UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

	  									August 17, 2007				

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

	(EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0605)

                              /s/

FROM:	Brian Rehn 

		Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch

TO:		File

                             /s/

THRU:	Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief  

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On June 12, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
“Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area”) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  The
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area is comprised of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe,
and Wyoming Counties.  Also on June 12, 2007, in conjunction with its
redesignation request, PADEP submitted as SIP revisions a maintenance
plan and a 2002 base-year inventory for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. 
The maintenance plan will ensure continued attainment in the area for at
least ten years after the area is redesignated.

The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 upon its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based
standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.

The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) provides requirements for
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment.  Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k); (3) the area has met all applicable requirements
under section 110 and Part D of the CAA; (4) the air quality improvement
in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and (5) the area has a fully approved maintenance plan under section
175A of the CAA.

II. EPA Analysis of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Request

As identified above, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”  The
following is a discussion of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
June 12, 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 located in the area that
currently measure air quality with respect to ozone.  The four monitors
are located along the Interstate 81 corridor in Lackawanna and Luzerne
Counties.  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
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area is attaining the ozone standard for the most
recent three-year period of 2004 through 2006 (see Table 1 below).  The
data collected at these four 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 the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area indicates
that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 
The PADEP uses the Air Quality System (AQS) as the permanent database to
maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for
accuracy.

Table 1:  Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour
Average Values

Lackawanna County, Wilson Fire Company Monitor, AQS ID 42-069-0101

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.071

2005	0.080

2006	0.071

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.074 ppm

Lackawanna County, City of Scranton Monitor, AQS ID 42-069-2006

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.073

2005	0.080

2006	0.070

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.074 ppm

Luzerne County, Nanticoke Monitor, AQS ID 42-079-1100

2004	0.068

2005	0.074

2006	0.064

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.068 ppm

Luzerne County, Wilkes-Barre Monitor, AQS ID 42-079-1101

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.073

2005	0.081

2006	0.073

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.075 ppm



The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.079 ppm (see
Appendix 1 for the AQS 2004-2006 8-hour monitor data).  In addition, as
discussed below, with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In
summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania (as
well as data taken from the AQS) indicate that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
area has attained and continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2. 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.9 

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS has a different form as well as limit.  The
1-hour ozone NAAQS is attained (and maintained) if the average number of
expected exceedances over a three-year period is less than or equal to
1. With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on January 17, 1995 (62 FR
3349), EPA determined pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA that the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November
15, 1993.  For the period 2004 through 2006, the average number of
expected exceedances at each of the four monitors was 0.0.  For the
period of 2004-2006, the average number of expected exceedances for each
monitor was 0.0.  

In summary, for the period 2004 through 2006, EPA believes that the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area remains in attainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, based upon the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from the
AQS (See Appendix 1 for available AQS 1-hour monitoring summary data). 
EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available
2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area in 2006.

Table 2:  Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Nonattainment Area 

Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard 

Lackawanna County, Wilson Fire Company Monitor, AQS ID 42-069-0101

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period
2004-2006 is 0.0

Lackawanna County, City of Scranton Monitor, AQS ID 42-069-2006

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period
2004-2006 is 0.0

Luzerne County, Nanticoke Monitor, AQS ID 42-079-1100

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period
2004-2006 is 0.0

Luzerne County, Wilkes-Barre Monitor, AQS ID 42-079-1101

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period
2004-2006 is 0.0



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

EPA has determined that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area has met all SIP
requirements for the purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (i.e., general SIP requirements), and that it meets all applicable
SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA (i.e., requirements
specific to basic nonattainment areas), in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v).  In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).  In making
these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained what requirements are
applicable to the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, and determined that the
applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.  SIPs must be approved only
with respect to applicable requirements.

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

1. General SIP Requirements

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

 

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

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

Thus, we do not believe that these transport-related requirements should
be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.  In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area’s attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.  The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
area will still be subject to these requirements after it is
redesignated.  The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. 
This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on the
applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignation) and oxygenated
fuels requirement.  See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995).  See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).  Similarly, with
respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase I Final Rule
to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not
“an” ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1)
because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.”  69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area was
classified a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based on air quality
monitoring data from 2001-2003.  Therefore, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area has a
design value of 0.075 ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using
complete, quality-assured data.  Therefore, the ambient ozone data for
the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area prior to submission of the redesignation
request

 2.  Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard 

Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 (i.e., transportation conformity) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (i.e., 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, EPA has also determined
that before being redesignated, the area need not comply with the
requirement that a New Source Review (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, a 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
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 CAA-defined Ozone Transport Region (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
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area.  

