UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

Date: 		June 30, 2008									

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

	

FROM:	Melissa Linden   /s/    

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief  /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
Greene County, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (“the Greene
County Area” or “the Area”) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Also on January 25,
2007, in conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted as
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions a maintenance plan and a 2002
base-year inventory for the Greene County Area. On April 12, 2007, PADEP
formally submitted Appendix F to support the January 25, 2007 submittal.
 On May 23, 2008, PADEP formally submitted a revision of the methodology
used to project emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) for 2009 and 2018,
new emission amounts for the 2009 and 2018 in a chart and revised
portions of Appendices A. Table 2 of the May 23, 2008 submittal will
replace the NOx portion of Table 2-2 from the January 25, 2007 submittal
to reflect the alternative methodology. Appendix A-2 and A-3 of the
January 25, 2007 submittal is replaced by Appendix A-3 of the May 23,
2008 submittal to reflect the alternative methodology. The alternative
methodology is the Integrated Planning Model for future year Electrical
Generating Units (EGU) emission inventory can be found in Appendix A-1
with documentation of emissions from EGUs from the MANE-VU’s Regional
Haze Modeling in Appendix A-2 of the May 23, 2008 submittal. Appendix F
submitted on April 12, 2007 was not considered in the redesignation
because the values are not consistent with the change to the alternative
methodology made in the latest submission on May 23, 2008. The
maintenance plan will ensure continued attainment in the area for at
least ten years after the area is redesignated.

The Greene County Area consists of Greene County, Pennsylvania.  Prior
to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, Greene County
Area was an incomplete data/nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
nonattainment NAAQS.  See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

The Greene County Area was designated a subpart 1 or “basic” 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area in a final rule published on April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23858), based upon its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard
for ozone during the years 2001-2003.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990 provides 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. EPA Analysis of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Request

As identified above, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, 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.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Greene County Area

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area. The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average 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.  

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 Greene County
Area is attaining the ozone standard for the three-year period of 2003
through 2005 (see Table 1 below). The data collected at this 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 Greene County 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:  Greene County Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average
Values

Greene County Monitor, AQS ID 42-059-0002

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2003	0.083

2004	0.075

2005	0.085

2006	0.077

2007*	0.078

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.079ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2005 through 2007 is 0.080ppm

*data is currently uncertified in AQS

The air quality data for 2003-2005 shows that the Greene County Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.081 ppm and continues to
maintain the standard through the period 2005-2007 with a design value
of 0.080ppm. In addition, as discussed below, with respect to the
maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Pennsylvania (as well as data taken from the AQS)
indicate that the Greene County Area has attained and continues to
attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B.  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 Greene County Area has met all SIP
requirements for the purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (i.e., general SIP requirements), and that it meets all applicable
SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA (i.e., 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 Greene County Area, and determined that the applicable
portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under
section 110(k) of the CAA.  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.  Section 175A(c) of the CAA.  Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).  See also 68 FR at 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).

1. 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) of the CAA 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 Greene 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
redesignation) 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 I Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx
SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable requirement’ for
purposes of section 110(1) because the NOx rules apply regardless of an
area’s attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the
1-hour) NAAQS.”  69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). 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 Nonattainment Requirements Under the 1-Hour and 8-Hour
Standard

The Greene County Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the
8-hour ozone standard.  Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all
nonattainment areas.  As discussed previously because the Greene County
Area was designated incomplete data/nonattainment under the 1-hour
standard, there are no outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area
requirements it would be required to meet.  Thus, we find that the
Court’s ruling does not result in any additional 1-hour requirements
for purposes of redesignation.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA notes that the Court’s ruling
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 under subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that
redesignation of the area 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.

At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Greene County
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);  Sierra Club v EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004)
(which upheld this interpretation);  68 FR 25418, 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 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 that was past the statutory due
date.  Such a detetmination 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
plan 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 resedignation additional SIP requirements
under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request. 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that
Pennsylvania’s SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D
of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request for the Greene County Area.  Because the
Commonwealth submitted a complete redesignation request for the Greene
County Area prior to the deadline for any submissions required under the
8-hour standard, we have determined that the Part D requirements do not
apply to the Greene County Area for the purposes of redesignation.  

