcement mechanism.  Pennsylvania has used
MOBILE defaults to calculate emissions from model year 2005 and 2006
highway engines.

EPA adopted new emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles
for model year 2007 and subsequent models (66 FR 5002, January 18,
2001).  For diesel engines, the standards will be phased in during model
years 2008 and 2009.  Federal and California standards are virtually
identical for model year 2007 and beyond; therefore, the emission
estimates use assumptions of the federal rule for these years.

Because the new engine standards are adversely affected by sulfur in
fuel, EPA will also be requiring most highway diesel fuel to contain no
more than 15 ppm of sulfur during the fall of 2006.  There is a
temporary compliance option allowing refiners to continue to produce up
to 20 percent of their highway diesel fuel at 500 ppm fuel. 
Pennsylvania uses MOBILE defaults to estimate the effects of the
phase-in provision.

(iv) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program

In December 2003, Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program into the Reading Area.  The program
applies to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under, model years
1975 and newer.  For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program consists of an
annual on-board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure test.  For
subject vehicles 1995 and older, the program consists of an annual
visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are
present, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap
pressure test.  Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program to
EPA as a SIP revision on December 1, 2003.  EPA approved the SIP
revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

d. Nonroad Sources

EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel-powered
(“compression ignition”) and gasoline-powered (“spark ignition”)
nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and applications (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).  Information on these federal rules can be found
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/nonroad"  www.epa.gov/nonroad . 
PADEP used the assumptions built into the nonroad model (NONROAD2005) to
estimate emissions for all milestone years.

No new national or international regulations are expected to be
applicable to aircraft during the maintenance period.  While EPA has
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking indicating their
consideration of more stringent standards for locomotives and large
commercial marine diesel engines, they have not finalized any new
standards.

EPA will also require diesel fuel used in most nonroad applications to
contain less sulfur.  The reduced sulfur will prevent damage to the
advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standards,
and will reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines. In 2007,
fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 parts per million (ppm) for
nonroad applications other than ocean-going marine vessels. In 2010,
fuel sulfur levels will be reduced to the same sulfur concentration as
in highway fuel, 15 ppm.  This requirement applies in 2012 to locomotive
and marine diesel fuel.

3.  Conclusion

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEQ has successfully demonstrated that the both the 8-hour ozone
standard and the 1-hour ozone standard should be maintained in the
Reading Area through 2018.  The January 25, 2007, Maintenance Plan
demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 11 years after
submission and maintenance for a total of 21 years after the area was
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  

D.  How Will the Monitoring Network Be Maintained?

There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Reading Area.  The
Commonwealth has committed to continue to operate its current air
quality monitoring network located in the Reading Area in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring.

E.  How Will Continued Attainment Be Verified?

In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program,
Pennsylvania requires ambient and source emissions data to track
attainment and maintenance.  The Commonwealth will track the attainment
status of the ozone NAAQS in the area by reviewing air quality and
emissions data during the maintenance period.  The Commonwealth will
perform an annual evaluation of two key factors:  VMT data and emissions
reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions
about these factors used in the maintenance plan.  The Commonwealth will
also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories
prepared under EPA’s Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40
CFR 51 subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory
(2004) by more than 10 percent.  Based on these evaluations, the
Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures
should be implemented.  

F.  What is the Contingency Plan in the Maintenance Plan? 

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 assure 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
measures 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 the Reading Area 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 Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and NOx emissions to decrease and stay
below 2004 levels through 2018, and lays out situations where the need
to adopt and implement contingency measures to further reduce emissions
would be triggered.  Those situations are as follows:  

 

(1)  If for two consecutive years, the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at a monitor in the Reading Area are above 84 ppb.  If
this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether
additional local emission control measures should be implemented in
order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard.  PADEP will
also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, State, and local
measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the
excessive ozone levels occurred.  PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures.

(2)  A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs—In the
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard at a monitor in the
Reading Area, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return
the Area to attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to be
considered for Lancaster will include, but not be limited to the
following:

Regulatory measures:

Additional controls on consumer products.

Additional controls on portable fuel containers.

Non-regulatory measures:

Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash” (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines).

Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel
use (for public or private local on-road or off-road fleets).

Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.

Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses,
and other freight handling facilities.

Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial
equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.

Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.

The following schedule applies to the implementation of the regulatory
contingency measures: 

Within 1 month of the trigger, submit a request to begin the regulatory
development process.