EPA has also interpreted the CAA 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 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), and vehicle
inspection and maintenance programs even after redesignation.  Second,
the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and their
application is not grounded by 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 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
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 Scranton/Wilkes/Barre 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 programs. It requires marginal areas to adopt
a vehicle I/M program if an I/M program was in effect (or required to
have been in effect) prior to November 15, 1990.  This provision was not
applicable to the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area because this area did not,
nor was required to, have an I/M program in place prior to November 15,
1990.  However, the CAA section 184 provision requiring adoption of I/M
programs in the OTR after November 1990 continues to apply (as described
below).

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 New Source Review 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
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
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, 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 to meet requirements under
section 184 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 programs, even after redesignation.  Second, the
section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and apply to
the area not by virtue of the area’s nonattainment designation and
classification.  Section 184 control measures thus are 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.  The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes
of Redesignation

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

C.  The Air Quality Improvement in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area is Due
to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting from
Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control
Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 for the
period between 2002 and 2004 are shown in Table 2.  

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point*	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway 

Mobile	Total

2002	4.6	36.0	36.6	19.0	96.2

2004	3.8	35.3	31.6	18.9	89.6

Difference (2002-04)	-0.8	-0.7	-5.0	-0.1	 -6.6

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point*	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway Mobile	Total

2002	8.4	3.8	74.4	11.3	97.9

2004	7.0	3.9	66.1	10.9	87.9

Difference (2002-04)	-1.4	+0.1	-8.3	-0.4	 -10.0



* The stationary point source emissions shown do not include banked
emissions reduction credits (ERCs) for sources listed in Technical
Appendix A-4 to Pennsylvania’s SIP submission.  

The banked ERCs include the following:

MACtac, Scranton Facility - 0.20 tpsd VOC

Proctor & Gamble, Hehoopany - 1.70 tpsd VOC and 0.73 tpsd NOx

TECHNEGLAS, Pittston – 2.11 tpsd VOC and 0.09tpsd NOx

Thomson No. 1, Dunmore – 0.15 tpsd VOC and 0.02 tpsd NOx

Williams Generation, Hazelton Cogeneration – 2.61 tpsd NOx

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 6.6 tpsd, from 96.2
tpsd to 89.6 tpsd.  Emissions of NOx decreased over the same period by
10.0 tpsd, from 97.9 tpsd to 87.9 tpsd.  

The Commonwealth has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
and enforceable emission controls have reduced local VOC and NOx
emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.

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

1. Stationary Point Sources

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.  In response to the 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre County, upwind NOx reductions from
affected sources in Pennsylvania and other states assisted in bringing
the area into attainment.    

Stationary Area Source Measures

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

Portable Fuel Containers.  Pennsylvania adopted a portable fuel
container regulation, 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 130, Subchapter A to address
VOC loss resulting from permeation through portable gasoline containers,
evaporative loss through container openings, and from spillage during
the filling of small tanks on machines such as lawn mowers, chain saws,
jet skis, 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 for new vehicles, including: an increased proportion of cleaner
(Federal Tier 1) light-duty vehicles in the fleet, an increased
proportion of cleaner heavy-duty highway vehicles (Federal 1998+ and
2002/2004 model year standards), and implementation of the vehicle
emissions inspection program.

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

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

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

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

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

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program.  In early 2004, Pennsylvania
expanded its vehicle emission I/M program into the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
area.  The I/M program does not apply to Monroe or Wyoming Counties (see
the following section for a discussion of the safety program visual
inspection that applies in these two counties).  In Lackawanna and
Luzerne Counties, the I/M program applies to 1975 and newer
gasoline-powered vehicles weighing up to 9,000 pounds.  The program
consists of annual gas cap pressure test and a visual inspection of
pollution control devices to ensure they are present, connected, and of
the proper type.  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).

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

4.  Nonroad Sources

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

Maintenance Plan for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

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 (2004)

An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.  The PADEP
determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year was 2004, the
mid-year of the three-year monitoring period for which the NAAQS has
been met.  The attainment year inventory serves as a baseline and
accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.  The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of
VOC and NOx during 2004, and consists of a list of sources and their
associated emissions (see Table 3).  The Technical Appendices submitted
with this June 12, 2007 redesignation request contain more detailed
information for each sector on the emissions inventories required for
this redesignation. 