In addition to the fact that no Part D requirements applicable under the
8-hour become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, 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 EPA to promulgate.

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) since State conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules
apply where State rules have not been approved.  See, Wall v. EPA, 265
F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See
also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

In the case of the Greene County Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Greene County Area need not comply with
the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation. 
Additionally, Pennsylvania’s preconstruction permitting program
regulations in Chapter 127.200-217 of the Pennsylvania Code (approved
into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)), apply only to ozone nonattainment
area sources that are located in areas classified as marginal or worse,
i.e., to subpart 2 nonattainment areas.  Pennsylvania’s NSR
regulations do not apply to sources in nonattainment areas classified as
basic nonattainment under subpart 1.  Consequently, sources in the
Greene County Area is subject to Part D NSR requirements of Appendix S
to 40 CFR part 51, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k).  Appendix S of 40 CFR
part 51 contains the preconstruction permitting program that applies to
major stationary sources in nonattainment areas lacking an approved Part
D NSR program.  Appendix S applies during the interim period after EPA
designates an area as nonattainment, but before EPA approves revisions
to a SIP to implement the Part D NSR requirements for that pollutant. 
See, 70 FR 71618 (November 29, 2005).  The Chapter 127 Part D NSR
regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply to attainment areas
within an Ozone Transport Region (OTR).  See, Chapter 127 in 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1); see,66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001.  Therefore, after the
Greene County Area is redesignated to attainment, sources in the Greene
County Area will be subject to Part D NSR applicable under the
permitting regulations in Chapter 127, because the Greene County Area is
located in the OTR. 

All areas in the 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 Greene County Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation. 
On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved the 1-hour
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the Greene County 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 the
NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  
The rational for this is based on two factors.  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, even after
redesignation.  Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the Greene County Area by virtue of the
area’s designation and classification.  Rather, section 184 measures
are required in the Greene County Area because it is located in the OTR.
 See, 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826,
24830-32 (May 7, 1997).

3.  The Greene County Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of
Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for the Greene County area under section 110(k) of the
CAA.  EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request.  Calcagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir.1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein.  Because the Greene County Area was a
1-hour nonattainment area, the only previous Part D SIP submittal
requirement was the RACT corrections due under section 182(a)(2)(A)
which are fully approved (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994). Also, no Part
D submittal requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the
8-hour maintenance plan for the area.  Therefore, all Part D submittal
requirements have been fulfilled.  Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of
the Greene County Area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements.  As indicated previously, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.  EPA also
believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation have yet become due for the Greene County Area, and thus
need not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.

The Air Quality Improvement in the Greene County 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 Greene County Area is due to permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.  Emission reductions
from these rules for the period between 2002 and 2004 are shown in Table
2.

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway 

Mobile	Total

2002	1.9	1.9	1.3	2.4	7.5

2004	1.9	1.9	1.2	2.1	7.1

Difference*

(2002-04)	0.0	0.0	-0.1	-0.3	-0.4

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway Mobile	Total

2002	64.0		0.2	4.7	4.1	72.9

2004	53.7	0.2	4.5	3.6	62.0

Difference* (2002-04)	-10.3	0.0	-0.2	-0.5	-10.9

* Totals may not add due to rounding

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 0.4 tpsd, from 7.5
tpsd to 7.1 tpsd.  Emissions of NOx decreased over the same period by
10.9 tpsd, from 72.9 tpsd to 62.0 tpsd.  Overall VOC emissions decreased
by 5.3 percent between 2002 and 2004, and NOx decreased by 14.9 percent
over the same period.

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

These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the
following permanent and enforceable measures:

1. Stationary Point Sources

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.  In response to the NOx SIP
Call rule, Pennsylvania and other covered states adopted NOx control
regulations for large industrial boilers and internal combustion
engines, electric generating units, and cement plants.  The regulation
covering industrial boilers and electric generators required emission
reductions to commence May 1, 2003, while the regulation covering large
internal combustion engines and cement plants required emission
reductions to commence May 1, 2005.  

