UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document – Pennsylvania; Redesignation to
Attainment of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, PA-OH 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area and Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan and
2002 Base-Year Inventory

FROM:	Amy Caprio /s/ 7/5/07

		Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Christopher Cripps for Makeba Morris, Chief  /s/ 7/6/07

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On March 27, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Mercer County portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon (the “Youngstown
Area”) nonattainment area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  The Youngstown Area is comprised
of Mercer County, Pennsylvania and Columbiana, Trumbull, and Mahoning
Counties, Ohio.  Also on March 27, 2007, in conjunction with its
redesignation request, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for Mercer
County, along with a 2002 base-year inventory, as SIP revisions.  The
maintenance plan will ensure continued attainment in the Youngstown Area
for at least ten years after the Youngstown Area is redesignated. 
Please note that in a separate rulemaking action (72 FR 19435, April 18,
2007) EPA proposed to approve the ozone redesignation request for
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties.

On January 17, 1995 (60 FR 3349), EPA determined that the Youngstown
Area had attained the 1-hour standard by its attainment date of November
1994.  Mahoning and Trumball Counties, Ohio were redesignated as
attainment on January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3319); Columbiana County, Ohio was
redesignated as attainment on February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7453).  The
Youngstown 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 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:  (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
March 27, 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 Youngstown Area

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 2004-2006.  There are four monitors in the Youngstown Area that
measure air quality with respect to ozone.  The monitors are located in
the following counties:  Mercer County, Pennsylvania (42-085-0100),
Mahoning County, Ohio (39-099-0013), and Trumbull County, Ohio
(39-155-0009 and 39-155-0011).  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 Youngstown Area is attaining the ozone standard for
the most recent three-year period of 2004 through 2005 (see Tables 1-4
below).  The data collected at the ozone monitors 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 Mercer County 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:  Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Mercer County, Pennsylvania Monitor/AQS ID 42-085-0100 

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.076

2005	0.087

2006	0.079

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



Table 2:  Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Mahoning County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-099-0013 

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.074

2005	0.083

2006	0.076

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.077 ppm



Table 3:  Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Trumbull County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-155-0009 

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.078

2005	0.083

2006	0.074

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.078 ppm



Table 4:  Youngstown Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Trumbull County, Ohio Monitor/AQS ID 39-155-0011

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.080

2005	0.087

2006	0.082

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.083 ppm



The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the Youngstown Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.083 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 after a review of the certified
2006 data.  In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and data taken from the AQS indicates that the Youngstown
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
exceedances over a three-year period is less than or equal to 1.  With
respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on January 17, 1995 (60 FR 3349), EPA
determined pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA that the Youngstown
Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1993.  

In summary, for the period 2003 through 2005, EPA believes that the
Youngstown 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 Youngstown Area in
2006.

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 Mercer County has met all 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
Mercer County, 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
Calgani, 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) 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 is relevant when evaluating 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.  Mercer County 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 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).

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.

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”).  On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified that the
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule
that had been successfully challenged.  Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of  Title I,  part D of the Act as 8-hour  nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain
effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the Court’s rejection of
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2.  By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged.  The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had 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) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of 
federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the Court’s
reference to conformity requirements were limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.  Elsewhere
in this document EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in South
Coast is not an impediment to redesignating the Erie Area to attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  

The CAA, title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1
and subpart 2 –that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas.  Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic”
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a
NAAQS.  Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified”
nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.  In 2004, the Youngstown Area was classified a
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring
data from 2001-2003.  Therefore, the Youngstown Area is subject to the
requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.

Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the
3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered).  See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information.  Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements.  The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.  The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Youngstown Area has a design value of
0.083 ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using complete,
quality-assured data.  Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Youngstown Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.  

1.  Section 110 General SIP Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOx SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).  However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area’s designation and classification in that State.  EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request.  The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the State.  Thus, we do
not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.  

In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation.  The Youngstown 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 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, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

 

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

2.  Part D Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the Youngstown
Area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 1 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 applicable to
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.  

