# pennsylvania

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SECRETARY April 22, 2014

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street, (Mail Code: 3RAOO) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Garvin:

I am pleased to submit to you a request to redesignate the Harrisburg- Lebanon-Carlisle-York 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.s) nonattainment area to attainment, and a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) including a Maintenance Plan demonstrating that the area

can maintain the 1997 PM 2

. 5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for at least ten years after redesignation, as required under Section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The SIP submittal also includes the comprehensive emissions inventory required under Section 172( c )(3) of the CAA.

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) opened a 30-day public comment period on January 25,2014, on the proposed redesignation request, maintenance plan and comprehensive emissions inventory for the area and received written comments from one person. The public hearing scheduled for February 26,2014, was cancelled because no one expressed interest in presenting testimony or attending the hearing.

The following documents are enclosed for your approval:

1. Request for Redesignation to attainment; 2. Maintenance Plan State Implementation Plan revision, which includes the comprehensive emissions inventory and a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for the purposes of transportation conformity; 3. Certification of public participation activities; and 4. Comment and Response Document.

A paper copy of the documents and a disc containing an electronic copy of the documents for the

area are enclosed. I certifY that the electronic files are exact duplicates of the hard copies.

The Commonwealth followed all of the applicable procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the issuance of the SIP revision.

Rachel Carson State Office Building 1 P.O. Box 2063-1 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

717.787.2814 

### w Printed on Recycled Paper 

## \6?J www .depweb.state. pa. usMr. Shawn M. Garvin

- 2- April 22, 2014

Thank you in advance for the expeditious processing of the redesignation request and SIP revision. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director, Bureau of Air Quality, by e-mail atjeepps@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.787.9702.

Sincerely,

( /

C

.. , E. Christopher Abruzzo Secretary

Enclosures

# C ommonwealth of Pennsylvania



# R EQUEST FOR 

# R EDESIGNATION
AS 

# A TTAINMENT 

# H ARRISBURG



# - L EBANON



# - C ARLISLE



# - Y ORK 

# N ONATTAINMENT 

# A REA 

# 2006 F INE 

# P ARTICULATE 

# M ATTER 

# N ATIONAL 

# A MBIENT 

# A IR 

# Q UALITY 

# S TANDARD S



# APRIL 2014

Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Dep artment of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468 Harrisburg

, PA 17105

- 8468 717

- 787

- 9495

www.dep.state.pa.us[ This page intentionally left blank

. ]i Table of Contents

Introductio n

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

I. Demonstration of Attainment and Air Quality Trends Analysis

................................ ......... 3

A. Design Value Determination

................................ ................................ .................... 4 B. Air Quality Trends Analysis

................................ ................................ .................... 4 C. Climate Trends Analysis

................................ ................................ .......................... 7 1. Temperature Trends

................................ ................................ ..................... 9 2. Precipitation Trends

................................ ................................ ................... 10 D. Additional Trends

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11 1. Population Tren ds

................................ ................................ ...................... 11 2. Economic Trends

................................ ................................ ....................... 12 E. Modeling Analyses

................................ ................................ ................................ 14

II. SIP Appr ovals and Applicable Requirements

................................ ................................ .... 15

A. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA

................................ ................................ ................ 16 B. Part D

- Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas

................................ ........... 17 1. Section 172(c) of the CAA

................................ ................................ ........ 17 2. Section 173 of the CAA

................................ ................................ ............. 17 3. Section 176 of the CAA

................................ ................................ ............. 18 4. Section 189(e) of the CAA

................................ ................................ ........ 19 C. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19

III. Demonstration of Permanent and Enforceable Improvement

................................ ............ 19

A. Baseline (2005) Emissions Inventory

................................ ................................ .... 21 B. Attainme nt Year (2007) Emissions Inventory

................................ ....................... 22 C. Control Measures

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 1. Stationary Point Sources

................................ ................................ ............ 25 2. Highway Vehicle Sources

................................ ................................ .......... 30 3. Nonroad Sources

................................ ................................ ........................ 34 4. Stationary Area Sources

................................ ................................ ............. 34

IV. Maintenance Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 35ii Table of Tables

Table I

- 1: Harrisburg/York Area Annual PM2.5 Concentrations

................................ ................. 4 Table I

- 2: Harrisburg/York Area 24

- Hour PM2.5 Concentrations

................................ ................ 5 Table I

- 3: Harrisburg/York Area Annual PM2.5 Design Values

................................ .................. 5 Table I

- 4: Harrisburg/York Area 24

- Hour PM2.5 Design Values

................................ ................ 6 Table I

- 5: Harrisburg/York Area Monthly Mean Temperature (°F)

................................ ............. 9 Table I

- 6: Harrisburg/York Area Precipitation (inches)

................................ .............................. 11 Table I

- 7: EPA’s Transport Rule Modeling Results for the PM2.5 Standard for the

Harrisburg/York Area

................................ ................................ ............................. 15 Table III

- 1: 2005 Harrisburg/York Area Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

............................. 22 Table III

- 2: 2007 Harrisbu rg/York Area Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

............................. 23 Table III

- 3: Change in Harrisburg/York Area Annual Emissions (Tons per Year) from

2005 to 2007

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 25 Table III

- 4: Summary of Emission Totals (Tons) in 2007, 2017 and 2025

................................ . 25

Table of Figures

Figure I

- 1: Pennsylvania’s 2006 PM2.5 Nonattain ment Areas

................................ ..................... 3 Figure I

- 2: PM2.5 Annual Concentration Trends

................................ ................................ .......... 6 Figure I

- 3: PM2.5 24

- Hour Design Value Trends

................................ ................................ ......... 7 Figure I

- 4. Pie Chart of 2007 Harrisburg and York Monitors Speciation Data

............................. 8 Figure I

- 5: Harrisburg/York Area Monthly Mean Temperature (°F)

................................ .......... 10 Figure I

- 6: Harrisburg/York Area Annual Precipitation (inches)

................................ ................ 11 Figure I

- 7: Harrisburg/York Area Population Trend

................................ ................................ ... 12 Figure I

- 8: Harrisburg/York Area Population and Labor Force Trends

................................ ...... 13 Figure I

- 9: Pennsylvania and National Coincident Indexes from t he Philadelphia Federal

Reserve Bank

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 14- 1

-

I NTRODUCTION

Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air that include : acids (such as nitrates and sulfates)

, organic chemicals

, metals

, soil or dust particles and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). Fine particle pollution or PM 2.5 describes particulate matter that is less than or equal to 2.5 micro meters (μm) in diameter

, approximately 1/30th the diameter of a human hair. Because of their small size

, fine particles can penetrate deeply into the lungs.

Health studies have shown a significant association between exposure to fine particles and premature death from heart or lung disease. Fine particles can agg ravate heart and lung diseases and have been linked to effects such as cardiovascular symptoms

, cardiac arrhythmias

, heart attacks

, respiratory symptoms

, asthma attacks

, and bronchitis. These effects can result in increased hospital admissions

, emergency room visits

, absences from school or work

, and restricted activity days. Individuals that may be particularly sensitive to fine particle exposure include people with heart or lung disease

, older adults

, and children. The article

, “ Fine

Particulate Air Po llution and Life Expectancy in the United States ” by C. Arden Pope

, III

, et al. published January 22

, 2009

, in the New England Journal of Medicine evaluated the role PM 2.5 reductions occurring in the 1980s and 1990s had on the increased life expectancy obs erved over that period. The study found that a reduction of 10 micro grams per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) of PM 2.5 was associated with an average increase in life expectancy of 7.3 months.

PM 2.5 has significant environmental impacts

, including acid rain and stre am eutrophication. PM 2.5 also affects visibility (regional haze) through the scattering and absorption of light. Fine particles

, similar in size to the wavelength of light

, are most efficient

, per unit of mass

, at reducing visibility. Soiling and materi als damage can also be caused by PM 2.5 in the air.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1997 after evaluating hundreds of health studies and conducting an extensive peer rev iew process. The EPA established an annual primary (health

- based) and secondary (welfare

- based) standard of 15.0 μg/m 3

, based on the 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. The EPA also established a primary and secondary 24

- hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 determined by the 3

- year average of the 98th percent ile of 24

- hour concentrations. In 2006

, the EPA promulgated a revised 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 determined by the 3

- year average of the 98th percent ile of 24

- hour concentrations. The a nnual standard was not revised ( 71 FR 61144 ; October 17

, 2006)

.

On October 8

, 2009

, the EPA promulgated air quality designations for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard based on air quality monitoring data from 2006

- 2008. The final designations were published in the Federal Register on November 13

, 2009 (74 FR 58688 ). The designations became effective

on December 14

, 2009. The EPA designated seven areas comprised of all or portions of 22 counties in Pennsylvania as PM 2.5 nonattainment areas.

The Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Area (Harrisburg/York Area)

, consisting of Dauphin

, Lebanon

, Cumberland and York counties

, was one of seven areas in Pennsylvania designated by the EPA as nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Harrisburg/York Area was- 2

-

designated nonat tainment because the area violated the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3
based on 2006

- 2008 monitoring data. Note that York County was designated as a single

- county nonattainment area for purposes of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard

, but was combined with Dauphin and Lebanon and Cumberland counties to form the multi

- county Harrisburg/York nonattainment area for purposes of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard.

The subsequent analyses described in this Request for Redesignation clearly demonstrate that the ambient air quality in the Harrisburg /York Area now meets the 2006 24

- hou r PM 2.5 NAAQS and that the emission reductions responsible for the air quality improvement are both permanent and enforceable. These analyse s and the maintenance plan submitted concurrently demonstrate that the Harrisburg /York Area has completed all crite ria set forth in S ection 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and should be officially redesignated as attainment.

S ection 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA states that an area may be redesignated to attainment if the following conditions are met:

● The NAAQS h as been attained ( discussed in S ection I ) ;

● The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved under S ection 110(k) of the CAA and the state has met all applicable requirements for the area under S ection 110 and Part D ( discussed in S ection II ) ;

● The improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions ( discussed in S ection I and S ection III ) ; and

● A Maintenance P lan with contingency measures has been fully approved under S ection 175A ( discussed in S ection IV )

.

This Request for Redesignation describes how the Harrisburg /York Area satisfies each of the C AA ’ s S ection 107(d)(3)(E) criteria for redesignation to attainment.

Requirements for a public comment process are set forth in S ection 110(a)(2) of the CAA

, 4 0 CFR S ection 51.102(d) and S ection 7.5 of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act. 35 P.S. S ection 4007.5 (b)

. On January 25

, 2014

, t he Department provided notice of a public comment period and the opportunity for a hearing on the Maintenance Plan

, 20 07 comprehensive inventory required by S ection 172(c)(3) of the CAA

, and the Request to Redesignate the Harrisburg/York Area to attainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. The public comment period closed February 28

, 2014. The Department scheduled the publi c hearing to occur on February 26

, 2014

, but no persons expressed interest in presenting testimony or attending. Therefore

, the Department cancelled the hearing. The Department received comments from

one commentator , which have been addressed in a Commen t and Response document.- 3

-

I. D EMONSTRATION OF A TTAINMENT AND A IR Q UALITY T RENDS A NALYSIS

On October 8

, 2009

, the EPA promulgated air quality designations for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard based on air quality monitoring data from 2006

- 2008. The final designati ons were published in the Federal Register on November 13

, 2009 (74 FR 58688 ). The designations became effective on December 14

, 2009

.

The Harrisburg /York Area was one of seven areas in Pennsylvania

, comprising all or parts of 22 Pennsylvania counties

, d esignated by the EPA as nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Harrisburg /York Area

, consisting of Dauphin

, Lebanon

, Cumberland and York c ount ies in Pennsylvania

, was designated as nonattainment because it violated the 2006 24

- hour standard of 35 μg/ m 3 based on 2006

- 08 monitoring data

. Figure I

- 1 : Pennsylvania ’ s 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

Air quality in the Harrisburg /York Area has improved since the EPA ’ s original designations. The Harrisburg /York Area ’ s 24

- hour PM 2.5 design value has decr eased over the 2001 to 201 2 time frame. The Harrisburg /York Area ’ s 24

- hour design value for 2003 (based on data from 2001 through 2003 ) was 44 μ g/m 3 . The Harrisburg /York Area ’ s 201 2 24

- hour design value (b ased on data from 20 10 through 201 2 ) was 31 μ g/m 3 . Following EPA criteria

, a PM 2.5 design value below 35.5 μ g/m 3 is considered to be attainment. Concentrati ons are expected to remain lower than the standard over the next decade.- 4

-

On March 29

, 2012

, the EPA determined that the Harrisburg /York Area had a ttained the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS ( “ Clean Data Determination ” ) ( 77 FR 18922 ) . EPA ’ s C lean D ata D etermination was based on quality

- assured

, quality

- controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has mon itored attainment based on 200 8 through 2 0 10 monitoring data . This final action suspended the requirements for this area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control

measures , reasonable further progress plans

, contingency measures and other plan ning State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) revisions related to the attainment of the NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the NAAQS.

The determination of attainment did not “ redesignate ” the area as “ attainment. ” The Harrisburg /York Area remains nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS until the Commonwealth submits

, and EPA approves

, a Request for R edesignation and a Maintenance Plan showing the area can maintain the standard for at least 10 year s.

A. Design Value Determination

The ambien t air quality analysis is based on PM 2.5 data measured at the Harrisburg /York Area monitoring site s

. The ambient air quality data analysis for PM 2.5 was completed using the appropriate regulations and guidance documents. Monitoring procedures were determ ined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58

. The PM 2.5 design values were calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50

, Appendix N

, “ Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. ”

B

. Air Quality Trends Analysis

This sec tion provides a brief summary of PM 2.5 monitoring concentrations in the Harrisburg /York Area.

Trends in PM 2.5 design values were analyzed from 2001 through 2012. Table I

- 1 displays annual PM 2.5 concentrations monitored in the Harrisburg /York Area. Table I

- 2 contains the 98 th percent ile of 24

- hour concentrations for each year

.

Table I

- 1 : Harrisburg /York Area Annual PM2.5 Concentrations- 5

- Table I

- 2 : Harrisburg /York Area 24

- Hour PM2.5 Concentrations

Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4 contain the Harrisburg /York Ar ea ’ s annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 design values calculated from the 2001 through 201 2 monitoring data.

Design values for the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS show a declining trend. The Harrisburg / York Area was designated as nonattainment based on the 200 6 through 200 8 24

- hour design value of 36 μ g/m 3 . The annual design value for that time period was 14.6 μ g/m 3 . Compared with the 200 6 through 200 8 design values

, t he annual design value for 20 10 through 20 1 2 has decreased by 18 percent and the 24

- hour design value by 14 p ercent

. The annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 design values for the Harrisburg /York Area ar e shown below in Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4

, respectively.

Table I

- 3 : Harrisburg /York Area Annual PM2.5 Design Values

*Design value is not valid due to less than three year s of data collected at site.- 6

- Table I

- 4 : Harrisburg /York Area 24

- Hour PM2.5 Design Values

*Design value is not valid due to less than three year s of data collected at site.

The 2001 through 2012 trend lines for annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 design values are

s hown in Figures I

- 2 and I

- 3. As shown in Figures I

- 2 and I

- 3

, the slope of the trend lines for the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 design values are both negative

, indica ting decreasing concentrations.

Figure I

- 2 : PM2.5 Annual Concentration Trends- 7

- Figure I

- 3 : PM2.5 24

- Hour Design Value Trend s

C

. Climate Trends Analysis

PM 2.5 formation in the eastern United States is a complex process involving local and regional meteorology

, topography

, chemistry a nd transport. Sulfates and nitrates are formed primarily through atmospheric reactions of precursor emissions of sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 )

, oxides of nitrogen ( NO X ) and ammonia ( NH 3 )

. Organic carbon is a combination of secondary organic particles formed from emissions of volatile organic compounds ( VOC ) and the organic portion of primary PM 2.5 that is directly emitted or condenses near its source. Currently

, our understanding of sulfate and nitrate chemistry and its impacts on PM 2.5 concentrations far exceeds our understanding of contributions from anthropogenic VOCs. This is important because sulfates

, nitrates

, ammonium and organic carbon are major contributors to the total PM 2.5 , making up approximately 80 percent of the annual PM 2.5 concentration observed in the Harrisburg /York Area in 2007.- 8

-

Figure I

- 4

. Pie Chart of 2007 Harrisburg and York Monitors Speciation Data

Harrisburg Percentage of Total Mass Year 2007

Nitrate

15%

Sulfate

27%

Ammonium 14% Organic carbon 24% Elemental carbon 6% Crustal component 3% Other

11%

York Percentage of Total Mass Year 2007

Nitrate

15%

Sulfate

2 6%

Ammonium 14% Organic carbon 24% Elemental carbon 6% Crustal component 4% Other

11%- 9

- Attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS involves the range of meteorological conditions th roughout the year. PM 2.5 chemistry favors sulfate formation during the warm summer months and nitrate formation during the colder winter months. In addition

, local temperature inversions more common in the winter can concentrate emissions near the surfac e , leading to periods of elevated PM 2.5 concentrations.