Stationary Area Source Measures

Solvent Cleaning Operations.  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).

Portable Fuel Containers.  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, etc.  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 ten-year period; i.e., approximately ten 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).

3.  Highway Vehicle Sources

Even with increases in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) that PADEP expects
to occur from 2004 to 2018, highway emissions of both VOC and NOx will
continue to decrease.  These decreases can be attributable to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs for new vehicles, including: 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+ and 2002/2004 model year standards), and
enhancement of the prior vehicle emissions inspection program.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.  The emission reductions
resultant from fleet turnover from older, higher polluting old vehicles
to new, cleaner vehicles are permanent reductions.  The effect of fleet
turnover between 2002 and 2004 produced emission reductions between 2002
and 2004. 

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAA include NOx and VOC
limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light-duty gasoline
trucks (LDGTs).  These tailpipe standards began to be phased in starting
in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions standards followed
beginning in model year 1998 for gasoline-powered cars. 

In 1999, more stringent standards under the National Low Emission
Vehicle (NLEV) Program became effective.  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 SIP-approved California Low Emission Vehicle (CA LEV)
requirements through model year 2005.  These regulations affected
light-duty vehicles under 6,000 pounds.  Vehicles were manufactured to
this NLEV standard in the baseline inventory year, 2002.

In 1999, EPA promulgated Federal Tier 2 light-duty standards (65 FR
6698, February 10, 2000), which were more stringent than NLEV.  Tier 2
standards took effect beginning in model year 2004.  Pennsylvania’s
Clean Vehicle Program (25 Pa. Code section 126, Subchapter D) was
adopted in 1998, and incorporated CA LEV standards as a backstop.  The
Commonwealth’s Clean Vehicle Program regulation allowed compliance by
automakers with NLEV standards as an alternative to CA LEV standards,
until model year 2006.  In adopting its Clean Vehicle Program
regulation, Pennsylvania had extended a commitment to NLEV standards
until model year 2006.  However, when EPA promulgated Tier 2 standards,
they usurped NLEV standards, becoming the more stringent regulation for
compliance by manufacturers.  Federal Tier 2 standards governed new
vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the attainment year, 2004. 

EPA’s Tier 2 regulation also required a 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 Greene County 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.

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program.   In November 2003,
Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection program to include a
visual inspection of pollution control components in the 42 counties not
subject to an I/M program – including Greene County Area.
Pennsylvania’s revised safety inspection regulation can be found in 67
Pa. Code Chapter 175.  Pennsylvania submitted that portion of the
amended safety inspection program as a revision to its State
Implementation Plan on December 1, 2003.  EPA approved the SIP revision
on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

4.  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.  

Maintenance Plan for the Greene County Area

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in the area for at least ten 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. 

1. Attainment Inventory (2004)

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, the
mid-year of the three-year monitoring period for which the NAAQS has
been met.  The attainment year inventory serves as a baseline and
accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.  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 3).  

Table 3:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpsd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway Mobile	Total

VOC	1.9	1.9	1.2	2.1	7.1

NOx	53.7	0.2	4.5	3.6	62.0



2.  Base Year Inventory (2002)

An emissions inventory for the base year, 2002, was developed, per EPA
guidance.  

For 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 January 25, 2007 maintenance plan SIP submittal. On
May 23, 2008, PADEP formally submitted a revision of the methodology
used to project emissions for 2009 and 2018, new emission amounts for
the 2009 and 2018 in a chart for NOx and revised portions of Appendices
A-2 and A-3, Emissions for Stationary Point Sources used to project the
stationary point source emissions to 2009 and 2018.  

Point Source Emissions

The DEP collects individual emissions-related information from sources
for its point source inventory.  Generally, these represent major
sources.  For the 2004 attainment inventory, emissions from stationary
point sources have been compiled from the submissions made by the
facilities for calendar year 2004.  

Stationary Area Sources

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 Technical
Appendix B. 