Table 3:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpsd)

Pollutant	Point*	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway Mobile	Total

VOC	3.8	35.3	18.9	31.6	89.6

NOx	7.0	3.9	10.9	66.1	87.9

*  Total does not included banked emission reduction credits discussed
in Table 2, above.  

See Appendix A-4 in the June 12, 2007 state submittal for more detailed
information.  

(b) Base Year Inventory (2002)

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

For the NOx and VOC base-year emission inventories, PADEP used the
approaches and sources of data listed below.  More information on the
compilation of the 2002 base-year emissions inventory can be found in
the Appendices to June 12, 2007 maintenance plan state submittal.

1.  Point Source Emissions

Pennsylvania requires larger facilities to submit annual production
figures and emission calculations each year.  Throughput data are
multiplied by emission factors from the Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE) Data System and 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.  

2. Stationary Area Sources

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

3. Highway Mobile Sources 																				

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. In addition, Pennsylvania uses a MOBILE pre-
and post-processing software package called PPSUITE to process and
compile Pennsylvania’s robust highway network and detailed highway
vehicle data.  Pennsylvania’s methodology is consistent with the
January 2002 guidance published by EPA’s Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (OTAQ) entitled “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE 6
for Emissions Inventory Preparation.”  Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) supplied estimates of vehicles miles traveled
(VMT) by vehicle type and roadway type.  Highway vehicle emissions in
2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of VMT by
vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information specific
to the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area where appropriate.  More information
on highway methods is available in Technical Appendixes C of the June
12, 2007 state submittal. 												

			

4. Non-road Mobile 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.  Emissions from
commercial aircraft for 2002 are estimated using EPA-approved Emissions
& Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) 4.20, the latest version available
at the time the inventory was prepared.  The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
International Airport (AVP) accounts for all commercial air traffic in
the area.  Small aircraft emissions were calculated using small airport
statistics, from the Federal Aviation Administration’s APO Terminal
Area Forecast Report, and the website   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com .  

(b)  Maintenance Demonstration 

												

On June 12, 2007 the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area maintenance
plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that
current and future emissions of VOC and NOx remain at or below the
attainment year 2004 emission levels throughout the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area through the year 2018.  A maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, Supra;
Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra.  See also 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at
25430-32.																								

Tables 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009
as an intermediate in the ten-year maintenance demonstration period year
to be used for regional ozone modeling studies in order to demonstrate
that projected VOC and NOx emissions will not increase to levels above
the 2004 attainment level during the time of the ten-year maintenance
period.  		

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

Source Category	2004	2009	2018

Point	3.8	4.6	5.9

Area	35.3	33.7	36.3

Highway Mobile	31.6	2.2	16.9

Nonroad Mobile	18.9	16.5	13.2

Total	89.6	80.0	72.3

	* Totals may vary due to rounding. 			

					

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

Source Category	2004 	2009 	2018 

Point	7.0	9.3	10.4

Area	3.9	4.1	4.4

Highway Mobile	66.1	48.3	23.7

Nonroad Mobile	10.9	8.9	5.6

Total	87.9	70.6	44.1

* Totals may vary due to rounding. 

1. Permanent, Enforceable Control Measures for Maintenance

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

Stationary Point Sources

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The Federal CAIR regulations (70 FR
25162, May 12, 2005) will transition from the NOx SIP Call electronic
generating unit regulations in 2009 and continue to ensure that large
electric generation facilities upwind of the area will maintain
background emissions at or below 2002 levels while any new facilities
locating within the area will be required to obtain both offsets and
allowances that will ensure ambient equivalence with regard to ozone
production potential.  Pennsylvania and other nearby states are required
to adopt a regulation implementing CAIR or its equivalent.  On April 28,
2006 (71 FR 23528), EPA promulgated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
to reduce the interstate transport of NOx and sulfur dioxides that
contribute significantly to nonattainment and maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  The electric generating units (EGUs) in the
CAIR-covered States will be regulated under the FIPs until revisions to
SIPs for the implementation of the CAIR requirements are approved by
EPA.  Because Pennsylvania did not adopt its own CAIR requirements and
submit them to EPA as a SIP revision by September 2006, the FIP remains
operative, imposing the Federal program upon CAIR-affected EGUs in
Pennsylvania.  Therefore, allowances for CAIR-regulated sources will be
limited to no more than the allowances issued pursuant to the FIP. 
PADEP used EGAS to estimate emissions from CAIR-affected units for the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.  