To assess whether it is likely that unusual meteorological patterns have contributed to the lower PM 2.5 concentrations observed in the Harrisburg /York Area

, temperature and precipitation trends over the last 10 year s were examined.

The data used in the trends analysis is from the 2011 Local Climatological Data Report for Harrisburg

, published by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center

.

1. Temperature Trends

Table I

- 5 presents monthly mean temperat ure data for the Harrisburg /York A rea for 2001 through 2012

. Figure I

- 5 graphically displays the data.

Table I

- 5 : Harrisburg /York Area Monthly Mean Temperature ( ° F)- 10

- Figure I

- 5 : Harrisburg /York Area Monthly Mean Temperatur e ( ° F)

The Harrisburg /York Area was designated nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS based on 2006 through 2008 data. The 2006 through 2008 timeframe shows typical year

- to

- year variation in temperature with no unusual conditions that would be expected to cause higher PM 2.5 concentrations

, as were experienced during that timeframe. The Harrisburg /York Area ’ s Clean Data Determination for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS was based on 2008 through 2010 data

, and the Harrisburg/York Area has monitored attainment since that time. Examination of the temperature data from 2008 through 2012 shows normal variation in seasonal temperatures but no evidence of unusual patterns that would be expected to repress PM 2.5 formation.

2. Precipitation Trends

Table I

- 6 presents monthly and annual precipitation data for the Harrisburg /York A rea for 2001 through 2012

. Figure I

- 6 graphically displays the annual precipitation data.- 11

- Table I

- 6 : Harrisburg /York Area Precipitation (inches)

F igure I

- 6 : Harrisburg /York Area Annual Precipitation (inches)

Examination of the precipitation data shows year

- to

- year variation in precipitation amounts

, both in years the Harrisburg/York Area was attaining and not attaining the PM 2.5 standard. Ther e is no indication from the data that unusual precipitation patterns contributed to the lower PM 2.5 concentrations in recent years in which the Harrisburg/York Area monitored attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS.

D

. Additional Trends

1. Population Trends

The H arrisburg /York Area

, which consists of Dauphin

, Lebanon

, Cumberland and York counties

, has had significant population growth- 12

- over the last decade. The combined population of Dauphin

, Lebanon

, Cumberland and York counties

, increased approximately 10.6 perc ent between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses. According to the Bureau of the Census

, the combined population of Dauphin

, Lebanon

, Cumberland and York counties was 969

, 007 in 2000 and 1

, 072

, 046 in 2010. Dauphin

, Lebanon

, Cumberland and York counties respectivel y ranked the 1 5 th

, 27 th

, 16 th and 8th largest in population in Pennsylvania.

Population increases correspond with increased emissions from some types of emission sources and

, therefore

, can result in increased pollution levels. While the Harrisburg /York Area ’ s population has grown approximately 10.6 percent over the last decade

, t his growth has not resulted in increased PM 2.5 concentrations. In fact

, the area ’ s PM 2.5 concentrations have declined in spite of the increase in population.

Figure I

- 7 : Harri sburg /York Area Population Trend

2. Economic Trends

Economic trends could have impacts on emissions and consequently affect PM 2.5 concentrations in the Harrisburg /York Area . The two factors considered here include estimated labor force changes in the Harrisburg /York Area and overall economic activity in Pennsylvania as measured by the Coincident Index. The labor force data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor

, Bureau of Labor Statistics

, Mid

Atlantic Information Office. The Coincident Inde x data was obtained from the Philadelphia Reserve Bank

. Figure I

- 8 shows the Harrisburg /York Area ’ s population change and estimated labor force change since 1980. A larger labor force could lead- 13

- to more driving and increased infrastructure demands. This in turn could lead to higher emissions. Increases in the county ’ s labor force also contribute to overall increases in economic activity (greater family income/spending). The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank has tracked economic activity in Pennsylvania over the last 25 year s. Pennsylvania ’ s Economic Activity Index is graphically depicted in Figure I

- 9. In spite of these upward trends

, air quality continues to improve in the Harrisburg /York Area

. Figure I

- 8 : Harrisburg /York Area Population and Labor Force Trends

Data Source: U.S. Department of Labor

, Bureau of Labor Statistics

, Mid

- Atlantic Information Office. The database containing “ State and local industry employment and earnings

- monthly ” data was accessed from the following site : http://www.bls.gov/ro3/data.htm- 14

-

Figure I

- 9 : Pennsylvania and National Coincident Indexes from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank

Data downloaded on 5/24/2012 from: The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia at: http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research

- and

- data/regional

- economy/indexes/coincident/

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces a monthly coinc ident index for each of the 50 states. The coincident indexes combine four state

- level indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four state

- level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment

, aver age hours worked in manufacturing

, the unemployment rate

, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average). The trend for each state ’ s index is set to the trend of its gross domestic product (GDP)

, so long

- term gr owth in the state ’ s index matches long

- term growth in its GDP.

E

. M odeling Analyses

Modeling results for the EPA ’ s Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule ( 76 FR 48207 ; August 8

, 2011) 1 ( Transport Rule ) were examined to determine if the model results support rede signating the Harrisburg /York Area to attainment. EPA ’ s analysis indicates that the Harrisburg /York Area would attain the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2014

, even in the absence of either the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or the Transport Rule.

EPA used the Com prehensive Air Quality Model with Extension ( CAM X ) Version 5.3. CAM X is a three

- dimensional Eulerian grid

- based photochemical model designed to simulate the formation

, chemical transformation

, transport , and

1 “ Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals .”- 15

- removal of ozone

, secondary and directly emitte d PM 2.5 , and their precursor species on national

, regional

, and local scales for short

- term episodes up to annual time periods. Using this model

, EPA simulated the emissions from many different sources of pollution ( such as electric generating units (EGU)

, and mobile sources). All of the Transport Rule CAM X simulations used meteorology for 2005 derived from simulations of the Pennsylvania State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) Version 3.7.4. The 2005 emissions o f SO 2 , NO X , VOC

, NH 3 and direct PM 2.5 were modeled. The modeling was based on the annual PM 2.5 design values for the 2003 through 2007 base period.

EPA outlined the model results in the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the T ransport Rule. Air quality modeling was performed to simulate ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations for the 2005 base year

, a 2012 “ no CAIR ” base case

, a 2014 “ no CAIR ” base case

, and the 2014 remedy scenario. Table I

- 7 displays the results of EPA ’ s analysis fo r the Harrisburg/York Area

. EPA ’ s analysis indicates that the Harrisburg /York Area would attain the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2014

, even in the absence of either CAIR or the Transport Rule. The results support redesignating the Harrisburg /York Area to attainme nt for the PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Table I

- 7 : EPA ’ s Transport Rule Modeling Results for the PM2.5 Standard for the Harrisburg/York Area

Source : Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the Transport Rule

. (http://www.epa.gov/airtransport /pdfs/AQModeling.pdf)

I I

. SIP A PPROVALS AND A PPLICABLE R EQUIREMENTS

In order for EPA to redesignat e a nonattainment area to attainment

, the applicable SIP revision must be fully approved under S ection 110(k) of the CAA. In addition

, the state must have met all requirements applicable to the area under CAA S ection 110 and Part D

— Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas. The specific requirements applicable to the Harrisburg /York Area can be found in sections 110(a)(2)

, and Part D S ections 172(c) (relati ng to nonattainment plan provisions)

, 173 (relating to permit requirements) and

, 176 (relating to limitations on certain federal assistance)

. A court has- 16

-

also recently held that EPA must implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS pursuant to Subp art 4 of P art D

– see S ect ion III below for more information.

These requirements have been fulfilled for the Harrisburg /York A rea.

A. S ection 110(a)(2) of the CAA

S ection 110(a) of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Pennsylvania concludes that

, as EPA has stat ed in previous rulemaking in another
state [1]

, only the S ection 110 and P art D requirements that are linked with a particular area ’ s designation are the relevant measures to consider in evaluating a redesignation request. Further

, Pennsylvania believes t hat the other S ection 110 elements that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area ’ s attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment.

The requirements of S ection 110(a)(2) that are statewide requirements and that are not linked to the PM 2.5 nonattainment status of the Harrisburg /York Area are not applicable requirements for purposes of revie w of the Commonwealth ’ s PM 2.5 redesignation request. However

, EPA requires that the Commonwealth ’ s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements be approved prior to redesignation

, because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. Sec tions 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA require state plans to meet the requirements of CAA

, Subc hapter I

, P art C

, which contains PSD requirements. In addition

, S ection 110(a)(2)(I) requires that a plan revision for an area designated as a nonattai nment area meet the applicable requirements of CAA

, Subc hapter I

, P art D (relating to nonattainment areas). Therefore

, Pennsylvania has concluded that only the parts of Sections 110(a)(2)(C)

, 110(a)(2)(I) and 110(a)(2)(J) that relate to P art D applicable requirements or PSD are applicable for purposes of redesignation.

EPA has previously approved provisions of Pennsylvania ’ s SIP addressing S ection 110 requirements

, including provisions addressing PM 2.5
. Pennsylvania ’ s SIP measures meeting S ection 110(a)( 2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) requirements are fully approved under S ection 110(k) of the CAA. The Maintenance Plan associated with this Request for Redesignation for the Harrisburg /York Area is a SIP revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area and m eets the applicable requirements of P art D of Subc hapter I of the CAA ; therefore

, the Maintenance Plan associated with this Request for Redesignation meets the requirements of S ection 110(a)(2)(I). Please see the discussion below concerning P art D (plan r equirements for nonattainment areas)

.

[1] See EPA’s proposed approval of Ohio’s redesignation request for the Ohio p ortion of the Huntington

- Ashland nonattainment area for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 79593). On December 31, 2012, EPA published final approval of Ohio’s redesignation request for the Ohio portion of the Huntington

- Ashland nonattainment area for the 1997 P M 2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 76883).- 17

-

B

. P art D

- Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas

1. S ection 172(c) of the CAA

S ection 172 of the CAA contains the general provisions required to be included in SIP revisions for nonattainment areas. These incl ude attainment demonstrations

, reasonably available control measures

, reasonable further progress

, inventory data

, and permitting requirements.

As stated above

, on March 29

, 2012

, the EPA determined that the Harrisburg /York Area had attained the 2006 PM 2. 5 NAAQS ( “ Clean Data Determination ” ) (7 7 FR 18922 ). EPA ’ s Clean Data Determination was based on quality

- assured

, quality

- controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment since the 200 8 through 20 10 monitorin g period. The Clean Data Determination suspended the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration

, associated reasonably available control measures

, a reasonable further progress plan

, contingency measures

, and other planning SIP revis ions related to attainment of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for so long as the area continues to meet the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Submittal of a comprehensive inventory is required by 40 CFR S ection 51.10 08 to meet the requirements of S ection 172(c)(3) of the CAA. This requirement was not suspended by the Clean Data Determination

. In fulfillment of this requirement

, t he 2007 inventory

, which also serves as the attainment year inventory

, is being submitted as part of the Maintenance P lan

, su bmitted concurrently with thi s Request for Redesignation

. The 2007 inventory is appropriate to use as an attainment year inventory because

, considering 2007

- 2009 ambient air quality monitoring data

, the area had air quality data that met the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

2

. S ection 173 of the CAA

S ection 173 of the CAA outlines requirements related to permitting of air pollution sources in nonattainment areas.

Stationary air pollution sources are subject to the regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

, Pennsylvania Code in Title 25 Environmental Resources (25 Pa. Code C hapters 121

- 145). These regulations include:

● Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources promulgated by EPA under the Clean Air Act (25 Pa. Code- 18

- C hapter 122) ; Standards for Contaminants (25 Pa. Code C hapter 123) ;

● National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (25 Pa. Code C hapt er 124);

● Construction

, Modification

, Reactivation and Operation of Sources

, including plan approval

, prevention of significant deterioration

, new source review

, operating permit program (25 Pa. Code C hapter 127);

● Standards for Sources (25 Pa. Code C hapter 129) ; and

● Annual Emission Statements and required reporting to the Department

, (25 Pa. Code C hapter 135).

These permitting

, stationary source monitoring and reporting

, preconstruction review

, offset ratios and enforceable emission limitations

re quirements were adopted to implement the fed erally mandated requirements in S ections 110

, 172

, 173 and 182(a) of the CAA. EPA has approved all of these regulations as SIP revisions

, as indicated in S ection III of this document

.

3

. S ection 176 of the CAA

S ection 176 (c) of the CAA contains the provision prohibiting federal financing of projects or activities that do not conform to an approved implementation plan.

The Commonwealth adopted and incorporated EPA ’ s General Conformity rule (40 CFR P art 93

, Subp art B) by reference in its entirety in 25 Pa. Code S ection 127.802 . The General Conformity regulation describes procedures to determine if federally

- financed

, non

- transportation projects are in con formity with air quality plans

. EPA and the U.S. Departme nt of Transportation (DOT) have issued regulations regarding criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation improvement programs (TIP or program)

, long range plans (LRP or plan)

, and individual transportation projects w ith the requirements of the CAA and the SIP for the specific nonattainment area. Affected transportation planning organizations are complying with all federal laws

, regulations and guidance for transportation conformity.- 19

- 4

. S ection 189(e) of the CAA

In light of a recent court decision (see S ection II I

, below)

, the Department considered S ection 189(e) of the CAA . According to S ection 189(e) and the court decision

, control requirements in nonattainment areas applicable for major stationary sources of PM a lso apply to major stationary sources of PM precursors. Pennsylvania assessed emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 for the maintenance demonstration

. Please see S ection III

- C

- 1 relating to control measures for stationary sources for a discussion of the stationary source control measures in place in the Harrisburg /York Area.

C. Conclusion

The requirements of S ection 110(a) and Subp art D of the CAA have been fulfilled in the Harrisburg /York Area

.

I II

. D EMONSTRATION OF P ERMANENT AND E NFORCEABLE I MPRO VEMENT

This section provides an assessment of the PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions at a time the Harrisburg /York A rea was monitoring nonattainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS and at the time when this area attained the PM 2.5 NAAQS. A 2005 ( baseline ) inventory of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions is used to represent emissions during the PM 2.5 nonattainment designation period. A 2007 inventory is used to identify PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions during a period when the Harrisburg /York A rea demonstrated th at it attained the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Detailed information is presented in the Maintenance Plan by sector.

Because of the complexity and variability of the process of particulate matter formation

, the EPA recognizes that effective control measures for PM 2.5 wi ll vary among nonattainment areas. This was reflected in EPA ’ s “ Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour Fine Particle N ational Ambient Air Quality Standard ,” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

, EPA

, March 2

, 2012 ( “ Implementation Guidance f or the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS ” ). In the Implementation Guidance for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, EPA adopted the framework and policy approach the agency espoused in its implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, known as the “ Clean Air Fine Particle Implem entation Rule (72 FR 20586 ; April 25

, 2007) (the Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ” )

In its Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, EPA had established general presumptive policies for assessing which PM 2.5 precursors should be evaluated for possible controls. In that earlier rule

, t he EPA require d states to evaluate control measures for SO 2 and primary PM 2.5 in all locations. The EPA require d states to evaluate control measures for NO X unless a technical demonstration is made to show NO X does not significantly contribute to PM 2.5 . The EPA require d states to evaluate measures for- 20

-

VOC and NH 3 only if a technical demonstration is made to show they significantly contribute to PM 2.5 in that area.

The EPA reaffirmed the appropriateness of th ese presumptions in its Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Meanwhile

, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was considering a challenge to the Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA

, No. 08

- 1250. On January 4

, 2013

, the Court handed down its ruling in that case.

The Court granted the petitions for review and remanded the case to EPA to re

promulgate the rule pursuant to Subp art 4 of P art D of the Clean Air Act

, rather than impl ementing it under Subp art 1

, as EPA had done ( 706 F.3d 428

, 437 (DC Cir. 2013) )

. Shortly thereafter

, the EPA withdrew its Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. According to EPA ’ s June

, 2013 withdrawal memorandum (see second page of me morandum)

, 2 EPA withdrew the guidance in response to the Court ’ s decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA

, No. 08

- 1250.

T he M aintenance P lan accompanying this Request for Redesignation demonstrates maintenance of the standard consistent with t he C ourt ’ s ruling.

In general

, t he Court ’ s decision (to the extent it would be extrapolated to the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS) could affect an area ’ s nonattainment classification

, certain deadlines

, and the impacts of failing to attain timely

, and could imp ose a deadline for implementation of reasonably available and best available control measures ( 706 F.3d
at 436

, n. 6 )

. Since the Harrisburg /York Area is already attaining the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, however

, those considerations are not relevant for this Reques t for Redesignation and the M aintenance P lan. The court noted that PM 2.5 precursors , including ammonia and VOCs

, are presumptively regulated in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas under Subp art 4

, pointing specifically to S ection 189(e)

, which applies to control of major stationary sources of PM 10 [the court stated that PM 10 includes PM 2.5 throughout Subp art 4] ( 706 F.3d at 436

, n. 7

, and at 437

, n. 10 )

. According to S ection 189(e) of the CAA

, control requirements applicable for major stationary sources of PM 10 als o apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors , except where the Administrator determines that major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area; S ection 189(e) also requires EPA to issue g uidelines regarding the application of S ubs ection (e)

. Pennsylvania assessed emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 for the maintenance demonstration

.