Highway Mobile Sources 																				

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. In addition, Pennsylvania uses a MOBILE pre-
and post-processing software package called PPSUITE to process and
compile Pennsylvania’s robust highway network and detailed highway
vehicle data.  Pennsylvania’s methodology is consistent with the
January 2002 guidance published by EPA’s Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (OTAQ) entitled “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE 6
for Emissions Inventory Preparation.”  Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) supplied estimates of vehicles miles traveled
(VMT) by vehicle type and roadway type.  Highway vehicle emissions in
2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of VMT by
vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information specific
to the Greene area where appropriate.  More information on highway
methods is available in Technical Appendixes C of the January 25, 2007
state submittal.			

		

Non-road Mobile Sources

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 nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions
from aircraft or locomotives.  For 2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  Emissions from
commercial aircraft are estimated using EPA-approved Emissions &
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  Growth was estimated using estimates
of future operations at Lehigh Valley International Airport in Greene
from the FAA APO Terminal Areas Forecast Detailed Report.  Small
aircraft emissions were calculated by using small airport operations
statistics, which can be found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com" 
www.airnav.com  and the Federal Aviation Administration’s APO Terminal
Area Forecast Detailed Report.  See Technical Appendix D of the January
25, 2007 SIP.

3.  Maintenance Demonstration 

												

On January 25, 2007 the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required
by section 175A of the CAA.  The Greene County Area maintenance plan
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that
current and future emissions of VOC and NOx remain at or below the
attainment year 2004 emission levels throughout the Greene County 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 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Greene County
Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an intermediate in
the ten-year maintenance demonstration period year to be used for
regional ozone modeling studies in order to demonstrate that projected
VOC and NOx emissions will not increase to levels above the 2004
attainment level during the time of the ten-year maintenance period. 
Table 5 values reflect the alternative methodology submitted in the May
23, 2008 submittal.		

Table 4:  Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)

Source Category	2004	2009	2018

Point 1	1.9	1.9	2.2

Area	1.9	1.7	1.7

Highway 2	2.1	1.6	1.0

Nonroad Mobile	1.2	1.0	0.8

Total*	7.1	6.1	5.6

*Totals may vary due to rounding. 			

				

Table 5:  Total NOx Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)

Source Category	2004 	2009 	2018 

Point	23.7	21.0	23.0

Area	0.2	0.2	0.2

Highway Mobile	3.6	2.6	1.3

Nonroad Mobile	4.5	4.1	3.6

Total*	62.0	27.9	28.1

* Totals may not add due to rounding. 

4. Permanent, Enforceable Control Measures for Maintenance

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

Stationary Point Sources

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. 
PADEP used EGAS to estimate emissions from CAIR-affected units for the
Greene County Area.

Interstate Pollution Transport/NOx SIP Call.  In response to the NOx SIP
Call rule, Pennsylvania adopted NOx control regulations for large
industrial boilers and internal combustion engines, electric generating
units, and cement plants.  The regulation covering industrial boilers
and electric generators required emission reductions to commence by May
1, 2003, while the regulation covering large internal combustion engines
and cement plants required emission reductions to commence by May 1,
2005.  

Stationary Area Sources

Portable Fuel Containers.  PADEP adopted a portable fuel container
regulation, 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 130, Subchapter A to address VOC
emissions resulting from permeation through portable gasoline
containers, evaporative loss through container openings, and from
spillage during the filling of small tanks on machines (e.g., lawn
mowers, chain saws, jet skis, etc.).  This regulation requires portable
fuel containers manufactured after January 1, 2003 for sale in
Pennsylvania to meet certain requirements (a “sell–through”
provision allowed the sale through 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).

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).

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 codified at 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).

Highway Vehicle Sources

Highway motor 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. 
Emissions will continue to decrease, even with increases in VMT
projected between 2004 and 2018.  The decreasing levels of emissions are
attributable to the following programs:  

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs For Passenger Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks.