Interstate Pollution Transport/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.  While there are no affected units in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, upwind NOx reductions from upwind sources
inside and outside Pennsylvania will help the area maintain the ozone
standard.

Stationary Area Sources

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

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

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.  The Pennsylvania
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings rule applies
statewide to any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or
manufacturers, blends or repackages an AIM coating for use within the
Commonwealth, as well as a person who applies or solicits the
application of an AIM coating within the Commonwealth.  The rule does
not apply to the following:  (1) any AIM coating that is sold or
manufactured for use outside the Commonwealth or for shipment to other
manufacturers for reformulation or repackaging; (2) any aerosol coating
product; or (3) any AIM coating that is sold in a container with a
volume of one liter (1.057 quarts) or less.  The rule sets specific VOC
content limits, in grams per liter, for AIM coating categories with a
compliance date of January 1, 2005.  Manufacturers ensure compliance
with the limits by reformulating coatings and substituting coatings with
compliant coatings that are already in the market.  The rule contains
VOC content requirements for a wide variety of field-applied coatings,
including graphic arts coatings, lacquers, primers, and stains.  The
rule also contains provisions for a variance from the VOC content
limits, which can be issued only after public hearing and with
conditions for achieving timely compliance.  In addition, the rule
contains administrative requirements for labeling and reporting.  There
are a number of test methods that would be used to demonstrate
compliance with this rule.  Some of these test methods include those
promulgated by EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management District of
California (SCAQM).  The methods used to test coatings must be the most
current approved method at the time testing is performed.  The AIM
program is codified at 25 PA Code Chapter 130, subpart C.  It was
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 3, 2003, with a
supplement submitted on October 19, 2004.  The program was approved by
EPA on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68080).

Highway Mobile Sources

Highway motor vehicle emissions of both VOC and NOx will continue to
decrease as more vehicles subject to cleaner new car standards replace
older vehicles subject to less stringent new vehicle standards. 
Emissions will continue to decrease, even with increases in VMT
projected between 2004 and 2018.  The decreasing levels of emissions are
attributable to the following programs:  

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

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

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established under the CAA include NOx and VOC
emissions limits for newly manufactured light-duty gasoline vehicles
(LDGVs) and light-duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards were
phased in beginning in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were
also reduced in gasoline-powered cars under EPA’s on-board vapor
recovery (OBVR) standards beginning with model year 1998.  

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

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

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

The federal Tier 2 regulations also required a reduction of sulfur in
gasoline beginning in 2004.  In 2004, gasoline sulfur levels were capped
at 300 ppm and annual refinery corporate averages were limited to no
more than 120 ppm.  This analysis uses the default assumptions provided
in MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for conventional fuel sold in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.

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

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

Emissions for all maintenance plan milestone years were estimated based
on compliance with the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program according to
the methodology described in section 7.4.1 of “Technical Guidance on
the Use of MOBILE6.2 for Emissions Inventory Preparation,” published
by EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), in January,
2002.  This methodology is further explained in Appendix C.  In order to
provide conservative estimates of emissions, Pennsylvania assumed in its
maintenance plan MOBILE modeling that the federal Tier 2 program applied
from MY 2004 through MY 2007, and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program (i.e., CA LEV standards) apply in model year 2008 and beyond.

Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs.

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

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

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

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

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program.

In late 2003 – early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its Vehicle Emission
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program into the Lackawanna and Luzerne
County portion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.  The program applies
to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under, model years 1975
and newer.  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).

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program.

In November 2003, Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection
program to include a visual inspection of pollution control components
in those 42 counties not subject to an I/M program – including the
Counties of Monroe and Wyoming in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. This
revised safety inspection regulation can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter
175.  Pennsylvania submitted that portion of the amended safety
inspection program as a revision to its State Implementation Plan on
December 1, 2003.  EPA approved the SIP revision on October 6, 2005 (70
FR 58313).

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 require reduced sulfur levels in diesel fuel to prevent damage
to advanced emission control aftertreatment systems needed to reduce
fine particulates to meet stricter exhaust standards.  In 2007, nonroad
diesel fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 parts per million (ppm)
for nonroad applications other than ocean-going marine vessels. In 2010,
fuel sulfur levels will be reduced to the same sulfur concentration as
in highway fuel, 15 ppm.  This requirement applies in 2012 to locomotive
and marine diesel fuel.