T his Request for Redesignation provides emissions information for all pollutants (PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 )

, as required by EPA ’ s guidance entitled

, “ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National

2 “Withdrawal of Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour Fine Particle ( PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” Stephen D. Page, EPA, June 6, 2013.- 21

-

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations

. ” 3 S ection III first describes the PM 2 .5 and PM 2.5 precursor emission estimates for the Harrisburg /York A rea. The 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data was used for the 2005 baseline year inventory. The 2007 inventory was developed in accordance with EPA emission inventory preparation guidance. S ection III then presents information about the permanent and enforceable control measures that have been implemented in the Harrisburg /York A rea to produce the PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emission reductions that have occurred between these year s and that will provide emission reductions ensuring maintenance of the standard

.

A. Baseline ( 2005 ) Emissions Inventory

An emission inventory is an estimate of the emissions from sources in a particular area. The 2005 baseline year emissions inventory represents the emissions present during a time period when the Harrisburg/York Area did not meet the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

The 2005 NEI is a composite of emission estimates reported by state and local agencies and industry

, as well as estimates genera ted by EPA. The 2005 NEI was based in part on information submitted by the Department under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR)

, which was published in the Federal Register on Monday

, June 10

, 2002 (67 FR 39602) . The CERR required s tates to prepare and submit a comprehensive statewide inventory every three year s.

The 2005 emissions inventory data was obtained from the EPA ’ s web site for the 2005 NEI. The data can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html

. Appendix A

- 2 contains Tier 1 summary data of the 2005 NEI.

The 2005 baseline year inventory includes the pollutants PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC

, and NH 3 . The inventory consists of sources in four sectors : electric generating units (EGUs)

, non

- EGU point and stationary area sources

, highway vehicle sources and nonroad sources. The 2005 inventory is not directly comparable to the 2007

, 2017 and 2025 inventories because of changes in inventory method ology. Highway vehicle emissions in the 2005 NEI were generated using the MOBILE6 model. For the same VMT and other parameters

, the MOBILE6 model predicts significantly lower NO X emissions than the current model

, MOVES2010. In addition

, MARAMA adjusted PM emissions to account for condensable PM emissions from EGUs in the 2007

, 2017 and 2025 emission inventories. This results in higher PM emissions in the 2007 inventory than were reported by facilities to the Department in 2007. Table III

- 1 summarizes t he emissions for 2005.

3 Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone an d Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations

– EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 001, August, 2005, updated November, 2005.- 22

-

Table III

- 1 : 2005 Harrisburg/York Area Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

B. Attainment Year (2007) Emissions Inventory

A 2007 inventory of PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 emissions for the Harrisburg /York A rea is used to ide ntify emissions during the period when attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS was demonstrated for the Harrisburg /York A rea.

Pennsylvania and other Northeastern and Mid

- Atlantic states participated in a regional effort to refine the emissions inventory and to comp ile a regional emissions inventory. The Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) coordinated that regional effort

, which allowed states to pool their resources to compile a regional emissions inventory for the purpose of conducting the re gional modeling analysis used in Pennsylvania ’ s air quality management planning efforts to attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and the PM 2.5 NAAQS

, and to prepare the Regional Haze SIP revision.

The inventory contains information for these sectors:

● “ Stationa ry sources ” (or “ point ” sources)

, which are sources for which the Department collects individual emissions

- related information. Generally

, they represent major stationary sources but may be smaller.

● “ Area sources ,” which are industrial

, commercial

, and residential sources too small or too numerous to be handled individually. These include but are not limited to commercial and residential open burning

, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings application and clean

- up , consumer product use

, and vehicle refueling at service stations. Where there is overlap between stationary point sources and stationary area sources

, the area source values are adjusted to remove any double counting.

● “ Highway vehicles ,” which include passenger cars and light

- duty trucks

, other trucks

, buses and motorcycles.

● “ Nonroad sources ,” which encompass a diverse collection of engines

, including but not limited to outdoor power equipment

, recreational vehicl es , farm and construction machinery

, lawn and garden equipment

,- 23

- industrial equipment

, recreational marine vessels

, commercial marine vessels

, locomotives

, ships

, and aircraft.

A summary of the 2007 inventory is provided in Table III

- 2.

Table III

- 2 : 2007 Harrisburg/York Area Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

Inventory methodology differences exist between the 2005 and 2007 emission inventories. Highway vehicle emissions in the 2005 NEI were generated using the MOBILE6 model. For the same VMT and othe r parameters , the MOBILE6 model predicts significantly lower NO X emissions than the current model

, MOVES2010. The MOBILE6 model also predicts lower direct PM 2.5 emissions than MOVES2010. In addition

, MARAMA adjusted PM emissions to account for condensabl e PM emissions from EGUs in the 2007

, 2017 and 2025 emission inventories. This results in higher PM emissions in the 2007 inventory than were reported by facilities to the Department in 2007. While the 2005 emissions inventory is not directly comparable to the 2007

, 2017 and 2025 inventories

, PM 2.5 , SO 2 , VOC

, and NH 3 emissions decreased by 21 percent , 1 percent , 20 percent and 10 percent respectively

, from 2005 to 2007. Emissions of NO X in 2007 were 8

, 888 ton s (14 percent ) more than in the 2005 NEI. Fur ther assessment shows that the increase is in the highway vehicle sector and is due to the fact that MOBILE6 was used to generate the 2005 NEI highway vehicle emission estimates while MOVES2010 was used to generate the 2007 NEI highway vehicle emission est imates. Therefore

, the difference between 2005 and 2007 NO X emissions is the result of a methodology difference rather than a “ real ” emissions increase.

The Maintenance Plan describes how the 2007 inventory was compiled. The Technical Appendices to the Maintenance Plan contain more detailed information for each sector.

C. Control Measures

Along with the analysis of ambient air quality and c ontributing factors in S ection I of th is Request for Redesignation

, this section describes the permanent and enfor ceable federal and state measures that provided emission reductions from 200 5 to 2007 to bring the Harrisburg /York Area into attainment and measures that will assure maintenance of the standard

.- 24

- While EPA adopted in its Implementation Guidance for the 200 6 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS the presumptions related to PM 2.5 precursors in its Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, the Department recognizes the Court decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA

, No. 08

- 1250

, 706 F.3d 428 (DC Cir. 2013) and E PA ’ s subsequent withdrawal of the Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS

. In general

, the Court ’ s decision (to the extent it would be extrapolated to the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS) could affect an area ’ s nonattainment classification

, cert ain deadlines

, and the impacts of failing to attain timely

, and could impose a deadline for implementation of reasonably available and best available control measures (706 F.3d at 436

, n. 6). Since the Harrisburg/York Area is already attaining the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS

, however

, those considerations are not relevant for this Redesignation Request or the accompanying Maintenance P lan.

The C ourt noted that PM 2.5 precursors are presumptively regulated in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas under Subp art 4

, pointing specifically to S ection 189(e)

, which applies to control of major stationary sources of PM 10 [the court stated that PM 10 includes PM 2.5 throughout Subp art 4]

. ( 706 F.3d at 436

, n. 7

, and at 437

, n. 10 )

. According to CAA S ection 189(e)

, control requiremen ts applicable for major stationary sources of PM 10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors , except where the Administrator determines that major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area; S ection 189(e) also requires EPA to issue guidelines regarding the application of S ubs ection (e)

. Pennsylvania assessed emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 for the maintenance demonstra tion.

Emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , VOC

, and NH 3 decrease d by 21 percent , 1 percent , 20 percent and 10 percent respectively

, from 2005 to 2007. Emissions of NO X in 2007 were 8

, 888 ton s (14 percent ) more than in the 2005 NEI. However

, as discussed previously

, this represents a methodology difference rather than a “ real ” emission increase.

Permanent and enforceable reductions of direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and VOC emissions between 2005 and 2007

, as described in more detail later in this section

, led to the improvement in air quality observed in that time period

. As not ed above

, the decrease in PM 2.5 emissions may be a conservative estimate because the 2007 inventory was augmented to account for condensable PM. A summary of the quantity of emission reductions from 2005 to 2007 is included in Table III

- 3 (Negative values indicate emission reductions)

.- 25

-

Table III

- 3 : Change in Harrisburg/York Area Annual Emissions (Tons per Year) from 2005 to 2007

This section also describes the federal and state measures that will provide direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X and VOC emission reduct ions

, ensuring maintenance of the standard.

A summary of the total emission s in 2007 and projected estimates for 2017 and 2025 is included in Table III

- 4

. The emission estimates account for any anticipated growth in the activity of sources and include a transportation conformity safety margin for PM 2.5 and NO X . For all pollutants

, except NH 3 , emissions in 2017 and 2025 in the Harrisburg /York A rea are anticipated to be lower than they were in 2007. This means that the projected growth in emissions is sma ller than anticipated emission reductions from control measures for all pollutants

, except NH 3 , in the nonattainment area. The small projected increase in NH 3 emissions does not present a concern for maintaining the NAAQS because the NH 3 emissions overall are small

, and the emissions of all other pollutants are projected to decline. Each measure is explained in greater detail in the following sections.

Table III

- 4 : Summary of Emission Totals (Tons) in 2007 , 2017 and 2025

Harrisburg/York PM 2.5 SO 2 NO X V OC NH 3 2007 10

, 271 123

, 185 73

, 806 36

, 236 10

, 861 2017* 9

, 155 21

, 038 51

, 721 27

, 279 11

, 483 2025* 8

, 902 20

, 032 43

, 789 24

, 155 12

, 051 *A portion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X has been set aside as a transportation conformity safety margin to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway vehicles. The emissions in Table III

- 4 reflect inclusion of that safety margin.

1. Stationary Point Sources

Background for Pennsylvania ’ s Stationary Source Permittin g Programs. An owner or operator of all proposed new air contamination sources in the Commonwealth are required to receive a plan approval (pre

construction permit) from the Department prior to the construction

, assembly

, installation of new sources

, modi fication of any existing stationary air contamination sources

, or the installation of air pollution control equipment or devices

. Following the construction of the new facility or air contamination source

, the owner or operator must obtain an- 26

- operating pe rmit from the Department

. The type of operating permit will depend on the quantity of regulated pollutants emitted from the air contamination sources. DEP will issue a “ State

- only Operating Permit ” for minor air contamination stationary sources that are below the applicability thresholds for Title V facilities

. A Title V operating permit is required for major facilities that have the potential to emit air contaminants exceeding the Title V thresholds

. The Title V Permit

, which is issued for a term of fi ve year s , incorporates all applicable requirements for the facility in a single federally enforceable operating permit

. The requirements contained in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 127 (relating to the construction

, modification

, reactivation and operation of sour ces)

, and associated definitions in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 121.1

, are a suite of programs regulating air contamination sources to improve and maintain air quality. C hapter 127 establishes requirements for the submission

, review and approval of pre

- constructi on and operating permits for both major and

non

- major air contamination sources. The provisions of C hapter 127 have been codified in the SIP at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1) at various times since May 31

, 1972 and most recently on October 5

, 2012

, and are there fo re all federally enforceable. Several aspects of C hapter 127 are highlighted below.

Title V Permitting Program. The Title V Permitting Program

, adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

, is applicable to major stationary sources as define d in 25 Pa Code S ection 121.1

. The purpose of the Title V program is to detail a facility ’ s air quality requirements in a single permit document so that industry

, the regulatory agency

, and the public know exactly what regulations and requirements apply a nd how the facility ’ s owner or operator will monitor and demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements

. The Title V permit includes all sources at a site including all air pollution control devices as well as activities that were determined to b e insignificant sources of emissions. Each source is described in detail within a section of the Title V permit. The requirements include general conditions applicable to all Title V facilities

, emission restrictions

, detailed monitoring

, recordkeeping

, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the facility ’ s applicable federal and state requirements.

Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. Major facilities proposed in Pennsylvania will also be subject to New Source Review (NSR) requirements in nonattainment areas and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in areas of the Commonwealth designated attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards including carbon monoxide

, particulate matter (PM)

, lead

, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 )

, ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Generally

, NSR permit requirements are applicable to a facility located in a- 27

- nonattainment area for a particular pollutant with a potential to emit 50 ton s or more per year (tpy) o f volatile organic compounds or 100 tpy or more of NOx

, SO 2 , PM or carbon monoxide

. It should be noted that the entire Commonwealth

, included in the Ozone Transport Region by operation of law

, is treated as a “ moderate ” ozone nonattainment area

, irrespec tive of the area ’ s attainment status. Because NOx and VOC are precursors of PM 2.5 , NOx and VOC emission reductions required statewide under the nonattainment NSR program for ozone also allow Pennsylvania to make substantial progress in attaining and maint aining the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Any major stationary source or major modification subject to the NSR requirements must receive a plan approval

. To receive approval from the Department

, a person must show that the proposed source will

, among other things

, offset its potential to emit air contaminants including NOx

, PM and VOCs by securing emission reductions credits at the specified offset ratio

, will employ the “ lowest achievable emission rate ” (LAER) for each regulated pollutant and conduct an alternative analys is

. The nonattainment NSR requirements are codified in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 127

, Subc hapter E and approved as a SIP revision on December 9

, 1997 (62 FR 64722).

The PSD program is a pre

- construction review and permitting program applicable to new or modifi ed major stationary sources subject to Title I

, Parts C and D of the federal CAA. The PSD requirements are applicable to major sources in areas attaining the NAAQS. The federal PSD regulations codified in 40 CFR P art 52 are incorporated by reference in
t heir entirety in 25 Pa. Code § 127.83 (relating to adoption by reference)

. The Department ’ s PSD regulations

, codified in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 127

, Subc hapter D

, were approved by the EPA on August 21

, 1984 and codified at 40 CFR § 52.2058 (49 FR 33128). PSD permit requirements may apply to a facility located in an attainment area for a standard with the potential to emit 100 tpy or 250 tpy of the six criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide

, lead

, nitrogen dioxide

, ozone , particulate matter and sulfur dioxide depending on the source category. Any major stationary source or major modification su bject to the PSD requirements must conduct an analysis to establish the best available control technology (BACT). In addition

, the owner or operator of a facility needs to conduct an ambient air quality analysis

, analyze the impacts to soils

, vegetation

a nd visibility and make sure that the project will not adversely impact mandatory federal C lass I areas including national parks greater than 6
, 000 acres and national wilderness areas and national memorial parks greater than 5

, 000 acres.

Best Available T

echnology Program. The Department ’ s Best Available Technology (BAT) Program ensures that new stationary sources will prevent , reduce or control emissions of air contaminants to the maximum degree possible

. The Department determines BAT requirements on a- 28

- case

- by

- case basis for both major and minor stationary sources taking into account energy , environmental and costs

. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code §127.1

, the emission of air pollutants from new sources in Pennsylvania must be controlled to the maximum extent

, c onsistent with the best available technology as determined by the Department as of the date of issuance of the plan approval for the new source. Under 25 Pa. Code §127.12(a)(5)

, an application for a plan approval must show that the emissions from a new so urce will be the minimum attainable through the use of the best available technology. Pennsylvania regulations define

“ best available technology ” in 25 Pa. Code § 121.1 as

, “ Equipment

, devices

, methods or techniques as determined by the Department which wi ll prevent

, reduce or control emissions of air contaminants to the maximum degree possible and which are available or may be made available. ” The Department ’ s BAT regulations

, codified in 25 Pa. Code §§127.1 and 127.12(a)(5)

, were approved by EPA on July 30

, 1996

, and codified in the SIP at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1).

NOx and SO 2 Control Programs. In 1998

, EPA promulgated the NO X SIP Call as the EPA ’ s principal effort to reduce interstate transport of air pollution (63 FR 57356; October 27

, 1998). In respons e to the federal NO X SIP call rule

, Pennsylvania adopted the NO X Budget Trading Program regulations for EGUs and large industrial boilers

, with emission reductions to commence May 1

, 2003. The regulations were approved by EPA as a revision to the Commonwe alth ’ s SIP on August 21

, 2001 (66 FR 43795). Additionally

, in response to the NO X SIP Call

, Pennsylvania adopted additional NO X control regulations covering cement plants and internal combustion engines

, with emission reductions to

commence May 1

, 2005. These regulations were approved by EPA as a SIP revision on September 29

, 2006 (71 FR 57428).