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 With respect to the 8- hour standard, 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 area 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
redesignation requests 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
Youngstown Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
only 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.  See 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.  See 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 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.   

In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.    

With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of
the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure
that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP.  The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). 
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.  EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section
107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have
not been approved.  See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation.  See also, 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995).

In the case of the Youngstown Area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Youngstown Area need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation.  EPA
has 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.''  Normally, State’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will become
effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment.  See
the more detailed explanations in the following redesignation
rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI
(61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).  In the case of the Erie 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.  The
OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a
marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area.  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
Erie Area.  

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the
NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of 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 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs even after
redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the Youngstown Area by virtue of the
Area’s designation and classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997). 

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

In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to
uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were
not successfully challenged.  Therefore the Area must meet the federal
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by virtue of the area's classification
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  As set forth in more detail below, the area
must also address four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified
by the Court in its decisions.  										

The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour
ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.  Section
51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:

The area remains subject to the obligation to adopt and implement the
applicable requirements as defined in section 51.900(f), except as
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of paragraph (b) of this section. * *
*

Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states that: 

Applicable requirements means for an area the following requirements to
the extent such requirements applied to the area for the area's
classification under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS
at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.

		

(1)  Reasonably available control technology (RACT).

(2)  Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M).

(3)  Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.

(4)  Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.

(5)  Stage II vapor recovery.

(6)  Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA.

(7)  Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.

(8)  Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours
as 

provided section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.

(9)  Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.

(10)  Transportation control measures (TCMs) under section 182(c)(5) of
the CAA.

(11)  Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of
the CAA.

(12)  NOx requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA.

(13)  Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under section
51.905(a)(1)(ii).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the Area is subject to the obligations set
forth in 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).  

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Youngstown Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the
1-hour standard.  With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements under the anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) for the Youngstown Area are limited to RACT and I/M
programs specified in section 182(a) of the CAA and are discussed in the
following paragraphs:  

Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for
sources in marginal areas, such as the Youngstown Area, that were
subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November
15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108.  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).  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. 

Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt
vehicle I/M programs.  This provision was not applicable to the
Youngstown Area because this area did not have and was not required to
have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.

In addition the Court held that EPA should have retained four additional
measures in its anti-backsliding provisions: (1) nonattainment area NSR
; (2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3) contingency measures under section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act; and (4) 1-hour motor vehicle emission
budgets that were yet not replaced by 8-hour emissions budgets.  These
requirements are addressed below:

With respect to NSR, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated
need not have an approved nonattainment NSR program, for the same
reasons discussed previously with respect to the applicable Part D
requirement for the 8-hour standard.  

The section 185 penalty fee requirement was not applicable in the
Youngstown 1-hour marginal nonattainment area.  

With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures
for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency
measures for marginal areas

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The conformity portion of the Court’s ruling
does not impact the redesignation request for the Youngstown Area except
to the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for
those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires that those
1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets.  To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 4.  Transport Region
Requirements

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 Youngstown Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation. 
On October 19, 2001, EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP revision for the
area.  See 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001).   

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  Reading, PA
Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7,
1997).  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, 53175-6
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).  

5.  Mercer County Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for Mercer County 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 Mercer County was a 1-hour
marginal 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 Mercer County.  Therefore, all Part D submittal
requirements have been fulfilled.  Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of
Mercer County, 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 Mercer County, and therefore they
need not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.

C.  The Air Quality Improvement in Mercer County 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 throughout the Youngstown Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures.  Emission reductions attributable to these rules are shown in
Table 5.  