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

(c)  Monitoring Network

There were four ozone monitors (located in Lackawanna and Luzerne
Counties) used in support of the Commonwealth’s ozone maintenance plan
for the Scranton/Wilkes/Barre area.  The Commonwealth has committed to
continue to operate its monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, with no reduction in the number of sites.

(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 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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 a Scranton/Wilkes-Barre monitor are above 84 ppb.   If
this trigger point occurs, the PADEP will evaluate whether additional
local emission control measures should be implemented in order to
prevent a violation of the air quality standard.  PADEP will analyze the
conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what
measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone
levels.  PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of
federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet
implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred.  PADEP will
then begin the process of implementing any selected measures.

(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 a
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area monitor, contingency measures will be adopted
in order to return the area to attainment with the standard. 
Contingency measures to be considered for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area
will include, but not be limited to the following:

Regulatory measures:

Additional VOC controls on consumer products.

Additional VOC 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPOs.  Discussions will be held
with PENNDOT and the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPOs to ensure that emission
credits could be allocated for attainment purposes, rather than for
transportation conformity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a
maintenance plan:  attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan.  EPA believes that the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by Pennsylvania for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the Act

A.  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre 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.

Transportation agencies in Pennsylvania are responsible for making
timely transportation conformity determinations.  The responsible MPOs
for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area are: The Lackawanna-Luzerne
Transportation Study (LLTS), the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance
(NEPA) for Monroe County, and the Northern Tier Rural Planning
Commission (NRTPO) for Wyoming County.  

The MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area are listed in Tables 6 and
7 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.  

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 the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.  The area 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 the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 89.6 tpsd of VOC and 87.9 tpsd of NOx. 
The PADEP projected total emissions out to the year 2018 and projected
72.3 tpsd of VOC and 44.1 tpsd of NOx from all sources in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.  The safety margin for 2018 would be the
difference between these amounts, or 17.3 tpsd of VOC and 43.8 tpsd of
NOx.  The emissions up to the level of the attainment year, including
the safety margins, are projected to maintain the area's air quality
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels
are maintained at or below the attainment levels.  Table 6 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 6:  Safety Margins for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (2009 & 2018)

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

2004 Attainment	89.6	87.9

2009 Interim	80.0	70.6

2009 Safety Margin	9.6	17.3

2004 Attainment	89.6	87.9

2018 Final	72.3	44.1

2018 Safety Margin	17.3	43.8



The PADEP allocated 1.85 tpsd of VOC and 1.4 tpsd of 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 2.6
tpsd of VOC and 2.1 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 7 shows the
final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.

Table 7:  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (2009
& 2018)*

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

2009 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	23.3	46.9

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	1.85	1.40

2009 MVEBs	25.2	48.3

2018 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	14.3	21.6

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	2.6	2.1

2018 MVEBs	16.9	23.7

	* PA DEP calculates MVEBS using kilograms per summer day, and also
lists the values in tons per summer day, rounded to 3 significant
digits.  This appears to make the totals in the table incorrect, but is
merely the result of the rounded tpsd values

C.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

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

D.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area maintenance plan are being
posted to EPA’s conformity website concurrent with this proposal.  The
public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment
period for this proposed rule.  In this case, EPA is concurrently
processing the 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 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area MVEBs, or any other aspect of
our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond
to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the
adequacy process as a separate action.  Our action on the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA’s
conformity Web site:    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq" 
http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq , (once there, click on the “Conformity”
button, then look for “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for
Conformity”).

III. Conclusions and Recommended Agency Action:

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

IV. List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation Guidance Memos and Documents

•		“Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,”
Memorandum from Bill 	

		Laxton, June 18, 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

	January 18, 2002.

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

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

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

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

		March 14, 2006.

•		“Temporal Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
Profiles,” Memorandum from Gregory Stella, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, April 29, 2002.

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

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

		November 2005.

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

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

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

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

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

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

		Quality Strategies and Standards Division, and Peter Tsirigotis,
Director, Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division, November 18,
2002.

	

 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 0.075 at the Wilkes-Barre monitor in Luzerne County.

  An additional monitor located in Monroe County began collecting data
in 2006, so that monitor did not meet EPA completeness criteria, and
thus did not warrant consideration as part of the Commonwealth’s
redesignation request.

 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.  

 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   2 

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

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

 