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In 2005

, EPA adopted CAIR (70 FR 25162; May 12

, 2005

, as amended) to address interstate transport of NO X and SO 2 . CAIR is now being implemented in Pennsylvania through the Department ’ s CAIR regulation

, codified in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 145

, Subc hapter D

, with related amendments in Chapters 121

, 129 and 145. EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s CAIR SIP revision on December 10

, 2009

, codif ied at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1) (74 FR 65446). In the CAIR SIP revision

, Pennsylvania terminated the NO X Budget Trading Program and transitioned to the federal CAIR for large electric generating units (EGU).

The market

- based CAIR is designed to reduce EGU e missions of NO X and SO 2 below 2002 levels throughout the eastern United States. Pennsylvania and the other CAIR states were required to adopt a regulation implementing the requirements of the CAIR or an equivalent program. The large EGUs in Pennsylvania were initially regulated under- 29

- CAIR FIPs promulgated by EPA

, but have been regulated under the SIP since EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s CAIR SIP revision. Under the SIP revision

, Pennsylvania participates in the EPA

- administered cap

- and

- trade programs for NO X annual

, NO X ozone season , and SO 2 annual emissions.

EPA ’ s CAIR was remanded to EPA for revisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on December 23

, 2008 (See

, North Carolina v. EPA

, 531 F.3d 896

, modified

, 550 F.3d 1176 ( D.C. Cir. 2008)). Following remand

, EPA replaced CAIR with the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

, but in a separate legal challenge the court vacated CSAPR. In that ruling

, the court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR pending the promulgatio n of a valid replacement (See

, EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA

, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012

, rehearing denied

, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 and 1624 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24

, 2013)). On June 24

, 2013

, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted review of the case. Following the Circuit Court ’ s direction

, CAIR remains in place pending the Supreme Court ’ s review.

NO X Budget Trading Program limits on non

- EGUs. The CAIR SIP revision also established emission limits for the non

- EGUs and other units that were subject to the Commonwealth ’ s NO X Budget Trading Program but are not subject to the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program. T hese units must continue monitoring NO X emissions and must meet an emissions cap. Each unit has an allowable emission rate

, calcu lated by January 31 of each year

, based on the previous ozone season ’ s heat input. If the combined NO X ozone season emissions from all of these units exceed the statewide ozone season emission cap of 3

, 438 ton s , each unit that exceeds its individual allow able emissions limit for that ozone season must surrender to the Department one CAIR NO X ozone season allowance and one CAIR NO X annual allowance for each ton of emissions over its allowable emission limit. In addition

, the Commonwealth has set aside 181 ton s of NO X , including tons that will be retired each year to compensate for sources that were exempted under the “ twenty

- five ton exemption ” in 25 Pa. Code § 145.4(b)3. The balance of tons remaining in the set aside is available to the Department annually for accounting corrections. The Commonwealth retires any unused amount from this set aside each year.

It is unlikely that the 3

, 438

- ton statewide NO X ozone season emission limitation will be exceeded. Pennsylvania ’ s non

- EGU sources ’ total emissions dur ing each of the years they were trading under the NO X Budget Trading Program never exceeded the statewide cap of 3

, 438 ton s.

The Department ’ s regulation

, codified in 25 Pa. Code §145.8(d)

, was approved by EPA on December 10

, 2009

, and codified in the SIP at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1).- 30

- Cement kilns and large stationary internal combustion engines. The CAIR SIP revision also included regulations updating the cement manufacturing and large stationary internal combustion engine regulations that were adopted pursu ant to the NO X SIP Call. Until 2009

, cement kilns and large stationary internal combustion engines that were subject to the NO X SIP Call were required to surrender NO X SIP Call allowances if they exceeded their NO X emission limits set forth in Department regulations. Because the Department discontinued the NO X Budget Trading Program beginning 2009

, at which point NO X SIP Call allowances were replaced by CAIR NO X ozone season allowances

, the Department modified the regulations to require surrender of CAIR NO X ozone season and CAIR NO X annual allowances for emission limit exceedances.

The Department ’ s regulations for large stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns

, codified in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 145

, Subchapters B and C

, respectively

, were ap proved by EPA on December 10

, 2009

, and codified at 40 CFR § 51.2020(c)(1). An amendment to the Department ’ s regulation for cement kilns to reduce NO X emissions effective April 15

, 2011

, codified in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 145

, Subc hapter C

, was approved by EP A on July 19

, 2011 and codified at 40 CFR §51.2020(c)(1).

Federal Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Federal standards to control hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) require Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) at units located at major sources of HAPs. The EPA has promulgated a series of MACT regulations that are applicable to sources in Pennsylvania. These MACT standards are adopted and incorporated by reference in S ection 6.6 of Pennsylvania ’ s Air Pollution Control Act and implementing regul ations in 25 Pa. Code § 127.35 (relating to maximum achievable control technology standards for hazardous air pollutants). The standards also included in federally enforceable plan approvals and operating permits issued by the Department for affected sourc es.

2. Highway Vehicle Sources

Even with increases in vehicle miles travelled ( VMT ) that occurred between 2005 and 2007

, and are anticipated to occur from 2007 through 2025

, highway vehicle emissions will continue to decrease. As more vehicles subject t o cleaner new car standards replace older vehicles subject to less stringent new vehicle standards

, the fleet as a whole emits fewer emissions

, compensating for the increase in VMT . These decreases can be attributed t o the programs described below.- 31

- Feder al Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) and Pennsylvania Clean Vehicle Program for passenger vehicles and light

duty trucks and cleaner gasoline. Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAA Amendments of 1990 include NO X and VOC limits for light

du ty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light

- duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs). These standards began to be phased in 1994. Evaporative VOC emissions were reduced in gasoline

- powered cars starting with Model Year (MY) 1998.

In 1998

, under the authority of S ection 177 of the CAA

, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) adopted the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (28 Pa.B. 5873 ; Dec. 5

, 1998). The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by reference certain California Low Emission Vehicle (CA LEV) emission standards for passenger cars and light

- duty trucks. As required under S ection 177 of the CAA

, these provisions are identical to the low emission standards adopted by California. The regulation does not incorporate by reference the Californ ia zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) or emissions control warranty systems statement provisions.

In the same rulemaking

, the EQB adopted the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program as a compliance alternative to the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program. T he NLEV program became effective in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) in 1999. Pennsylvania ’ s New Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program regulations in 25 Pa. Code § § 126.401

- 126.441 allowed automobile manufacturers to comply with NLEV instead of the CA LE V program through MY 2005. These regulations affected vehicles 6

, 000 pound s and less

.

In 1999

, the EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV ( Tier 2)

, starting with MY 2004. T he N LEV program was replaced for MY 2004 and later by the more stri ngent Federal “ Tier 2 ” vehicle emissions regulations ( 65 FR 6698 ; Feb. 10

, 2000)

, and vehicle manufacturers operating under the NLEV program became subje ct to the Tier 2 requirements.

Pennsylvania amended the former New Motor Vehicle Control Program in 20 06. The Clean Vehicles Program continues to incorporate the California Low Emission Vehicle Program (CA LEV II) by reference. As amended

, the program affects MY 2008 and newer passenger cars and light

- duty trucks vehicles ( 36 Pa.B. 7424 ; Dec. 9

, 2006

, co rrected 37 Pa.B. 209 ; Jan. 12

, 2007

, eff. Dec. 9

, 2006). EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s Clean Vehicle Program as a revis ion to the Commonwealth ’ s SIP o n January 24

, 2012 ( 77 FR 3386).- 32

- Heavy

- Duty Diesel Control Programs. The EPA promulgated more stringent n ational regulations for heavy

- duty engines and vehicles (over 14

, 000 pound s) starting with MY 2004. In addition

, consent decrees with seven of the largest heavy

- duty engine manufacturers required

, among other terms

, that diesel engines made by these compa nies comply with these 2004 standards two model years early

, in MY 2002. The emission reductions from these programs are reflected in the future year emission inventories

, as provided in the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator ( MOVES ) model.

In 2002

, the EQ B adopted the Heavy

- Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program for model years starting after May 2004. The program incorporates California standards by reference and requires MY 2005 and subsequent new heavy

- duty diesel highway engines to be those certified b y California. California standards were more stringent than federal standards for the two model years between expiration of the consent decrees discussed above (MYs 2005 and 2006) and the implementation of more stringent federal standards affecting MY 200 7 and beyond. However

, EPA ’ s MOVES model already assumed that the engines would comply with consent decree standards

, even without an enforcement mechanism. The Department has used MOVES defaults to calculate emissions from MY 2005 and 2006 highway engin es.

The EPA adopted new emission standards for heavy

- duty engines and vehicles for MY 2007 and subsequent. For diesel engines

, the standards

were phased in from 2007 to 2010 for NO X and VOCs. For gasoline engines

, the standards w ere phased in during MY 2008 and 2009. Federal and California standards are virtually identical for MY 2007. For MY 2008

, California adopted requirements for idling restriction engine programming and an optional “ clean NO X idle ” standard. However

, there is no EPA

- approved meth odology to estimate emission reductions from this requirement. Therefore

, the emission estimates use assumptions of the federal rule for MY 2007 through 2010.

Because the new engine standards are adversely affected by sulfu r in fuel

, the EPA also require d most highway diesel fuel to contain no more than 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur

, beginni ng in the fall of 2006. There

wa s a temporary compliance option allowing refiners to continue to produce up to 20 percent of their highway diesel fuel at 500 p pm fuel until 2010. The Department u sed MOVES defaults to estimate the effects of the phase

- in provision.

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program. In early 2004

, Pennsylvania expanded its Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program int o the Harrisburg /York Area. The program applies to gasoline

- powered vehicles 9

, 000 pound s and under

, model years 1975 and- 33

- newer. For vehicles 1996 and newer

, the program consists of an annual

on

- board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure test. For su bject vehicles 1995 and older

, the program consists of an annual visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are present

, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap pressure test. These regulations can be found in 67 Pa. Code C hapter 177. The Department submitted the expanded emissions program as a SIP revision on December 1

, 2003. EPA approved the SIP revision on October 6
, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

Low sulfur gasoline. Sulfur is a natural ly occu r ring component of crude oi l that ends up in gasoline and diesel unless removed. Sulfur in gasoline impairs the effectiveness of emission control systems and contributes to air pollution. By removing most sulfur from gasoline

, new advanced emission controls will work longer and mo re efficiently

, and air pollution will be reduc ed.

The 1999 federal Tier 2 regulations (65 FR 6698 ; Feb. 10

, 2000) reduce d the sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent , enabling the use of new emission control technologies in cars and trucks that re duce harmful air pollution. The emission inventory analysis in the Maintenance Plan submitted concurrently with this Request for Redesignation uses the default assumptions provided in MOVES2010 to account for the implementation of the federal standards fo r low sulfur gasoline. Requirements for use of low

- sulfur gasoline enabled use of advanced emission control systems in light

- duty vehicles beginning in MY 2004. Vehicles meeting Tier 2 emission standards are 77 to 95 percent cleaner than earlier models.

On May 21

, 2013

, EPA proposed a rulemaking reducing sulfur content in gasoline further with a Tier 3 Low Sulfur Gasoline program and establishing tailpipe and evaporative emission standards for motor vehicles including passenger cars , light

- duty trucks

, m edium

- duty passenger vehicles

, and certain heavy

- duty vehicles (78 FR 29816). The
pre

- publication version of the final rule was signed by the EPA Administrator on March 3

, 2014

. These federal standards will take effect 60 day s after the final rule is pub lished in the Federal Register. The Tier 3 program requires the annual average content of sulfur in gasoline to be reduced to 10 parts per million

, starting January 1

, 2017. By 2018

, EPA estimates that SO 2 emissions will be reduced by 56 percent . When f ully implemented

, this program

, by 2030

, will increase the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls even further and reduce onroad emissions of NO X by 25 percent , direct particulate matter by 10 percent and VOCs by 16 percent

. The rule will also signifi cantly reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and hazardous air pollutants including acrolein

, benzene

, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.- 34

- 3. Nonroad Sources

The EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel

- powered ( “ compression ignition ” ) and g asoline

- powered ( “ spark ignition ” ) nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and applications. Information on these federal rules

, including their implementation dates

, can be found at www.epa.gov/nonroad. The Department used the assumptions built in to the nonroad model (NONROAD2005) and NMIM to estimate emissions for all milestone years.

While the EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking for more stringent standards for locomotives and large commercial marine diesel engines

, the agency has not finalized any new standards.

On June 29

, 2004

, EPA adopted a rule establishing a comprehensive national program to reduce emissions from nonroad diesel engines (69 FR 38958). The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content of diesel u sed in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in fuel sulfur content prevent s damage to the more advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standards; it will also reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines. In 2007

, fuel sulfu r levels were limited to 500 ppm for nonroad applications other than ocean

- going marine vessels. In 2010

, fuel sulfur levels were reduced to the same sulfur concentration as in highway fuel

, 15 ppm ; this requirement began applying in 2012 to locomotive an d marine diesel fuel. EPA adopted technical amendments to the program in rules published in the Federal Register on November 22

, 2005 (70 FR 70498)

, and May 1

, 2006 (71 FR 25706). On April 30

, 2010 (75 FR 22896)

, EPA adopted changes to the nonroad diesel fuel program to allow for the production and sale of diesel fuel with up to 1

, 000 ppm sulfur for use in Category 3 marine vessels. This requirement does not impact the Harrisburg /York Area because the Harrisburg /York Area does not have emissions from

com mercial marine vessels.

4. Stationary Area Sources

Consumer Products. This 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 Commonwealt h. The program is contained in 25 Pa. Code C hapter 130

, Subc hapter B. It was submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision on March 26

, 2003

, and approved

on December 8

, 2004 (69 FR 70895). Amendments to the Consumer Products regulations were adopted on Octobe r 11

, 2008

, submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision on March 11

, 2009

, and approved on October 18

, 2010 (75 FR 63717).- 35

- Adhesives , Sealants , Primers and Solvents. The EQB adopted a regulation in 2010 to control VOC emissions from adhesives

, sealants

, pri mers and solvents. This regulation was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 25

, 2010 (40 Pa.B. 7340)

, and approved by EPA as a SIP revision on September 26

, 2012 (77 FR 59090).

I V

. M AINTENANCE P LAN

The Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg /Y ork Area is being submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP revision concurrently with this R equest for R edesignation. The Maintenance Plan shows that the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS will be maintained for at least 10 year s after redesignation. Eight years following r edesignation

, the Commonwealth will submit a revised plan that e nsures attainment through 2035.

T he Maintenance Plan shows that emission levels of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X and VOC over the 10 year s following redesignation will remain below the emissions level in 2 007

, while allowing for growth in population and vehicle miles traveled. The small projected increase in NH 3 emissions does not present a concern for maintaining the NAAQS because the NH 3 emissions overall are small

, and the emissions of all other polluta nts are projected to decline. The following state and federal programs will ensure the continuing decline of SO 2 , NO X , direct PM 2.5 , and VOC emissions:

● CAIR ;

● Emission limits for large industrial boilers;

● State regulation of cement kilns

, large stationary internal combustion engines

, and smaller sources of NO X ;

● State regulations incorporating by reference the federal Prevention of Significant De terioration (PSD) regulations;

● State requirements for Best Available Technology ( BAT ) ;

● State regulation of the sulfur content of fuel oil;

● State regulation of VOC emissions from adhesives

, sealants

, primers and solvents;

● The Pennsylvania and fe deral new motor vehicle emission control programs for
p assenger and light

- duty trucks;

● The Pennsylvania and federal heavy

- duty di esel emission control programs;

● Federal fuel programs for highway vehicles an d nonroad mobile equipment; and- 36

-

● Federal r egulation of off

- road diesel and gasoline

- powered vehicles and equipment.

Emission reductions from Pennsylvania ’ s Diesel

- Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act

, Act 124 of 2008 (Idling Act) were not included in the 2017 and 2025 emission inventories

, and

, thus

, were not relied upon for the demonstration of maintenance. The Idling Act was approved by EPA as a SIP revision on August 1

, 2011 (76 FR 45705). Similarly

, NO X and VOC emission reductions from Pennsylvania ’ s Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boilers regulation were no t included in the 2017 and 2025 emission inventories

, and

, were not relied upon for the demonstration of maintenance. The Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boiler regulation was published in the Pennsylvania Bull etin on October 2

, 2010 (40 Pa.B. 5571)

, and approved by EPA as a SIP revision on September 20

, 2011

, (76 FR 58114). However

, emission reductions from these measures may nonetheless assist the Harrisburg /York Area in maintaining air quality.