In 2009 and 2018, vehicles manufactured to meet federal emissions
standards effective for model years 1990 to the present (i.e., Tier 0,
Tier 1, and Tier 2) will continue to comprise a significant portion of
Pennsylvania’s vehicle fleet.

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established under the CAA include NOx and VOC
emissions limits for newly manufactured light-duty gasoline vehicles
(LDGVs) and light-duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards were
phased in beginning in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were
also reduced in gasoline-powered cars under EPA’s on-board vapor
recovery (OBVR) standards beginning with model year 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) standards or emissions control warranty provisions.  

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the National Low
Emission Vehicle program as a compliance alternative to the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles program.  The NLEV program became effective in the OTR in
1999.  Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program regulations (25 Pa Code
Sections 126.401-441) allowed automobile manufacturers to comply with
NLEV in lieu of the California Low Emission Vehicle program through
model year 2005.  NLEV standards applied to vehicles 6,000 pounds and
less, and were the regulations in effect for new motor vehicles in the
Commonwealth’s maintenance plan baseline (2002) inventory.

In 1999, EPA promulgated its Tier 2 standards regulation that was more
stringent than NLEV (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).  Tier 2 standards
were phased in beginning in model year 2004.  While Pennsylvania was
required to adopt language that extended its “commitment” to NLEV
until MY 2006, in practical terms, the NLEV program was replaced in
model year 2004 by the more stringent Tier 2 standards.  Tier 2
standards governed new vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the maintenance
plan attainment (2004) inventory.  Beginning in model year 2008, the
Clean Vehicle Program established CA LEV standards as the applicable
program.

The federal Tier 2 regulations also required a reduction of sulfur in
gasoline beginning in 2004.  In 2004, gasoline 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
Greene County Area.

Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program for Passenger Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks

The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program, described above, incorporated
the California Low Emission Vehicle Program by reference, but allowed
automakers to meet federal NLEV standards as a compliance alternative
until MY 2006.  Pennsylvania revised its Clean Vehicle Program
regulation (25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 126) on December 9, 2006 (36 Pa.
B. 7424), delaying implementation of CA LEV standards in Pennsylvania
until model year 2008.  Pennsylvania submitted the revised Clean Vehicle
Program as a SIP revision to EPA on May 31, 2007. 

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 assumed in its
maintenance plan MOBILE modeling that the federal Tier 2 program applied
from MY 2004 through MY 2007, and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program (i.e., CA LEV standards) apply in model year 2008 and beyond.

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.

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.

EPA requires reduced sulfur levels in diesel fuel to prevent damage to
advanced emission control aftertreatment systems needed to reduce fine
particulates to meet stricter exhaust standards.  Beginning Fall 2007,
nonroad diesel 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.

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard
should be maintained in the Greene County area.

5.  Monitoring Network

There is one monitor located in the Greene County Area. This monitor was
used in support of the Commonwealth’s ozone maintenance plan for the
Greene County Area.  The Commonwealth has committed to continue to
operate its monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

6.  Verification of Continued Attainment

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.  PADEP 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, PADEP will consider
whether any further emission control measures should be implemented.  

7.  Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures

The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  Section 175A of
the CAA 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 Greene County 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:  

a. If for two consecutive years, the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the Greene County Area monitor is above 84 ppb.   If
this trigger point occurs, the PADEP will evaluate whether additional
local emission control measures should be implemented in order to
prevent a violation of the air quality standard.  PADEP will analyze the
conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what
measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone
levels.  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.

b. 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 occurs at the Greene County
Area monitor, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return
the area to attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to be
considered for the Greene County Area 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 2 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: 

for transportation projects, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), as
allocated to the Greene County area MPOs.  Discussions will be held with
PENNDOT and the Greene County area MPOs to ensure that emission credits
could be allocated for attainment purposes, rather than for
transportation conformity.

for projects which also have an energy efficiency co-benefit, the
Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Program.

for projects which would be undertaken by small business and are
pollution prevention projects, the Small Business Advantage Grant and
Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs.

for projects which involve alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling
operations, the Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant program.  

For projects involving diesel emissions, the Federal Energy Policy Act
diesel reduction funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for which
Pennsylvania or project sponsors may apply under a competitive process.