Within 3 months of the trigger, review by Air Quality Technical Advisory
Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), and other advisory
committees as appropriate.

Within 6 months of the trigger, Environmental Quality Board
meeting/action.

Within 8 months of the trigger, publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin for
comment     as proposed rulemaking.

Within 10 months of the trigger, public hearing takes place and comment
period on      proposed rule closes.

Within 11 months of the trigger, House and Senate Standing Committees
and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comment on proposed
rule.

Within 13 months of the trigger, AQTAC, CAC, and other committees review
responses to comments and draft final rulemaking.

 Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB meeting/action.

 Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC action on rulemaking.

 Within 18 months of the trigger, Attorney General’s review/action.

Within 19 months of the trigger, publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and submit to EPA as a SIP revision.  The
regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.

The following schedule applies to the implementation of non-regulatory
contingency measures:

 Within 2 months of the trigger, identify stakeholders for potential
non-regulatory measures.

 Within 3 months of the trigger, if funding is necessary, identify
potential sources of funding and the timeframe under which funds would
be available.  In addition to non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following
programs may be able to provide funding: the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA), as allocated to the Berks MPO for transportation
projects; the Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Program for energy efficiency
projects; the Small Business Advantage Grant and Small Business
Pollution Prevention Loan programs for projects undertaken by small
business and pollution prevention projects; the Alternative Fuel
Incentive Grant Program for projects which involve alternative fuel for
vehicles/refueling operations; the Energy Policy Act diesel reduction
funds for projects involving diesel emissions.

Within 6 months of the trigger, work with the Berks County Planning
Commission to identify land use planning strategies and projects with
quantifiable and timely emission benefits.  Work with the Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development and other State
agencies to assist in these measures.

Within 9 months of the trigger, enter into agreements with implementing
organizations if State loans or grants are involved.  Quantify projected
emission benefits.

Within 12 months of the trigger, submit a revised SIP to EPA.

Within 12-24 months of the trigger, implement strategies and projects.

G. What Are the 1-Hour Maintenance Plan Revisions and EPA’s Analysis
of These Revisions?

1.  Generally

In addition to demonstrating continued maintenance until 2018, the
January 25, 2007, maintenance plan also amends the February 3, 1997,
maintenance plan in the approved SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(e)(1)for the
Reading Area.  The contingency measures in the February 3, 1997
maintenance plan would be replaced by those in the January 25, 2007,
maintenance plan.  The contingency measure would be implemented only in
response to recorded exceedances or violation of the 8-hour ozone
standards and no longer tied to exceedances or violations of the 1-hour
ozone standard.

2.  Vehicle Inspection Maintenance Removed from Contingency Plan

One of the former moderate area elements, basic I/M, was part of
Pennsylvania’s contingency measures plan in the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan approved in the SIP for Reading Area in 40 CFR
52.2020(e)(1).  In December 2003, Pennsylvania commenced implementation
of an OTR enhanced I/M program in Berks County.  The maintenance
demonstration relies upon the OTR enhanced I/M program,. 
Pennsylvania’s January 25, 2007, maintenance plan SIP revision for the
Reading Area amends the approved 1-hour maintenance plan by removing I/M
from the contingency plan.  EPA believes that the January 25, 2007,
maintenance plan SIP revision has an adequate suite of contingency
measures.  Therefore, for these reasons, EPA believes that the
contingency measures plan for the Reading Area currently does not need
to contain a basic I/M program since the OTR enhanced program has been
implemented.  

The January 25, 2007, maintenance plan SIP revision substituted a new
suite of contingency measures to replace those in the 1-hour approved
maintenance plan.  Because as discussed in the previously the
maintenance plan submitted on January 25, 2007, is sufficient EPA can
approve this change.  

3.  Triggering Contingency Measures only on 8-Hour Ozone Violations

EPA believes that once EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Reading
Area that plan will ensure that the SIP for the Reading Area meets the
applicable requirements of the CAA including section 110(l) regarding
maintenance of the applicable ozone standard.  For the following
reasons, EPA believes that triggering the contingency provisions only
based only upon violations of the 8-hour standard is sufficiently
protective of health and the environment and will not interfere with any
applicable requirement such as those concerning attainment, reasonable
further progress towards attainment or maintenance. 