The Department has provided in the Maintenance Plan assurances that i t will continue to operate the ambient air quality monitoring network in order to track maintenance of the standard and to evaluate emissions inventories periodically compared to the projections provided in the plan. The Department has also provided in th e Maintenance Plan a list of contingency measures that it would consider to correct any violation of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS that might occur af ter redesignation of the area.- 37

- ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook AQS EPA ’ s Air Quality System AQTAC DEP ’ s Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee BACT Best Available Control Technology BAT Best Available Technology CAA Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CA LEV California Low Emission Vehicle (program) CAM X Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMV Commercial Marine Vessel DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EGU Electric Generating Unit EIA Energy Information Administration EIS Emission Inve ntory System EPA The U nited S tates Environmental Protection Agency EQB Environmental Quality Board ERC Emission Reduction Credit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIP Federal Implementation Plan FMVCP Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program FR Federal Regi ster FRM Federal Reference Method GDP Gross Domestic Product GHCN Global Historical Climatology Network HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant I/M Inspection and Maintenance IRRC Independent Regulatory Review Commission LDGV Light Duty Gasoline V ehicles LDGT Light Du ty Gasoline T rucks LRP Long Range Plan MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MM5 Mesoscale Model MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MY Model Year NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emissions Inventory NH 3 Ammonia NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle (program) NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model- 38

-

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric A dministration NONROAD Nonroad Model NO X Oxides of Nitrogen NSR New Source Review OTC Ozone Transport Commission OTR Ozone Transport Region OWB Outdoor Wood

- fired Boiler PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 Particula te Matter less than 2.5 micro ns in diameter or Fine P articulates PM 10 Particulate Matter less than 10 micro ns in diameter
ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RWC Residential Wood Combustion SCC Source Classification Code SIP State Implementation Plan SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide TAF Terminal Area Forecast TCM Transportation Control Measures TIP Transportation Improvement Program TSD Technical Support Document
μ g/m 3 M icrogram per cubic meter
μm Micrometer VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound ZEV Zero Emissions Vehicle

# C ommonwealth of Pennsylvania



# S TATE 

# I MPLEMENTATION 

# P LAN 

# R EVISION 

# : M AINTENANCE 

# P LAN AND 

# C OMPREHENSIVE 

# I NVENTORY 

# H ARRISBURG


# - C ARLISLE


# - L EBANON


# - Y ORK 

# N ONATTAINMENT 

# A REA 

# 2006 F INE 

# P ARTICULATE 

# M ATTER 

# N ATIONAL 

# A MBIENT 

# A IR 

# Q UALITY 

# S TANDARDS



# APRIL 2014

Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468 Harrisburg, PA 17105

- 8468 717

- 787

- 9495

www.dep.state.pa.us[ This page intentionally left blank

. ]- i

- Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 A. Health and Environmental Effects of Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

.................. 1 B. Sources of PM2.5 and Precursor Pollutants of Concern

................................ .......... 2 C. Purpose and Structure of this SIP Revision

................................ ............................. 4 D. Public Participa tion

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8

II. Emission Inventories

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 A. Baseline Year (2005) Annual Emissions Inventory (Tons per Year)

.................... 10 B. Attainment Year (2007) Annual Emissions Inventory (Tons per Year)

................ 11 C. Growth Projection Methodologies for 2017 and 2025

................................ .......... 14 D. Interim Year (2017) Emissions

................................ ................................ .............. 17 E. Maintenance Year (2025) Emissions

................................ ................................ ..... 18 F. Maintenan ce Plan Emissions Test

................................ ................................ ......... 18

III. Permanent and Enforceable Control Measures

................................ ................................ .. 21 A. Permanent and Enforceable Control Measures

................................ ...................... 21 1. Stationary Point Sources

................................ ................................ ............ 24 2. Highway Vehicle Sources

................................ ................................ .......... 29 3. No nroad Sources

................................ ................................ ........................ 32 4. Stationary Area Sources

................................ ................................ ............. 33 B. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity

........................ 34

IV. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network

................................ ................................ ........ 38

V. Verification of Continued Attainment

................................ ................................ ............... 38

VI. Contingency Measures

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 38

Table of Tables

Table II

- 1: Harrisburg/York Area 2005 Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

............................... 10 Table II

- 2: Harrisburg/York Area 2007 Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

............................... 14 Table II

- 3: Harrisburg/York Area VMT (Miles) and Vehicle Emissions (Tons per Year)

.......... 16 Table II

- 4: Harrisburg/York Area Projected 2017 Emissions (Tons per Year)

............................ 18 Table II

- 5: Harrisburg/York Area Projected 20 25 Emissions (Tons per Year)

............................ 18 Table II

- 6: Harrisburg/York Area Maintenance Emissions Test

................................ .................. 20 Table III

- 1: Summary of Emissio n Reductions (Tons) from 2007 to 2025 from Control

Measures

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 23 Table III

- 2: Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (Tons per Year)

................................ ................... 35 T able III

- 3: Comparison of Safety Margin to Total Anticipated Emission Reductions in

2017 and 2025

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 35 Table III

- 4: Comparison of 2025 On

- Road Mobile VOC, NH 3 , and SO 2 Emissions to the

Total P rojected 2025 Inventory

................................ ................................ ................. 36- ii

- APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: STATIONARY POINT SOURCES A

- 1 Methodology

– Preparation of Pennsylvania Point Source Inventories and

Instructions for Completing the Annual Emissions Reporting Forms A

- 2 2005NEI Tier 1 Summary A

- 3 Facility Annual Emissions

– 2007, 2017, 2025 A

- 4 Banked Emissions Reduction Credits

APPENDIX B: STATIONARY AREA SOURCES B

- 1 Pennsylvania 2007 Area Source Criteria Air Pollutant Emission

Estimation Methods (Dec. 2009) B

- 2 Ar ea Source Annual Emissions

– 2007, 2017, 2025

APPENDIX C: REGIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND PROJECTION

METHODOLOGY C

- 1 Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2007Emission

Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/Mid

Atl antic Region Version 3.3 (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure and SRA International, Inc. for MARAMA, January 2012) C

- 2 Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2017/2020

Emission Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/Mi d

-

Atlantic Region Version 3.3 (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure and SRA International, Inc. for MARAMA, January 2012) C

- 3 Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2025 Emission

Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE

- VU Region Ver sion 3.3 Rev.1 (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure and SRA International, Inc. for MARAMA, January 2012) C

- 4 Technical Memo Emission Factors for Condensable PM

APPENDIX D: HIGHWAY VEHICLE SOURCES INVENTORY INFORMATION D

- 1 Mobile Source Highway Emissions In ventory

– An Explanation of

Methodology D

- 2 Highway Emissions Estimates

– 2007, 2017, 2025 D

- 3 MOVES Input Parameter Summary D

- 4 MOVES Input and Output Files

APPENDIX E: NONROAD SOURCES E

- 1 Nonroad Source Emissions

– 2007, 2017, 2025- 1

-

I. I NTRODUCTION AN D O VERVIEW

A. Health and Environmental Effects of Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air that include: acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, met als, soil or dust particles and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). Fine particle pollution or PM 2.5 describes particulate matter that is less than or equal to 2.5 micromete rs (μm) in diameter, approximately 1/30th the diameter of a human hair. Because of their small size, fine particles can penetrate deeply into the lungs.

Health studies have shown a significant association between exposure to fine particles and premature death from heart or lung disease. Fine particles can aggravate heart and lung diseases and have been linked to effects such as cardiovascular symptoms, cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks, respiratory symptoms, asthma attacks, and bronchitis. These effect s can result in increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days. Individuals that may be particularly sensitive to fine particle exposure include people with heart or lung disease, older adu lts, and children. The article, “ Fine

- Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States ” by C. Arden Pope, III, et al. published January 22, 2009

, in the New England Journal of Medicine evaluate d the role PM 2.5 reductions occurring in the 1980s and 1990s had on the increased life expectancy observed over that period. The study found that a reduction of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) of PM 2.5 was associated with an average increase in life expectancy of 7.3 months.

PM 2.5 has significant environmental impacts, including acid rain and stream eutrophication. PM 2.5 also affects visibility (regional haze ) through the scattering and absorption of light. Fine particles, similar in size to the wavelength of light, are most efficient, per unit of mass, at reducing visibility. Soiling and materials damage can also be caused by PM 2.5 in the air.

The United S tates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1997 after evaluating hundreds of health studies and conducting an extensive peer review process. The EPA established an annual primary (health

- based) and secondary (welfare

- based) standard of 1 5.0 μg/m 3 , based on the 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. The EPA also established a primary and secondary 24

- hour standard of 65 μg/m 3 determined by the 3

- year average of the 98th perce nt ile of 24

- hour concentrations. In 2006, t he EPA promulgated a revised 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 determined by the 3

- year average of the 98th percent ile of 24

- hour concentrations. The annual standard was not revised ( 71 F R 61 144 ; October 17, 20 06).- 2

- On October 8 , 200 9 , the EPA promulgated air quality designations for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard based on air quality monitoring data from 200 6

- 200 8 . The final designations were published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2009 ( 7 4 FR 58688 ). The designations became effective on December 14, 2009

. The EPA designated seven areas c omprised of all or portions of 2 2 counties in Pennsylvania as PM 2.5 nonattainment areas.

The Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Area (Harrisburg/York Area) , consisting of D auphin, Lebanon, Cumberland and York counties, was one of seven areas in Pennsylvania designated by t he EPA as nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 N AAQS. The Harrisburg/ York Area w as designated nonattainment because the

area violated the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 s tandard of 3 5 .0 μg/m 3 based on 200 6

- 20 0 8 monitoring data

. It is important to n ote that York County was designated as a single

- county nonattainment area for purposes of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard

, but was combined with Cumberland, Dauphin and Lebanon counties to form the multi

- county Harrisburg/York nonattainment a rea for purposes of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard

.

B. Sources of PM2.5 and Precursor Pollutants of Concern

Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere. PM 2.5 e mitted directly into the air in a stable solid or liquid chemical form (including PM 2.5 that is formed near its source by condensation) is referred
to as “ primary ” PM 2.5
. PM 2.5 is formed by chemical reactions of gases in the atmosphere is considered to be “ secondary ” PM 2.5 . The chemical composition of PM 2.5 in an area depends on the mix of emissions, location, time of year, and weather. The chemical composition of PM 2.5 can include sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, particle

- bound water, black (elemental) carbo n, a great variety of organic compounds, and miscellaneous inorganic material

, such as dust and metals.

Primary PM 2.5 includes soot from diesel engines, condensed organic material from incomplete combustion and compounds from condensation during combustio n or smelting.

The atmospheric chemistry of PM 2.5 formation is complex. Formation of secondary PM 2.5 depends on numerous factors

, including the relative concentration of precursors, atmospheric conditions and the interactions of precursors with each othe r and with other particles, clouds or fog. The contribution of different pre cursors will vary by location.

The principal forms of secondary PM 2.5 include:

 Sulfates, formed from emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from power plants and industrial facilitie s ;- 3

-  Nitrates, formed from emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) from power plants, vehicles, and other combustion sources ;

 Ammonium, formed primarily from emissions of ammonia (NH 3 ) from animal operations ; and

 Secondary organic aerosol

, formed from emission s of v olatile organic

c ompounds ( VOCs ) from incomplete combustion and evaporation fr om a wide diversity of sources.

Because of the complexity and variability of the process of particulate matter formation, the EPA recognizes that effective control measure s for PM 2.5 will vary among nonattainment areas

. This was reflected in EPA ’ s “ Implemen tation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard, ” Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards, EPA, March 2, 2012 ( “ Implementat ion Guidance for the 2006 24

- H our PM 2.5 NAAQS ” ) . In the Implementati o n Guidance for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA adopted the framework and policy approach the agency espoused in its implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, known as the “ Clean Air Fine P article Implementation Rule ” ( 7 2 FR 20586 ; April 25, 2007 ) ( “ I mplementation R ule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ” )

.

In its I mplementation R ule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, EPA had establishe d general presumptive policies for assessing which PM 2.5 precursors should be evaluate d for possible controls. 1 In that earlier r ule , t he EP A require d states to evaluate control measures for SO 2 and primary PM 2.5 i n all locations. The EPA require d states to evaluate control measures for NO X unless a technical demonstration is m ade to show that NO X emissions from sources in the state do not significantly contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area

. The EPA require d states to evaluate measures for VOC and NH 3 only if a technical demonstration is made to show VOC or NH 3 emissions significantly contribute to PM 2.5 in the nonattainment area.

The EPA reaffirmed the appropriateness of these presumptions in it s Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- H our PM 2.5 NAAQS

. 2 Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals for the D.C

. Circ uit was considering a challenge to the Implementati on Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , No. 08

- 1250

. On January 4, 2013, the C ourt handed down its ruling in that case

. T he C ourt granted the petitions for review a nd remanded the

1 The EPA ’ s definition of “ PM 2.5 attainment pla n precursor ” can be found in 40 CFR Section 51.1000, which reads:

“ PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor means S0 2 and those other PM 2.5 precursors emitted by sources in the State which the State must evaluate for emission reduction measures to be included in its PM 2.5 nonattainment area or maintenance area plan. ” 2 EPA wrote: “ The EPA believes that these same presumptions would be appropriately applied with respect to the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS as well. ” See, Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, page 3, footnote 8.- 4

- case to EPA to re

- promulga te the rule pursuant to Subpart 4 of Part D of the Clean Air Act, rather than implementing it under Subpart 1, as EPA had done ( 706 F.3d 428 at 437 (DC Cir. 2013) )

. Shortly thereafter, EPA withdrew its Implemen tati on Guidance for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS

. According to EPA ’ s June, 2013 withdrawal memorandum (see second page of memorandum)

, 3 EPA withdrew the guidance in response to the C ourt ’ s decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA

, No. 08

- 1250

.

T h is maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of the standard consistent with the C ourt ’ s ruling. In general, t he C ourt ’ s decision (to the extent it would be extrapolated to the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS) could affect an area ’ s nonattainment classification, certain deadlines, and the impacts of failing to attain timely, and could impose a deadline for implementation of reasonably available and best available control measures ( 706 F.3d at 436, n. 6 )

. Since the Harrisburg/ York Area is already attaining the 20 06 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, however, those considerations are not rele vant for this maintenance plan. The

co urt noted that PM 2.5 precursors, including ammonia and VOCs, are presumptively regulated in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas under Subpart 4 , pointing specifi cally to S ection 189(e), which applies to control of major stationary sources of PM 10 [the court stated that PM 10 includes PM 2.5 throughout Subpart 4] ( 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7, and at 437, n. 10 )

. A ccording to CAA Section 189(e), control requirements applic able for major stationary sources of PM 10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors , except where the Administrator determines that major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area ; S ection 189(e) also requires EPA to issue guidelines regarding the application of S ubsection (e). Pennsylvania assessed emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 for the maintenance demonstration

.

T his State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) revision provides emissions information for all pollutants ( PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 )

, as required by EPA ’ s guidance entitled, “ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regio nal Haze

. Regulations. ” 4

C. Purpose a nd Structure o f t his SIP Revision

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688)

, after consultation with states and receipt of public input, the EPA designated seven areas in Pennsylvania

, compris ing all or part s of 2 2 Pennsylva nia counties

, as PM 2.5 nonattainment areas based on air

3 “ Withdrawal of Implem entation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour Fine Particle ( PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), ” Stephen D. Page, EPA, June 6, 2013. 4 Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Qualit y Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations

– EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 001, August, 2005, updated November, 2005.- 5

- quality monitoring data from 200 6

- 200 8

. Under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA )

, Pennsylvania is required to develop a revision to the SIP to demonstrate how the Harrisburg/ York Area will attain the standard by December 2014 , meet emission reduction requirements in the CAA and ensure that in the event of a future violation or failure to meet emission reduction milestones, the area is brought back to atta inment as quickly as possible.

However, o n March 29, 2012

, the EPA determined that the Harrisburg/ York Area had attained the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS based on quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area had monitored attainment based on 2008

- 2010 data ( “ Clean Data Determination ” ) ( 7 7 FR 18922 )

. This final action suspended the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures and o ther planning SIP revision s related to the attainment of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

EPA ’ s determination of attainment and the Clean Data Determination d id not

“ redesignate ” the area as “ attainmen t. ” The Harrisburg/ York Area remain s a designated nonattainment area for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS until the Commonwealth submits, and EPA approves, a Request for R edesignation and a Maintenance P lan showing the area can maintain the standard for at least 10 y ears. N onattainment new source review continue s to apply until EPA redesignates the area as attainment

. Transportation conformity and genera l conformity also apply ; they will continue to apply to the area even after redesignation by EPA as attainment

. T he C lean D ata D etermination does not suspend the CAA Sec tion 172(c)(3) requirement to establish a comprehensive inventory for all pollutants considered potential precursor s to PM 2.5 and for direct emissions of PM 2.5.

This SIP revision includes the Mainten ance P lan for the Harrisburg/ York Area and the 200 7 comprehensive inventory required under Sec tion 172(c)(3) of the CAA for point, area, highway and nonroad sources of direct PM 2.5 , PM 10 (particles less than 10 microns in diameter), SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3
. The 2007 compreh ensive inventory also serves as the attainment year inventory representing a level of emissions sufficient for the Harrisburg/ York Area to attain the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

.