Within 9 months of the trigger - if state loans or grants are involved,
enter into agreements with implementing organization (business, local
government, transit companies, non-profit entities, etc.)  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.

Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires PADEP to submit a revision to the
SIP eight years after the original redesignation request is approved to
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS in the Greene County area for an
additional 10 years following the first 10-year period.  PADEP has
committed to meet the requirements under section 175A(b).

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 Greene County area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA

E.  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the Greene County Area
Plan

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 budgets
(MVEBs) 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.
 After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects
“conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA’s substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).  EPA’s process for determining
“adequacy” consists of three basic steps:  public notification of a
SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA’s adequacy finding. 
This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was
initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.”  This guidance was finalized in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for
Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments – Response
to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004).  EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.

The MVEBs for the Greene County Area are listed in Tables 6 and 7 below
for the years 2009 and 2018, as are the projected emissions for the
on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated
to the MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be
used for transportation conformity determinations.  

F.  What is a Safety Margin?

A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.  

The following example is for the 2018 safety margin for the Greene
County Area. The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and
mobile non-road sources in 2004 for the Greene County Area equaled 7.1
tpsd of VOC and 62.0 tpsd of NOx.  The PADEP projected total emissions
out to the year 2018 of 5.6 tpsd of VOC and 28.1 tpsd of NOx from all
sources in the Greene County Area.  The safety margin for 2018 would be
the difference between these amounts, or 1.5 tpsd of VOC and 33.9 tpsd
of NOx.  The emissions up to the level of the attainment year, including
the safety margins, are projected to maintain the area's air quality
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels
are maintained at or below the attainment levels.  Table 6 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 6:  Safety Margins for Greene County Area (2009 & 2018)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpsd)	NOx Emissions (tpsd)

2004 Attainment	7.1	62.0

2009 Interim	6.1	27.9

2009 Safety Margin	1.0	34.1

2004 Attainment	7.1	62.0

2018 Final	5.6	28.1

2018 Safety Margin	1.5	33.9



Greene County Area MVEB 

The PADEP allocated 0.06 tpsd of VOC and 0.08 tpsd of NOx of the 2009
safety margin to Greene County Area.

The PADEP allocated 0.02 tpsd of VOC and 0.03 tpsd of NOx of the 2018
safety margins to Greene County Area.

Once allocated to the budgets these portions of the safety margins are
no longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source
category.  Tables 7 show the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Greene
County Area.

Table 7: Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Greene County Area (2009
& 2018)*

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpsd)	NOx Emissions (tpsd)

2009 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	1.55	2.53

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.06	0.08

2009 MVEBs	1.61	2.62

2018 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	0.93	1.25

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.02	0.03

2018 MVEBs	0.95	1.29

	* PADEP calculates MVEBS using kilograms per summer day, and converts
the values to tons per summer day for informational purposes.  This may
appear to make the totals in the table incorrect, but is merely the
result of the rounded tpsd values.

G.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

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

H.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Greene County Area Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Greene County Area maintenance plan are being posted
to EPA’s conformity website concurrent with this proposal.  The public
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period
for this proposed rule.  In this case, EPA is concurrently processing
the CAA on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs
contained therein.  In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the
MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the
maintenance plan.  The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.

If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Greene County Area 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 Greene County
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA’s conformity Web site:   
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”).

III. Conclusions and Recommended Agency Action:

The Greene County Area has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that
satisfies section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment.  The Greene County Area has also attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I
recommend that the maintenance plan for the Greene County Area be
approved and that the area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  I also recommend approval of the 2002 base-year inventory
and the MVEBs for the Greene County Area.

IV. 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.

	

 On December 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
South Coast Air Quality Management District v EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.D.
Cir. December 22, 2006), held that certain provisions of EPA’s Phase I
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.

 Does not include banked emissions as indicated in Appendix A.

2 Includes transportation conformity safety margin as described in
Section E of PA DEP Maintenance Plan submitted January 25, 2007.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   28 

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber
and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

 