With regard to removal of the 1-hour  contingency measure triggers from
the maintenance plan , under 40 CFR 51.905(e) of the April 30, 2004,
Phase 1 final rule, EPA may approve a SIP revision requesting the
removal of the obligation to implement contingency measures upon a
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when the State submits and EPA
approves an attainment demonstration for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for an
area initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS or a
maintenance SIP for the 8-hour NAAQS for an area initially designated
attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS.  EPA believes the rationale of 
51.905(e) in relieving areas designated under the 8-hour standard of
their 1-hour maintenance plan triggers analogously applies to areas that
are being  redesignated  as attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to relieve the Reading Area of its
maintenance plan obligations with respect to implementing contingency
measures in the event of a violation of the 1-hour standard. 
Furthermore, to the extent that 40 CFR 51.905(e) of the Phase 1 final
rule may be  vacated  by the South Coast  decision, EPA believes there
is an alternate basis for allowing the Commonwealth  to remove the
1-hour triggers from the SIP-approved maintenance for the Reading Area. 
EPA has determined that the 8-hour NAAQS provides increased public
health protection as compared to the 1-hour ozone standard.  See 62 FR
at 38859 (July 18, 1997).  Because the 8-hour standard is more stringent
than the 1-hour standard, a maintenance plan with triggers tied to the
8-hour standard will be more protective of public health than a
maintenance plan with contingency measure triggers tied to the 1-hour
standard.  This greater protectiveness of the 8-hour standard provides
an additional justification for removing the 1-hour triggers from the
maintenance plan.

H.  What about the Second Maintenance Plan for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
under Section 175A(b)?

Section 175A(b) of the CAA will also require PADEP to submit a revision
to the SIP eight years after the original redesignation request is
approved to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Reading Area for an additional 10 years following the first 10-year
period.  PADEP has committed to meet the requirements under section
175A(b).

Approval of the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan will fulfill the
section 175A(b) requirement with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  

I.  What Is the Overall Result of EPA’s Analysis of the Maintenance
Plan?

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 Pennsylvania for the Reading Area meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act

IV. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the
Reading Area Plan and EPA’s Analysis of these Budgets?

A.  Background

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 motor vehicle emissions
budget(s) [MVEB(s)] for certain criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from on-road mobile sources.  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 contained
therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity.
 Under 40 CFR 93.118(e), EPA can issue such an affirmative finding of
adequacy in advance of final action on the SIP.  Or EPA can forgo
issuance of a separate finding by issuing the determination of the
adequacy of the MVEBs in the final action approving the SIP; this latter
course of action is used when action on the SIP is expected to be
completed in a timeframe comparable to the expeditious process for a
separate adequacy finding.  

After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs are adequate or
approves the MEVBs, those MVEBs must 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.

B.  What Are the MVEBs in the Reading Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Reading Area are listed in Table 3 below for the years
2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road mobile
sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs. 
These emission budgets, when approved (or deemed adequate) by EPA, must
be used for transportation conformity determinations.

Table 7:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Reading Area

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

2009 	13.1	21.3

2018	7.5	  9.0



C.  What is EPA’s Analysis of the MVEBs?

1.  What is a Safety Margin?

A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra emissions that can be
allocated as long as the total attainment level of emissions is
maintained.  The credit, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any
of the source categories.  (See Table 4)

PADEP is at this time preserving the entire difference between
attainment and projected maintenance year emissions to ensure continued
maintenance of the standard. 

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 were 51.5 tpd of VOC and 58.2 tpd of NOx. 
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and obtained totals of
40.4 tpd of VOC and 35.3 tpd of NOx from all sources in the Reading
Area.  The safety margin for the Reading Area for 2018 would be the
difference between these amounts.  This difference is 11.1 tpd of VOC
and 22.9 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 8 shows
the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 8:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Reading Area 

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

2004 Attainment	51.5	58.2

2009 Interim	43.8	48.1

2009 Safety Margin	 7.7	10.1

2004 Attainment	51.5	58.2

2018 Final	40.4	35.3

2018 Safety Margin	11.1	22.9



PADEP allocated 1.0 tpd) VOC and 0.6 tpd NOx to the 2009 interim VOC
projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOx projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs.  For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 1.0
tpd VOC and 0.6 tpd NOx from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the
2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions
of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be
allocated to any other source category.  Table 9 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for the Reading Area.

Table 9:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Reading Area tons per day
(rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions 	NOx Emissions 

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	12.1	20.7

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	1.0	 0.6

2009 MVEBs	13.1	21.3

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	 6.5	 8.4

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	 1.0	 0.6

2018 MVEBs	 7.5	 9.0



2.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Reading Area are approvable because the
MVEBs for NOx and VOC emissions continue to maintain the total emissions
at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the
transportation conformity regulations.  See “Technical Support
Document – Findings for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; 2009 and 2018
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Berks
County, Pennsylvania Ozone Nonattainment Area,” dated February 9,
2007, which is part of this docket.