To demonstrate maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS for this area, Pennsylva nia is show ing that the future emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors w ill remain at levels that will provide for maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years, taking economic, population and travel growth into account ( See, EPA,

“ Procedures for Pro cessing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment, ” John Calcagni (September 4, 1992) (1992 Calcagni Memo) )

. This Maintenance P lan contains a n attainment year inventory for 2007 and demonstrates that emissions will not be greater i n 2017 and 2025 than t he attainment year , with the exception- 6

- of NH 3
. The small projected increase in NH 3 emissions does not present a concern for maintaining the NAAQS because the NH 3 emissions overall are small , and emissio ns of all other pollutants are projected to decline i n the Harrisburg/York Area. The plan describes emission reduction measures that have been previously adopted; it neither changes existing measures nor adopts additional measures

. The plan indicates how M aintenance P lan progress will be tracked and identi fies measures that would be available to promptly correct any NAAQS violation.

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a Maintenance Plan be fully approved by the EPA before an area can be redesignated as attainment. The Maintenance Plan is conside red a SIP revision under Section 110 of the CAA

. A state may submit the R equest for Redesignation and the Maintenance Plan at the same time and federal rulemaking on both may proceed on a parallel track.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 107(d)(3)( E) of the CAA, t he R equest for Redesignation submitted concurrently with this Maintenance Plan indicates that the Harrisburg/ York Area has attained the NAAQS and that attainment wa s due to permanent and enforceable control measures. The R equest for Redesi gnation also demonstrates that the Commonwealth has met all of the regulatory and planning requirements under the CAA for the Harrisburg/ York Area that we re due before the date of the R equest for R edesignation

.

In Section 5 of the 1992 Calcagni Memo, EPA re commends the following to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS:

 The state should continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in order to verify the area ’ s attainment status (addressed in Section IV of th is Plan);

 The state should devel op an emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This “ attainment year i nventory ” was developed for 2007 (addressed in Section II of this Plan and in the Request for Redesignation);

 The state may demonstrate ma intenance by show ing that the future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory over at least 10 years following redesignation, taking economic growth into account. The Pennsylvania Department of Envir onmental Protectio n ( Department) has develop ed emission inventories for 2025 and for 2017 , an interim year between the attainment year and the maintenance year (addressed in Section II of this Plan) ;

 The Commonwealth should ensure that it has th e legal au thority to imp lement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS, and indicate how maintenance plan progress will be tracked- 7

- (addressed in Sections III and V of this Plan and the R equest for Redesignation ); and

 The Commonwealth sho uld identify measures that would be available to promptly correct any NAAQS violation (addressed in Section VI of this Plan).

This document describes how the Commonwealth will meet those criteria.

Th is Maintenance Plan demonstrates that the 2006 PM 2.5 NA AQS wil l be maintained for at least 10 years after redesignation of the Harrisburg/York Area to attainment of the standard. T he Maintenance Plan shows that emission leve ls of PM 2.5 and its precursors over the 1 0 years following redesignation remain at lev els that will provide for maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS

, even considering growth in populatio n and vehicle miles traveled.

Th is Maintenance Plan also shows that t he following state and federal programs will ensure the continuing decline of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X and VOC emissions :

 The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ;

 Emission limits for large industrial boilers;

 State regulation of cement kilns, large stationary internal combustion engines , and smaller sources o f NO X ;

 State regulations incorporating by refe rence the federal Prevention of Significant De terioration (PSD) regulations;

 State requirements for Best Available Technology ( BAT ) ;

 State regulation of the sulfur content of fuel oil ;

 State regulation of VOC emissions from a dhesives, s ealants, p rimers and

s olvents;

 The Pennsylvania and federal new motor vehicle emission control programs for p assenger and light

- duty trucks;

 The Pennsylvania and federal heavy

- duty di esel emission control
programs;

 Federal fuel programs for highway vehicles and nonroad mobile equipment; an d- 8

-  Federal regulation of offroad diesel and gasoline

- powered vehicles and equipment.

Emission reductions from Pennsylvania ’ s Diesel

- Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act , Act 124 of 2008 (Idling Act)

, were not included in the 2017 and 2025 emission inventories, and, thus, were not relied upon for the demonstration of maintenance. The Idling Act was approved by EPA as a SIP revision on August 1, 2011 (76 FR 45705). Similarly, NO X and VOC emission reductions from Pennsylvania ’ s Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boilers regulation were not included in the 2017 and 2025 emission inventories, and

, thus, were not relied upon for the demonstrat ion of maintenance. The Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boiler regulation was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 2, 2 010 (40 Pa. B. 5571)

, and approved by EPA as a SIP revision on September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58114). Emission reductions from these measures may nonetheless assist the Harrisburg/ York Area in maintaining the PM 2.5 NAAQS.

In th is Maintenance Plan, the Departme nt provide s assurances that it will continue to operate the ambient air quality monitoring network in order to track maintenance of the standard and to evaluate emissions inventories periodically compared to the projections provided in the plan. The Depar tment also provide s a list of potential contingency measures that it would consider to correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs af ter redesignation of the area.

Eight years following redesignation, the Commonwealth will submit a revised plan that en sures attainment through 2035

.

D. Public P articipation

Requirements for a public comment p rocess are set forth in Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, 40 CFR Section 51.102(d) and Section 7.5 of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act. 35 P.S. Section 4007. 5 (b)

. O n January 25, 2014, t he Department provided not ice of a public comment period and the opportunity for a hearing on the Maintenance Plan, 2007 comprehensiv e inventory required by Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, and the Request to Redesignate the Harri sburg/ York Area to attainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. The public comment period closed February 2 8

, 2014 . The Department scheduled the public hearing to occur on February 26 , 2014 but no persons expressed interest in presenting testimony or attendin g. Therefore, the Department cancelled the hearing. The Department received comments from one commentator, which have been addressed in a Comment and Response document.

II

. E MISSION I NVENTORIES

To demonstrate maintenance of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS for th e Harrisburg/ York A rea, Pennsylvania is show ing that the future emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors w ill remain at levels that will provide for maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS for at least- 9

-

10 years, taking economic, population and travel growth int o account. EPA ’ s C lean D ata D etermination for the Harrisburg/ York Area was based on 2008

- 2010 monitoring data

. This Maintenance P lan contains a n attainment year inventory for 2007 and demonstrates that emissions will not be greater than the attainment ye ar in 2017 and 2025

, with the exception of NH 3 , but the small projected increase in NH 3 emissions does not present a concern for maintaining the NAAQS because the NH 3 emissions overall are small , and emissions of all other pollutants are projected to decli ne in the Harrisburg/York Area. This Maintenance Plan also contains a 2005 baseline inventory that represents the emissions present when the Harrisburg/ York Area did not meet the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. In addition, this SIP revision fulfills the requirement f or a comprehensive inventory for the Harrisburg/ York Area under 40 CFR Section 51.1008 to meet the requirements of S ection 172(c)(3) of the CAA

. As specified by the EPA, the pollutants inventoried by Pennsylvania include direct PM 2.5 , PM 10 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC, and NH 3
. Information on the manmade sources of these pollutants was compiled for:

 “ Stationary point sour ces ” (or “ point ” sources)

, which are sources for which the Department collects individual emissions

- related information. Generally

, they represent m ajor stationary sources but may be smaller.

 “ Stationary a rea sources , ” which are industrial

, commercial , and residential sources too small or too numerous to be handled individually . These include but are not limited to commercial and residential open bu rning, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings application and clean

- up, consumer product use, and vehicle refueling at service stations. Where there is overlap between stationary point sources and stationary area sources, the area source values are adjusted to remove any double counting.

 “ Highway vehicles

, ” which include passenger cars and light

- duty trucks, other trucks, buses and motorcycles.

 “ Nonroad sources

, ” which encompass a diverse collection of engines

, including but not limited to out door power equipment, recreational vehicles, farm and construction machinery, lawn and garden equipment, industrial equipment, recreational marine vessels , commercial marine vessels, locomotives, ships, and aircraft.

Pennsylvania and other Northeastern an d Mid

- Atlantic states participated in a regional effort to refine the emissions inventory and to compile a regional emissions inventory

. The Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) coordinated that regional effort, which allowed states t o pool their resources to compile a regional emissions inventory for the purpose of conducting the regional modeling analysis used in Pennsylvania ’ s air quality management p lanning efforts to attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and the PM 2.5 NAAQS, and to prepar e the regional haze plan.- 10

-

A. Baseline Year (2005) Annual Emissions Inventory (Tons per Year)

An emission inventory is an estimate of the emissions from sources in a particular

area. The 2005 baseline year emissions inventory represents the emissions
pre sent during a time period when the Harrisburg/York Area did not meet the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

.

The 2005 N ational E missions I nventory (NEI) is a composite of emission estimates reported by state and local agencies and industry, as well as estimates generated b y EPA. The 2005 NEI was based in part on information submitted by the Department under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR), which was published in the F ederal Register on Monday, June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39602)

. The CERR required States to prepa re and submit a comprehensive s tatewi de inventory every three years.

The 2005 emissions inventory data was obtained from the EPA ’ s web site for the 2005 NEI. The data can be accessed at: h ttp://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html . Appendix A

- 2 contains Tier 1 summary data of the 2005 NEI.

The 2005 base line year inventory includes the pollutants PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC, and NH 3
. The inventory consists of sources in four sector s: electric generating units (EGUs)

, non

- EGU point and stationary area sources, highway vehicle sources and nonroad sources. The 2005 inventory is not directly comparable to the 2007, 2017 and 2025 inventories because of changes in inventory methodology. Highway vehicle emissions in the 2005 NEI were generated using the MOBILE6 model. For the same VMT and other parameters, the MOBILE6 model predicts significantly lower NO X emissions than the current model, MOVES2010. In addition, MARAMA adjusted PM emi ssions to account for condensable PM emissions from EGUs in the 2007, 2017 and 2025 emission inventories . This results in higher PM emissions in the 2007 inventory than were reported by facilities to the Department in 2007

. Table II

- 1 s ummarizes the emis sions for 2005

.

Table I I

- 1: Harrisburg/York Area 2005 Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)- 11

-

B. Attainment Year (2007) Annual Emissions Inventory (Tons per Year)

Stationary Point Sources. The 2007 stationary point source in ventory was based on emissions reported to the Department by facilities. The Department requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Informatio n Retrieval (FIRE) Data System and the 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 owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates supersede those calcul ated using SCC codes. Appendix A

- 1 includes information on stationary point source emission methodology

. Appendix A

- 3 includes the data se t for facility 2007 annual emissions

, as well as projected facility emissions for 2017 and 2025. Appendix A

- 4 is a table documenting the banked emissions reduction credits for the Harrisburg/ York Area in the 2017 and 2025 emission projection s

. Condensable PM is a vapor or gas at stack temperature that condenses to a l iquid or solid at stack exit. Condensable emissions from EGU s were not reported uniformly by all facilities

. Because of the need to consider the effect of condensable emissions from EGUs on regional haze and fine particles, the 2007 inve ntory data was augmented, utilizing the condensable emission factors for EGUs developed for MARAMA i n 2008 to calculate condensable PM emissions where that data was mi ssing

. Appendix C

- 4 contains the technical memorandum describing how the emission factor s were developed. The general process is to use the emission factors and heat input to calculate the condensable PM ( PM

- CON ) emissions, and then to perform the gap filling for compounds missing from the facility

- reported emissions

. Stationary Area Source s . Stationary a rea source emissions are generally estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or collective activity for each area source category at the county level. Pennsylvania estimates emissions from stationary area sources using emission factors and SCC codes in a m ethod similar to that used for stationary point s ources. Emission factors may also be derived from research and guidance documents if those documents are more accurate than FIRE and AP

- 42 factors. Throughput
est imates 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 Syste m (NAICS) codes to establish that those numbers are
spe cific to the industry covered.

EPA emissions inventories and emission estimation tools were used to create the 2007 area source inventory. For many area source categories, the most recent EPA data wa s used. These categories included ammonia emissions from livestock and fertilizers which came from a recent application of the Carnegie- 12

- Mellon University (CMU) ammonia model to produce 2007 emissions ; output from a version of the Residential Wood Combusti on (RWC) model developed by EPA and run with updated 2007 data to produce emission estimates for that source category ; and EPA data on wildfire emissions developed as part of EPA ’ s SMARTFIRE system.

The EPA develops area source emission estimation methodo logies and estimates for the NEI on a three

- year cycle. Where 2008 NEI data were used to fill missing categories in the 2007 inventory, no growth adjustment was made to the emissions with the assumption that activity in 2008 and 2007 was similar.

For fug itive dust area sources, the 2007 inventory was adjusted to apply the EPA PM “ transport factors ” to fugitive dust sources.

Appendix B

- 1 co ntains the methodology for the 2007 Pennsylvania area source inve ntory. Additional methodology information is availa ble in the technical support document for the 2007 regional inventory wh ich is contained in Appendix C

- 1

. Appendix B

- 2 contains the stationary area source emissions data for 2007 , 2017 and 2025 for the Harrisburg/ York Area

. Highway Vehicle Sources. E PA ’ s MOVES 2010 ( M o tor V ehicle E mission S imulator) is the official model for estimating air pollution emissions from onroad

m obile sources including buses, cars, trucks and motorcycles. MOVES2010 replaces MOBILE6.2

, the previous mobile source model

. The Depa rtment employed MOVES2010 to estimate the onroad emissions inventory for 2007, 2017 and 2025

. More information on highway emission method ology is available in Appendix D. Appendix D

- 1 summarizes the methodology and data inputs used to produce the mobile emissions inventory. Appendix D

- 2 provides the 2007 attainment year and 2017 and 2025 projections of mobile (highway) vehicle miles travelled ( VMT ) and annual PM 2.5 direct and prec ursor emissions. Appendix D

- 3 describes the model inputs used to generate emission factors for a specific area. Some examples of th e inputs described in Appendix D

- 3 are the type and frequency of vehicle emission testing, the fuel types required in the area, temperatures by month, and fleet a ge. The summary in Appendix D

- 3 ind icates when default information contained in the model is used rather than specific area i nformation.

Nonroad Sources

. The 2007 inventory for the majority of nonroad cat egories was generated using NMIM 2008 of which the NONROAD m odel is a part. The NONRO AD model estimates emissions for diesel, gas oline, liquefied petroleum
gas , and compressed natural gas

- fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. For nonroad vehicle the NMIM does not estimate emissions from aircraft, locomotives or comme rcial marine vessels. Emissions from aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels were estimate d using EPA guidance- 13

- and best available information. If specific local operational data was available, that data was used to estimate emissions. State and national data was used if local data was unavailable. NM IM includes emissions from airport ground support equipment. However, emissions for airport ground support equipment calculated by NMIM were removed because EPA considers the emissions calculat ed by the EDMS to be better estimates of the emissions from airport ground support equipment. Growth estimates for source categories modeled by NMI M are included in the model. The EPA default values were used for most categories

. Aircraft. For airport emissions, Pennsylvania used the database developed by EPA to support the 2008 NEI, as described in the technical support document for the development of the 2 007 inventory in Appendix C

- 1.

Railroad Emissions

. The Department used the emissions inventory developed by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC). Emissions from 2007 and 2008 were considered to be identical. ERTAC completed a nationwide inventory with the assistance of the railroad associations and submitted the inventory to t he EPA. The ERTAC inventory was the accepted inventory for the 2008 NEI and was loaded into the EPA ’ s Emission Inventory System (EIS). The Department made slight modifications in cooperation with ERTAC that resulted in changes in emissions of smaller Cla ss III railroads operating in Pennsylvania which included locomotive yard operations. The Department had developed its own inventory using information received from a statewide survey of railroad operational data. The Department determined that ERTAC ’ s m ethodology and inventory were similar to the D epartment ’ s method except in the cases of some smal ler railroads mentioned above.

E RTAC developed a n emissions inventory for Class I, II, and III line haul activity based on fuel use, tonnage carried by the ra ilroad using each individual rail link, current in

- use locomotive emission standards, and rail link use. Track grade and locomotive power settings were not considered. ERTAC based their yard locomotive emissions on (1) name and location of rail yards, (2 ) number of switchers operating per yard, (3) the tier/year of switchers, (4) annual fuel use (gal lons /y ear ) for switchers per yard, (5) approximate duty cycle or just percent of time in idle for operating switchers, and (6) temporal characteristics of the switcher ’ s use.

Summary of 2007 Emissions Inventory

. An emissions inventory of 2007 emissions of PM 2.5 , PM 10 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC, and NH 3 for the Harrisburg/ York Area identifies PM and PM precursor during a period when the Harrisburg/ York Area was attaining the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Table II

- 2 summarizes the emissions for 2007. Inventory methodology differences exist between the 2005 and 2007 emission inventories. Highway vehicle emissions in the 2005 NEI were generated using the MOBILE6 model. For the same V MT and other parameters, the MOBILE6 model predicts significantly lower NO X emissions than the current model, MOVES2010. The MOBILE6 model also predicts lower direct PM 2.5- 14

- emissions than MOVES2010. In addition, MARAMA adjusted PM emissions to account for condensable PM emissions from EGUs in the 2007, 2017 and 2025 emission inventories. This results in higher PM emissions in the 2007 inventory than were reported by facilities to the Department in 2007. While the 2005 emissions inventory is not directly comparable to the 20 07, 2017 and 2025 inventories, PM 2.5 , SO 2 , VOC, and NH 3 emissions decreased by 21 percent , 1 percent , 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, from 2005 to 2007. Emissions of NO X in 2007 were 8888 tons ( 14 percent ) more than in the 2005 NEI. Further assessment shows that the increase is in the highway vehicle sector and is due to the fact that MOBILE6 was used to generate the 2005 NEI highway vehicle emission estimates while MOVES2010 was used to generate the 2007 NEI highway vehicle em ission estimates. Therefore, the difference between 2005 and 2007 NO X emissions is the result of a methodology difference rather than a “ real ” emissions increase.