Table 5:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in tons per
summer day (tpsd)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Pennsylvania	Ohio	Total

2002*	20.8	70.5	91.3

2004	19.0	64.6	83.6

Difference (02-04)	-1.8	-5.9	-7.7

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 

Year	Pennsylvania	Ohio	Total

2002*	25.5	95.5	121.0

2004	22.4	82.5	104.9

Difference (02-04)	-3.1	-13.0	-16.1

*  This does not include banked emissions included in Appendix A-4. 
Banked emissions sources in Mercer County are as follows: (1) Capraro
Steel/Farrell Plant, NOx emissions of 36.73 tons per year (tpy); (2)
Caparo Farrell Plant, VOC emissions of 12.07 tpy; and (3) Trinity
Industries/Greenville, VOC emissions of 61.65 tpy.  

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by a total of 7.7 tpsd
from 91.3 tpsd to 83.6 tpsd; NOx emissions decreased by a total of 16.1
tpsd from 121.0 tpsd to 104.9 tpsd.  These reductions, and anticipated
future reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures. 

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 electric
generating unit regulations in 2009 and continue to ensure that large
electric generation facilities located 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 regulation implementing the
requirements of CAIR or an equivalent program.  On April 28, 2006, 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
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.  See 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006).  Mercer County does
not have any sources that are directly regulated by CAIR, and therefore
is not showing an emissions reduction from this regulation.  However,
the quality of air transported from upwind sources into the county would
be improved. 

 

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.  In response to the Federal
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.  While there are no affected units
located in Mercer County, upwind NOx reductions from affected sources in
Pennsylvania and other states, including Ohio, assisted in bringing the
Youngstown Area into attainment.    

 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 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 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 (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 CAA Amendments 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 Altoona 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 early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program into Mercer County.  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).

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.  

In 2007, fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 ppm for nonroad
applications other than ocean-going marine vessels.  In 2010, fuel
sulfur levels will be reduced to the same sulfur concentrations as in
highway fuel, 15 ppm; this requirement applies in 2012 to locomotive and
marine diesel fuel.   

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

Maintenance Plan for Mercer County

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

(a)  Attainment Inventory

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 block of
2004-2006 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.  The Technical Appendices
submitted with this redesignation request contain more detailed
information for each sector on the emissions inventories required for
this redesignation. 

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 the state submittal (March 27, 2007).

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 EPA’s publication series AP-42 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.  

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 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. 

On-Road 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.  Blair County 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 Altoona Area where appropriate.  More information on
highway methods is available in the Technical Appendixes (Appendix C) of
the March 27, 2007 submittal. 															

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.  The NONROAD model 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
significant air carrier operations (aircraft that can seat over 60
passengers) in Mercer County.  Mercer County airports do not support
enough flights or the type of aircraft to create measurable emissions
from these sources.  Emissions from airport ground support equipment are
considered to be zero.  For 2002 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).  

 (b)  Maintenance Demonstration 

												

On March 27, 2007 the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Mercer County 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 Youngstown 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.																								

Table 6 specifies the VOC and NOx emissions for the Youngstown Area for
2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the
ten-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 ten-year maintenance period.  		

		

Table 6:  VOC and NOx Emissions for the Youngstown Area (tpsd); 2004,
2009, 2018

 	2004	2009	2018

	PA	OH	Total*	PA	OH	Total* 	PA	OH	Total*

Point 	VOC	1.7	6.0	7.8	2.7	6.4	9.1	3.7	7.8	11.4

	NOx	2.9	20.3	23.2	4.3	8.3	12.6	5.5	12.7	18.2

Area	VOC	7.6	24.1	31.7	7.4	22.9	30.2	7.8	23.0	30.9

	NOx	0.8	2.5	3.3	0.9	2.8	3.7	0.9	3.0	3.9

Mobile	VOC	5.9	26.2	32.1	4.5	19.6	24.1	3.0	10.4	13.4

	NOx	15.8	43.5	59.3	11.6	33.7	45.3	5.3	13.3	18.5

Nonroad 	VOC	3.8	8.3	12.1	3.4	6.5	9.9	2.6	5.2	7.8

	NOx	2.8	16.3	19.1	2.3	12.5	14.8	1.4	8.2	9.6

Total*	VOC	19.1	64.6	83.6	18.0	55.4	73.4	17.1	46.3	63.4

	NOx	22.4	82.5	104.9	19.1	57.4	76.4	13.1	37.2	50.2

				

	* Totals may vary due to rounding. 												