3.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Reading Area’s Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Reading Area maintenance plan will be posted to
EPA’s conformity Website concurrently with the publication of the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the maintenance plan.  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 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 Reading Area’s 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 Reading Area
MVEBs will also be announced on EPA’s conformity Website:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq"  http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq , (once
there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for “Adequacy
Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”).

IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The Reading Area 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 the Reading Area be approved as fulfilling the
requirements of section 175A(a) of the CAA with respect to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and of section 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.  

I recommend that the Reading Area be redesignated to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.  I also recommend approving the 2002 base-year
inventory and the MVEBs for the Reading Area. 

V.  List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation 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 (CAA) 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.

•			“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.

•			“Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision,” Memorandum from Gay MacGregor, Director,
Regional and State Programs Division, May 14, 1999.

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

•	“Policy Guidance on the Use of Mobile6 for SIP Development and
Transportation 

	Conformity,” Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning 

	and Standards, and Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, 

	January 18, 2002.

•	“Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 SIPs in Mid-course
Review Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards,  and Leila Cook, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, February 12, 2003.

•	“Guidance for Determining the “Attainment Years” for
Transportation Conformity in New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas,” Memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski, Director, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, March 8, 2005.

•	“Complete Transportation Conformity Regulations that Incorporate
Recent Conformity Final Rule Amendments (through May 2005)” Reference
Document, May, 2005.

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

•		Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) 67 FR 39602, June 10,
2002.

•		“Emission Statement Requirement Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
Implementation,” 

		Memorandum from Thomas C. Curran, Director, Air Quality Assessment
Division, 

		March 14, 2006.

•		“Temporal Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
Profiles,” 

		Memorandum from Gregory Stella, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, 	

		April 29, 2002.

•		“Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter 

		NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005,
updated

		November 2005.

•		“Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base-Year Emissions
Inventories for Ozone 

		and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from John
Calcagni, 

		Director, Air Quality Management Division, and William G. Laxton,
Director, 

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

•		“2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning:  8-Hour Ozone,
PM 2.5 , and 

		Regional Haze Programs,” Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Director,
Air 

		Quality Strategies and Standards Division, and Peter Tsirigotis,
Director, Emissions, 

		Monitoring, and Analysis Division, November 18, 2002.

   This is how the site is identified in AQS.  However, perusal of any
commercially available street map will show that there is neither a
“Mongantown” road nor any intersection of Prospect Street and
“Mongantown” Road in the City of Reading.  There is an intersection
of Prospect Avenue and Morgantown Road (PA route 10).  Such information
can be verified using readily available on-line resources such as
MapQuest® (http://www.mapquest.com) or Live Search
(http://local.live.com/).

   Under the rules set forth in 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I thereto, the
design value is the average of the fourth daily high recorded values for
three consecutive years truncated after the third (3rd) significant
figure.  Thus, the three-year average of the fourth daily high values
for 2003 to 2005 is 0.0803333… which truncates to a design value of
0.080.

   On December 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. E.P.A., 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.
Cir. December 22, 2006), held that certain provisions of  EPA’s Phase
1 Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004)
violated the Clean Air Act.  

EPA’s interpretation in the final rule preamble regarding the
applicability of the NOx SIP Call under section 107 of the CAA was not
one of those provisions deemed in violation.

   As an area classified under subpart 1, a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of all emissions sources is a requirement under
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA but would not be an applicable requirement
for the purposes of redesignation because this submittal is due June 15,
2007 (under 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) which is after the date
Pennsylvania submitted the complete redesignation request and
maintenance plan.  EPA believes that a base year inventory meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) meets the requirements of section
172(c)(3).  Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or
amend reasonably available control techniques (RACT) for sources in
marginal and higher classified areas that were subject to control
technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November 15, 1990 pursuant to
CAA section 108.  EPA believes that this requirement applies only to
marginal and higher classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to
the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time
requirement.  After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the
8-hour NAAQS.  On December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994).  

 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States to submit
revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and
procedures for determining transportation conformity.  Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets
that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

   The Court’s ruling in South Coast also addressed the section 185
penalty fees provision for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas
but this provision never applied to the Reading Area which was formerly
classified as moderate under the 1-hour ozone standard.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   34 

 