Table II

- 2: Harrisburg/ York Area 2007 Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)

Harrisburg/York 20 07 PM 2.5 PM 10 SO 2 NO X VOC NH 3 Stationary Point Sources 3,046 4,815 117,709 26,950 2,160 96 Area Sources 5,452 17,037 4,900 3,874 14,724 10,250 Highway Vehicle Sources 1,225 1,443 254 35,878 13,030 509 Non

- Road Sources 548 582 323 7,104 6,322 6 Totals 10,271 23,878 123,185 73,806 36,236 10,861

C

. Growth Projection Methodologies for 2017 and 202 5

This section describes the data, methods, and assumptions utilized in developing estimates o f emissions changes between 2007 and interim year 2017 and mainte nance year 2025

. Appendix C

- 2 contains the technical support document for the d evelopment of the 2017 e mission s inventory . Appendix C

- 3 contains the technical support document for the development of the 2025 emissions inventory. The document s prov ide de tails on the specific factors, control assumptions, and implementation schedules used in the emission projection calcula tions for each source category. MARAMA coordinated development of the projection inventories for the regional inventory, consisting of the states in the Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility U nion and Virginia (MANE

- VU+VA).

Significant infrastructure development to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation in some Pennsylvania counties has occurred

. Point and a rea source emissi ons result from the placement of drilling equipment, gathering lines and compressor stations. The Harrisburg/ York Area has not experienced any Marcellus Shale development and is not expected to experience any of this development in the future.

EGUs

. A nn ual 2007 EGU point emissions were “ grown ” to 2017 and 2025 using growth factors based on AEO2011 Table 96

- Electricity Generation by- 15

- Electricity Market Module Region and Fuel Source

. The appropriate AEO2011 growth factor was applied to the 2007 emissions to calculate a “ growth only ” emission value for 2025. P ost

- 2007 controls or shut downs were applied on a unit

- by

- unit basis. The control factors were applied to the grown emissions to calculate a “ growth and control ” emission value for 2025. A more det ailed description of the methodology used to project emissions from EGUs is located in the technical support document for the development of the 2025 emi ssions inventory in Appendix C

- 3

.

Non

- EGU Point Sources and Stationary Area Sources. For non

- EGU poin t

sources and stationary area sources

, the emission projections for the 2017 a nd 2025 were based on Version 3 .3 of the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA inventory, which

was adjusted to apply the EPA PM “ transport factors ” to fugitive dust area

sources.

The methodology for projecting emissions to 2017 and 2025 is documented in the technical support documents for the development of the 2017 and 2025 emissions in ventories contained in Appendix C

- 2 and Appendix C

- 3, respectively. These documents were prepared for MARAMA as pa rt of an effort to assist states in developing maintenance plans for fine particles. The documents describe the data sources, methods, and r esults for emission forecasts.

NonEGU point source and stationary area source grow th factors were developed using :

 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) fuel c onsumption forecasts;

 State

- level employment projections by NAICS code; and

 Other state

- specific emission projecti on data.

Generally

, AEO projection factors were used for fuel consumption sources and employment data f

or other source categories. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes the AEO annually. The AEO contains long

- term projections of energy supply, demand and prices. AEO2010 fuel

- use forecasts were available during inventory development. After AEO2011 was published, MARAMA compared the AEO2010 and AEO2011 projections. Minor differences were found for most categories. Based on this analysis, t he AEO 2010 fuel

- use forecasts were used for all residential, commercial and industrial sector fu el use, except for industri al natural gas usage, where AEO 2011 projections were used.

Predicted declines in fuel use and employment resulted in negative growth factors for some non

- EGU point source and stationary area source categories. Consequently, for some categories, emissions are lower for the projected future years than for the base year, eve n before the application of control assumptions.- 16

- Because of the possibility that facilities could apply for and sell Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) at the l evel of the base year inventory, Pennsylvania opted for the conservative approach of assuming no growth (growth factor=1) for

non

- EGU point source categories with negative AEO or employment growth factors.

Highway Vehicle Sources. The EPA ’ s a pproved high way vehicle emission model, MOVES 2010 , projects highway vehicle average fleet emission factors. State specific information was used where available and appropriate. Traffic forecasts were compiled using information from the Pennsylvania Department of Tra nsportation ’ s ( PennDOT ) Traffic Information System and socioeconomic data. The Pennsylvania methodology for estimating highway vehicle emissions is consistent with the April 2010 guidance published by the EPA ’ s Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( OT AQ ) entitled

, Technical Guidance on the Use of MO VES2010 for Emissions Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity

. Appendi ces D

- 1 throug h D

- 3 of this Maintenance Plan i nclude s pecific information on the highway emiss ion s inventory methodology , data files of emissions estimates and MOVES input paramete rs

.

As shown in Table II

- 3

, VMT for the future analysis ye ar increases 39 percent from 10.45 billion VMT in 2007 to 14.51 billion VMT in 2025 within the nonattainment ar ea

. Despite the growth in VMT, emissions of the most significant vehicle

- related precursor, NO X , are significantly lower in the future

a nalysis year

. The emissions shown in Table II

- 3 do not include a transportation conformity safety margin, which will b e discussed later in this document. See

, S ection III

- B relating to motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

Table II

- 3 : Harrisburg/ York Area VMT (Miles) and Vehicle Emissions (Tons per Year)

Nonroad Sources

.

Nonroad Sources in NMIM

. Projected emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source categories and pollutants were estimated using the NMIM, which contains default assumptions for projected years. The NMIM estimates emissions for diesel, gas oline, liquefied petroleum gas , and compressed natural gas

- fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors. Control measures due to finalized emission standards for nonroad vehicles and engines are also accounted- 17

- for in NMIM. Baseline emissions are multiplied by growth and control factors to obtain projected emissions.

Aircraft Emissions Growth

. Aircraft operations were projected to future years by applying activity growth using data on itinerant (ITN) operations at airports as reported in the FAA ’ s Terminal Area Forec ast (TAF) System for 2009

- 2030 (FAA 2010). The ITN operations are defined as aircraft take

- offs or landings. This information is available for approximately 3

, 300 individual airports. Actual LTOs are reported for 2007 and projected LTOs a re provided for all years up
to 2030. New aircraft emission controls that will be used in the future were also taken into account.

Railroad Emissions Growth

. MANE

- VU+VA inventory development relied on the AEO2010 growth projections published in May 2010. There are se parate projections for passenger rail and freight rail energy use. Passeng er rail data from AEO2010 Table A

- 7 was used to calculate the growth factor for 2007

- 201 7 and 2007

- 20 25. These growth factors were applied to inter

- city passenger train locomotive s and independent commuter rail systems. For freight rail, the data from AEO2010 Table A

- 7 was used to calculate the growth factor for 2007

- 201 7 and 2007

- 2025. F reight rail annual growth factors for Class I line haul

, Class II/I II line haul , and yard swi tch locomotives were used.

Additional information about nonroad emission projection methodologies can also be found in Appendi ces C

- 2 and C

- 3, the technical support documents for the development of the 2017 and 2025 inventories, respectively. The t able o f nonroad emissions data sorted by source category is available as Appendix E

- 3.

D

. Interim Year (2017 ) Emissions

Tab le II

- 4 sum marize s the emissions expected in 2017 . These emissions take activity and emissions growth and/or controls fro m 2007 in to acc oun t. Appendix C , re lating to the regional emissions inventory and projection methodology , contains the technical support documents that describe the methodologies used to projec t the 2007 emissions to 201 7

.- 18

-

Table II

- 4 : Harrisburg/ York Area Projected 20 17 Emissions (Tons per Year)

*A portion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X has been set aside as a transportation conformity safety margin to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway vehicles. T he hig hway vehicle emissions in Table II

- 4 reflect inclusion of that safety margin

.

E

. Maintenance Year (202 5 ) Emissions

T able II

- 5 su mmarize s the emissio ns expected in 2025 . These emissions take activity and emissions growth and/or controls from 2007 i nto account. Appendix C, relating to the regional emissions inventory and projection methodology , contains the technical support documents that describe the methodologies used to project the 2007 emissions to 2025

.

Table II

- 5: Harrisburg/ York Area Proje cted 2025 Emissions (Tons per Year)

*A portion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X has been set aside as a transportation conformity safety margin to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway vehic les. The highway vehicle emissions in Ta ble II

- 5 reflect inclusion of that safety margin

.

F

. Maintenance Plan Emissions Test

To demonstrate maintenance of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS for this area, Pennsylvania must show that the future emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors will remain at levels that provide for maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years, taking economic, population a nd travel growth into account.

While EPA adopted in its Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAA QS the presumptions related to PM 2.5 precursors in its I mplementation R ule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, Pennsylvania recognizes the C ourt decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , No. 08

- 1250, 706 F.3d 428- 19

- (DC Cir. 2013) and EPA ’ s subsequent withd rawal of the Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS

. The court noted that PM 2.5 precursors, including ammonia and VOCs, are presumptively regulate d in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas under Subpart 4 , pointing specifically to S ection 189(e), wh ich applies to control of major stationary sources of PM 10 [the court stated that PM 10 includes PM 2.5 throughout Subpart 4] ( 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7, and at 437,

n. 10 )

. According to CA A Section 189(e), control requirements applicable for major stationary s ources of PM 10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors , except where the Administrator determines that major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area; S ection 189(e) also requi res EPA to issue guidelines regarding the application of S ubsection (e). Pennsylvania assessed emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 for the maint enance demonstration.

This Maintenance Plan contains an attainment year inventory for 2007 and demonstrat es that emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X and VOC , including emissions in the transportation conformity safety margin for PM 2.5 and NO X , will not be greater in 2017 and 2025 than in the attainment year

, as shown in Table II

- 6

. The projected increase in NH 3 emi ssions does not present a concern for maintaining the NAAQS because the NH 3 emissions overall are small, and emissio ns of all other pollutants are projected to decline in the Harrisburg/York Area.

Emissions of SO 2 are projected to decrease from 2007 to 20 25 by an estimated 103,154 tons ( 84 percent ). Emissions of PM 2.5 , NO X and VOC also are projected
to decrease from 2007 to 2025 by approximately 1,370 tons ( 13 percent ), 30,017 tons ( 41 percent ), and 12,081 tons ( 33 percent ), respectively. Over the
same t ime period, emissions of NH 3 are projected to increase 1,190 tons ( 11 percent ). The increase in NH 3 e missions is due to anticipated growth reflected by activity factors ( s uch as population and employment , for instance ) in the absence of any anticipated co ntrol requirements to reduce NH 3 emissions

. The increase in NH 3 emissions from 2007 to 2025 does not present a concern for maintaining the 2006 24

- hour NAAQS in the Harrisburg/York Area because the NH 3 emissions overall are small , and emissions of all oth er pollutants are projected to decline in the area

. In addition, the Harrisburg/ York Area currently has an annual design value of 11.9 μg/m 3 and a 24

- hour design value of 31 μg/m 3

, based on 2010

- 2012 monitoring data, which are significantly lower than the annual standard of 15 μg/m 3 and the 24

- hour standard of 3 μg/m 3 that are the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

.- 20

- Table II

- 6: Harrisburg/York Area Maintenance Emissions Test

*A portion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 a nd NO X has been set aside as a transportation conformity safety margin to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway ve hicles. The emissions in Table II

- 6 reflect inclusion of that safety margin.- 21

-

I II

. P ERMANENT AND E NFORCEABLE C ONTROL M EASURES

A. Perma nent and Enforceable Control Measures

Because of the complexity and variability of the process of particulate matter formation, the EPA recognizes that effective control measures for PM 2.5 will vary among nonattainment areas. This was reflected in EPA ’ s “ Implemen tation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard, ” Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards, EPA, March 2, 2012 ( “ Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- H our PM 2.5 NAAQS ” ) . In the Implementation Guidan ce for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA adopted the framework and policy approach the agency espoused in its implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, known as the “ Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule ” (7 2 FR 20586 ; April 25, 2007) ( “ I mplementation R u le for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ” )

.

In its I mplementation R ule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA had established general presumptive policies for assessing which PM 2.5 precursors should be evaluated for possible controls. In that earlier rule, t he EP A require d st ates to evaluate control measures for SO 2 and primary PM 2.5 i n all locations. The EPA require d states to evaluate control measures for NO X unless a technical demonstration is made to show that NO X emissions from sources in the state do not significantly c ontribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area

. The EPA require d states to evaluate measures for VOC and NH 3 only if a technical demonstration is made to show VOC or NH 3 emissions significantly contribute to PM 2.5 in the nonattainment area.

The EPA reaffirmed the appropriateness of these presumptions in its Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 5 Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was considering a challenge to the Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 N AAQS, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , No. 08

- 1250 . On January 4, 2013, the Court handed down its ruling in that case

. T he C ourt granted the petitions for review and remanded the case to EPA to re

- promulgate the rule pursuant to Subpart 4 of Part D of the Clean Air Act, rather than implementing it under Subpart 1, as EPA had done ( 706 F.3d 428 at 437(DC Cir. 2013) )

. Shortly thereafter, EPA withdrew its Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS

. According to EPA ’ s June, 2013 wi thdrawal memorandum (see second page of memorandum)

, 6 EPA withdrew the guidance in response to the Court ’ s decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA

, No. 08

- 1250

.

5 See footnote 2, above. 6 See footnote 3, above.- 22

- This maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of the standard consistent with th e Court ’ s ruling. In general, the C ourt ’ s decision (to the extent it would be extrapolated to the 2006 24

- Hour PM 2.5 NAAQS) could affect an area ’ s nonattainment classification, certain deadlines, and the impacts of failing to attain timely, and could impo se a deadline for implementation of reasonably available and best available control measures ( 706 F.3d at 436, n. 6 )

. Since the Harrisburg/York Area is already attaining the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, however, those considerations are not relevant for this maintenance plan. The

co urt noted that PM 2.5 precursors, including ammonia and VOCs, are presumptively regulated in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas under Subpart 4, pointing specifically to S ection 189(e), which applies to control of major stationary sources

o f PM 10 [the court stated that PM 10 includes PM 2.5 throughout Subpart 4] ( 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7, and at 437, n. 10 )

. A ccording to Section 189(e) of the CAA , control requirements applicable for major stationary sources of PM 10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors , except where the Administrator determines that major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area; Section 189(e) also requires EPA to issue guidelines regarding the app lication of Subsection (e). Pennsylvania assessed emissions of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , VOC and NH 3 for the maintenance demonstration

. This section describes the federal and state measures that will provide direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , and VOC emission reductions ens uring maintenance of the standard.

A summary of the quantity of emission reductions expected from 2007 to 2025 is included in Table III

- 1 ( Negative valu e s indicate emission reductions)

. The emission reduction estimates account for any anticipated growth in the activity of sources regulated by the strategy and include emissions in the transportation conformity safety margin

. Direct PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X and VOC emissions in 2025 in the Harrisburg/ York Area are anticipated to be lower than they were in 2007

. Th is means that the projected growth in emissions is smaller than anticipated emission reductions from control measures for all pollutant s in the nonattainment

area

. Each control measure is explained in greater detail in the following sections. Ammonia emi ssions, as discussed in Section II

- G relating to the maintenance emissions test, are anticipated to increase from 2007 to 2025

, but the increase does not present a concern for maintaining the NAAQS in the Harrisburg/ York Area because the NH 3 emissions over all are small , and emissions of all other pollutants are projected to decline in the Harrisburg/York Area.- 23

- Table III

- 1: Sum mary of Emission Reductions (Tons) from 2007 to 2025 from Control Measures

*A portion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X has been set aside as a transportation conformity safety margin to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway vehicles. The hig hway vehicle emissions in Table II I

- 1 reflect inclusion of that safety margin.

Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart K (relating to source surveillance), the SIP revision is required to provide for monitoring of the status of compliance with any rules and regulations that set forth any portion of the control strategy. These include provisions, as applicable, for:

 E missions reports and recordkeeping for stationary sources;

 P eriodic testing and inspection of stationary sources;

 E nforcement and complaint investigation of visible emission limitations;

 E nforceable test methods for emi ssion limits; and

 C ontinuous emission monitoring for stationary sources.