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 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.  Mercer County does not have
any sources that are directly regulated by CAIR, and therefore is not
showing an emissions reduction from this regulation.  However, the
quality of air transported from upwind sources into the county would be
improved.  

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.  Mercer
County does contain sources that are subject to the NOx SIP Call rule.

Stationary Area Sources

Portable Fuels - PADEP 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).

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 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).

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. 


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 ZEV or
emissions control warranty systems statement provisions.  

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the 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 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 Mercer County.

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 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 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.

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.

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program

In late 2003 – early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its I/M Program into
Mercer County.  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.  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).

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.

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 Mercer County.

(c)  Monitoring Network

There are four ozone monitors throughout the Youngstown Area.  The
monitors are located in the following counties:  Mercer County,
Pennsylvania (42-085-0100), Mahoning County, Ohio (39-099-0013), and
Trumbull County, Ohio (39-155-0009 and 39-155-0011).  The Commonwealth
has committed to continue to operate its monitors in accordance with 40
CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring.

(d)  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 Youngstown 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.  

(e)  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 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 Youngstown 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:  

(i)  If for two consecutive years, the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the any monitor in the Youngstown Area are above 84
ppb.—If this trigger point occurs, the PADEP will evaluate, in
cooperation with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 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 (including states upwind of Pennsylvania), 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.

(ii)  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 any of the
Youngstown Area monitors, contingency measures will be adopted in order
to return the Youngstown Area to attainment with the standard.  

Contingency measures to be considered for Mercer County 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: 

For transportation projects, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), as
allocated to the Mercer County MPO (Shenango Valley Air Transportation
Study or SVATS).  Discussions will be held with PENNDOT and SVATS 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 6 months of the trigger - work with SVATS 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 - 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 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 NAAQS in Mercer County 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 Mercer County meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act

A.  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the Altoona 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 Mercer County are listed in Tables 11 and 12 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 by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations in Mercer County only.  Please
note that EPA proposed approval of the Trumbull, Mahoning, and
Columbiana Counties, Ohio MVEBs in a separate rulemaking on April 18,
2007 (72 FR 19435).  

B.  What is a Safety Margin?

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

The following example is for the 2018 safety margin for Mercer County. 
Mercer County first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2004 to
2006 time period.  The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for Mercer County.

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 19.0 tpsd of VOC and 22.4 tpsd of NOx. 
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of
17.1 tpsd of VOC and 13.1 tpsd of NOx from all sources in Mercer County.
 The safety margin for Mercer County for 2018 would be the difference
between these amounts.  This difference is 1.9 tpsd of VOC and 9.3 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 7 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 7:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Mercer County

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

2004 Attainment	19.0	22.4

2009 Interim	18.0	19.1

2009 Safety Margin	1.0	3.3

2004 Attainment	19.0	22.4

2018 Final	17.1	13.1

2018 Safety Margin	1.9	9.3



PADEP allocated 1.0 tpsd VOC and 3.3 tpsd 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 1.9
tpsd VOC and 9.3 tpsd of NOx from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at
the 2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these
portions of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no
longer be allocated to any other source category.  Table 8 shows the
final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Mercer County.  

Table 8:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Mercer County

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

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	4.2	11.2

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.3	0.4

2009 MVEBs	4.5	11.6

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	2.6	4.9

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.4	0.4

2018 MVEBs	3.0	5.3



C.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

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

D.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Mercer County Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Mercer County 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 action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the
MVEBs contained therein.  In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part
of the maintenance plan.  The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.

If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Mercer County 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 Mercer County 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:

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

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.

		

 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 2004 to 2006 is 0.083 at the Trumbull County, Ohio (39-155-0011)
monitor, which in this case is the design value monitor.  

 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.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   33 

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

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

 