Subpart K also requires monitoring of the implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs). There are no TCMs in this SIP revision

. The rules and regulations for stationar y sources, which are part of the control strategy for attaining and maintaining the PM 2.5 standard, as well as the Department ’ s comprehensive permitting program requirements in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127 and the Commonwealth ’ s SIP in 40 CFR 52.2020, meet the requirements of Subpart K. EPA has approved the Department ’ s permitting program as part of the State Implementation Plan.

There are many examples in the Pa. Code of provisions for monitoring the status of compliance with the Department ’ s rules a nd regula tions. For example, § 127.12(a) (relating to the content of applications) contain requirements for reporting and recordkeeping for plan approval applications. Similar requirements are found in § 127.411(a) (relating to content of applications) for permit

a pplications. Sections 145.145 and 145.146 contain the compliance demonstration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for cement kilns that enable the Department to monitor the status of compliance with the regulations in- 24

- Chapter 145 Subpar t C. The De partment als o monitors the status of compli ance by conducting complaint investigations. The Department does visible emission inspections at regulated facilities and reports the results to the EPA AFS system as required under the Department ’ s grant. The D epartment conducts inspections of air contamination sources in accordance with the Compliance Monitoring Schedule which is approved by EPA.

1. Stationary Point Sources

Background for Pennsylvania ’ s Stationary Source Permitting Programs. An owner or oper ator of all proposed new air contamination

sources in the Commonwealth are required to receive a p lan a pproval (pre

construction permit) from the Department prior to the construction, assembly, installation of new sources, modification of any existing
stat ionary air contamination sources, or the installation of air pollution control equipment or devices

. Following the construction of the new facility or air contamination source, the owner or operator must obtain an operating permit from the Department. Th e type of operating permit will depend on the quantity of regulated pollutants emitted from the air contamination sources. DEP will issue a “ State

- only Operating Permit ” for minor air contamination stationary sources that are below the
app licability thres holds for Title V facilities. A Title V operating permit is required for major facilities that have the potential to emit air contaminants exceeding the Title V thresholds. The Title V Permit , which is issued for a term of five years, incorporates all ap plicable requirements for the facility in a single federally enforceable operating permit.

The requirements contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127 (relating to the construction, modification, reactivation and operation of sources), and associated definitio ns in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121.1, are a suite of programs regulating air contamination sources to improve and maintain air quality. Chapter 127 establishes requirements for the submission, review and approval of pre

- construction and operating permits for b oth major and

non

- major air contamination sources. The provisions of Chapter 127 have been codified in the SIP at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1) at various times since May 31, 1972 and most recently on October 5, 2012, and are therefore all federally enforceable. Several aspects of Chapter 127 are highlighted below as being particularly important for the maintenance of the PM 2.5 standard.

Title V Permitting Program. The Title V Permitting Program, adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, is appl icable to major stationary sources as defined in 25 Pa. Code Section 121.1. Th e purpose of the Title V program is to detail a facility ’ s air quality requirements in a single permit document so that industry, the regulatory agency, and the public know exac tly what regulations and requirements apply and how the- 25

- facility ’ s owner or operator will monitor and demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements. The Title V permit includes all sources at a site including all air pollution control devices as well as activities that were determined to be insignificant sources of emissions. Each source is described in detail within a section of the Title V permit. The requirements include general conditions applicable to all Title V facilities, emission restr ictions, detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the facility ’ s applicable federal and state requirements.

Nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. Major facilities prop osed in Pennsylvania will also be subject to New Source Review (NSR) requirements in nonattainment areas and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in areas of the Commonwealth designated attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Stan dards including carbon monoxide, particulate matter (PM), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Generally, NSR permit requirements are applicable to a facility located in a nonattainment area for a particular pollut ant with a poten tial to emit 50 tons or more per year (tpy) of volatile organic compounds or 100 tpy or more of NOx, SO 2 , PM or carbon monoxide. It should be noted that the entire Commonwealth, included in the Ozone Transport Region by operation of law, is treated as a “ moderate ” ozone nonattainment area, irrespective of the area ’ s attainment status. Because NO X and VOC are precursors of PM 2.5 , NO X and VOC emission reductions required statewide under the nonattainment NSR program for ozone also allow Pennsylvania to mak e substantial progress in attaining and maintaining the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Any major stationary source or major modification subject to the NSR requirements must receive a plan approval. To receive approval from the Department, a person must show that the prop osed source will, among other things, offset its potential to emit air
cont aminants including NO X , PM and VOCs by securing emission reductions credits at the specified offset ratio, will employ the “ l owest achievable emission rate” (LAER) for each regulate d pollutant and conduct an alternative analysis. The nonattainment NSR requirem ents are codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E and approved as a SIP revision on December 9, 1997 (62 F 64722).

The PSD program is a pre

- construction review and p ermitting program applicable to new or modified major stationary sources subject to Title I, Parts C and D of the federal CAA. The PSD requirements are applicable to major sources in areas attaining the NAAQS. The federal PSD regulations codified in 40 C FR Part 52 are incorporated by reference in their entirety in 25 Pa. Code § 127.83 (relating to adoption by reference ). The Department ’ s PSD regulations, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subchapter D, were approved by the EPA on August 21, 1984 and- 26

- cod ified at 40 CFR § 52.2058 (49 FR 33128).). PSD permit requirements may apply to a facility located in an attainment area for a standard with the potential to emit 100 tpy or 250 tpy of the six criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide , lead, nitrogen dioxide , o zone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide depending on the source category. Any m ajor stationary source or major modification subject to the PSD requirements must conduct an analysis to establish the best available control technology (BACT). In addition, the owner or operator of a facility needs to conduct an ambient air quality analy sis, analyze the impacts to soils, vegetation and visibility and make sure that the project will not adversely impact mandatory federal Class I areas including national parks greater than 6
, 000 acres and national wilderness areas and national memorial park s greater than 5 ,000 acres.
Best Available Technology Program. The Department ’ s Best Available Technology (BAT) Program ensures that new stationary sources will prevent, reduce or control emissions of air contaminants to the maximum degree possible. T he Department determines BAT requirements on a

case

- by

- case basis for both major and minor stationary sources tak ing into account energy, environmental and costs. Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code §127.1, the emission of air pollutants from new sources in Pennsylva nia must be controlled to the maximum extent, consistent with the best available technology as determined by the Department as of the date of issuance of the plan approval for the new source. Under 25 Pa. Code §127.12(a)(5), an application for a plan appr oval must show that the emissions from a new source will be the minimum attainable through the use of the best available technology. Pennsylvania regulations define

“ best available technology ” in 25 Pa. Code § 121.1 as, “ Equipment, devices, methods or tech niques as determined by the Department which will prevent, reduce or control emissions of air contaminants to the maximum degree possible and which are available or may be made available. ” The Department ’ s BAT regulations, codified in 25 Pa. Code §§ 127.1 and 127.12(a)(5), were approved by EPA on July 30, 1996

, and codified in the SIP at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1).

NO X and SO 2 Control Programs

. In 1998, EPA promulgated the NO X SIP Call as the EPA ’ s principal effort to reduce interstate transport of air polluti on (63 FR 57356; October 27, 1998). In response to the federal NO X SIP call rule, Pennsylvania adopted the NO X Budget Trading Program regulations for EGUs and large industrial boilers , with emission reductions to commence May 1, 2003. The regulations wer e approved by EPA as a revision to the Commonwealth ’ s SIP on August 21, 2001 (66 FR 43795). Additionally, in response to the NO X SIP Call, Pennsylvania adopted additional NO X control regulations covering cement plants and internal combustion engines, with emission reductions to- 27

- commence May 1, 2005. These regulations were approved by EPA as a SIP revision on September 29, 2006 ( 71 FR 57428).

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In 2005, EPA adopted CAIR (70 FR 25162; May 12, 2005, as amended) to address in terstate transport of NO X and SO 2 . CAIR is now being implemented in Pennsylvania through the Department ’ s CAIR regulation, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 145, Subchapter D, with related amendments in Chapters 121, 129 and 145. EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s CAIR SIP revision on December 10, 2009, codified at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1) (74 FR 65446). In the CAIR SIP revision, Pennsylvania terminated the NO X Budget Trading Program and transitioned to the federal CAIR for large electric generating units (EGU).

Th e market

- based CAIR is designed to reduce EGU emissions of NO X and SO 2 below 2002 levels throughout the eastern United States. Pennsylvania and the other CAIR states were required to adopt a regulation implementing the requirements of the CAIR or an equiv alent program. The large EGUs in Pennsylvania were initially regulated under CAIR FIPs promulgated by EPA, but have been regulated under the SIP since EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s CAIR SIP revision. Under the SIP revision, Pennsylvania participate s in the EPA

- administered cap

- and

- trade programs for NO X annual, NO X ozone season, and SO 2 annual emissions.

EPA ’ s CAIR was remanded to EPA for revisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the D istrict of Columbia on December 23, 2008 (See, North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896

, modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ). Following remand, EPA replaced CAIR with the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), but in a separate legal challenge the court vacated CSAPR. In that ruling, the court ordered EPA to
cont inue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement (See, EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA

, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012

, rehearing denied, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 162 3 and 162 4 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013) ). On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted review of the case. Following the Circuit Court ’ s direction, CAIR remains in place pending the Supreme Court ’ s review.

NO X Budget Trading Program limits on non

- EGUs. The CAIR SIP revision also established emission li mits for the non

- EGUs and other units that were subject to the Commonwealth ’ s NO X Budget Trading Program but are not subject to the CAIR NO X Ozone Season Trading Program

. T h ese units must continue monitoring NO X emissions and must meet an emissions cap. Each unit has an allowable emission rate, calculated by January 31 of each year, based on the previous ozone season ’ s heat input. If the combined NO X ozone season emissions from all of the se units exceed the statewide ozone season emission cap of 3,438 to ns, each unit- 28

- that exceed s its individual allowable emissions limit for that ozone season must surrender to the Department one CAIR NO X ozone season allowance and one CAIR NO X annual allowance for each ton of emissions over its allowable limit. In additio n, t he Commonwealth has set aside 181 tons of NO X , including tons that will be retired each year to compensate for sources that were exempted under the “ twenty

- five ton exemption ” in section 145.4(b) 3. The balance of tons remaining in the set aside is

ava ilable to the Department annually for accounting corrections. The Commonwealth retires any unused amount from this set aside each year.

It is unlikely that the 3,438

- ton statewide NO X ozone season emission limitation will be exceeded. Pennsylvania ’ s non

- EGU sources ’ total emissions during each of the years they were trading under the NO X Budget Trading Program never exceeded the statewide cap of 3,438 tons.

The Department ’ s regulation, codified in 25 Pa. Code §145.8(d), was approved by EPA as a SIP revi sion on December 10, 2009, and codified at 40 CFR §52.2020(c)(1).

Cement kilns and large stationary internal combustion engines. The CAIR SIP revision also included regulations updating the cement manufacturing and large stationary internal combustion en gine regulations that were adopted pursuant to the NO X SIP Call. Until 2009, cement kilns and l arge stationary internal combustion engines that were subject to the NO X SIP Call were required to surrender NO X SIP Call allowances if they exceed ed their NO X emission limits set forth in Department regulations

. Because the Department discontinued the NO X Budget Trading Program beginning 2009, at which point NO X SIP Call allowances were replaced by CAIR NO X ozone season allowances, the Department modified the

r egulations to require surrender of CAIR NO X ozone season and CAIR NO X annual allowance s for emission limit exceedances.

The Department ’ s regulations for large stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 145, Su bchapters B and C, respectively, were approved by EPA as a SIP revision on December 10, 2009, and codified at 40 CFR §51.2020(c)(1). An amendment to the Department ’ s regulation for cement kilns to reduce NO X emissions effective April 15, 2011, codified in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 145, Subchapter C, was subsequently approved by EPA as a SIP revision on July 19, 2011, and codified at 40 CFR §51.2020(c)(1).

PPL Brunner Island Emission Controls. PPL installed SO 2 controls including scrubbers and electrostatic pre cipitators at the PPL Brunner Island power plant in 2009, resulting in much lower SO 2 emissions from that facility. The Title V permit (67

- 05005) for the PPL Brunner Island facility is federally enforceable an d contains conditions for Units 1, 2- 29

- and 3 re lated to the flue gas desulfurization system and emission limits for PM, SO 2 and NO x

.

Federal Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Federal standards to control hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) require Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) at uni ts located at major sources of HAPs. The EPA has promulgated a series of MACT regulations that are applicable to sources in Pennsylvania. These MACT standards are adopted and incor porated by reference in Section 6.6 of Pennsylvania ’ s Air Pollution Contr ol Act and implementing regulations in 25 Pa. Code §127.35 (relating to maximum achievable control technology standards for hazardous air pollutants). The standards are also included in federally enforceable plan approvals and operating permits issued by the De partment for affected sources.

2

. Highway Vehicle Sources

Even with increases in VMT t hat occur from 2007 through 2025

, highway vehicle emissions will continue to decrease . As more vehicles subject to cleaner new car standards replace older vehicl es subject to less stringent new vehicle standards, the fleet as a whole emits fewer emissions, compensating for the incr ease in vehicle miles traveled. These decreases can be attributed to the programs des cribed below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Prog rams (FMVCP) and Pennsylvania Clean Vehicle Program for passenger vehicles and light

duty trucks and cleaner gasoline. Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAA Amendments of 1990 include NO X and VOC limits for light

duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light

- duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs). The phase in of the se standards began in 1994. Evaporative VOC emissions were reduced in gasoline

- powered cars starting with M odel Y ear (MY) 1998.

In 1998, under the authority of section 177 of the CAA, the Depart ment adopted the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (28 Pa. B. 5973 ; Dec. 5, 1998)

. The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program incorporates by reference certain California Low Emission Vehicle (CA LEV) emission standards for passenger cars and light

- duty tru cks. As required under Section 177 of the CAA, these provisions are identical to the low emission standards adopted by California

. T he regulation does not incorporate by reference the California zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) or emissions control warranty systems statement provisions.

In the same rulemaking, the Department adopted the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program as a compliance alternative to the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program. The NLEV program became- 30

- effective in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) in 1999. Pennsylvania ’ s New Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program regulations in 25 Pa. Code Sections 126.401

- 126.441 , in addition to including the Clean Vehicles Program, allowed automobile manufacturers to comply with NLEV instead of the CA LEV program through MY 2005. These regulations affected vehicles 6,000 pounds and less

.
In 1999, the EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV ( Tier 2), starting with MY 2004 (65 FR 6698 ; Feb. 10, 2000) T he N LEV program was replaced for M Y 2004 and later by the more stringent Tier 2 regulations, and vehicle manufacturers operatin g under the NLEV program became subje ct to the Tier 2 requirements.

Pennsylvania amended the former New Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program in 2006. The Clea n Vehicles Program continues to incorporate the California Low Emission Vehicle Program by reference. As amended, the program affects MY 2008 and newer passenger cars and light

- duty trucks vehicles ( 36 Pa

. B

. 7424 ; Dec

. 9, 2006 ) , corrected 37 Pa. B. 209 (Ja n. 12, 2007 ; eff. Dec. 9, 2006)

. EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s Clean Vehicle Program as a revis ion to the Commonwealth ’ s SIP o n January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3386).

Heavy

- Duty Diesel Control Programs. The EPA promulgated more stringent national regulations for heavy

- duty en gines and vehicles (over 14,000 pounds) starting with MY 2004. In addition, federal consent decrees with seven of the largest 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 MY 2002. The emission reductions from these programs are reflected in the future year emission inventories, as provided in the MOVES model.

In 2002, the Department adopted the Heavy

- Duty Diesel Emissions Co ntrol Program for model years starting after May 2004. The program incorporates California standards by reference and requires MY 2005 and subsequent new heavy

- duty diesel highway engines to be those certified by California. California standards we re mor e stringent than federal standards for the two model years between expiration of the consent decrees discussed above (MYs 2005 and 2006 ) and the implementation of more stringent federal standards affecting MY 2007 and beyond. However, EPA ’ s MOVES model al ready assumed that the engines would comply with consent decree standards, even without an enforcement mechanism. The Department has used MOVES defaults to calculate emissions from MY 2005 and 2006 highway engines.

The EPA adopted new emission standards for heavy

- duty engines and vehicles for MY 2007 and subsequent. For diesel engines, the standards- 31

- were phased in from 2007 to 2010 for NO X and VOCs. For gasoline engines, the standards were phased in during MY 2008 and 2009. Federal and California stand ards were virtually identical for MY 2007. For MY 2008, California adopted requirements for idling restriction engine programming and an option al “ clean NO X idle ” standard. However, there is no EPA

- approved methodology to estimate emission reductions fro m this requirement. Therefore, the emission estimates use assumptions of the federal rule for MY 2007 through 2010

. Because the new engine standards are adversely affected by sulfur in fuel, the EPA also require d most highway diesel fuel to contain no mo re than 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur , beginning in the fall of 2006. There

wa s a temporary compliance option allowing refiners to continue to produce up to 20 percent of their highway diesel fuel at 500 ppm fuel until 2010. The Department u sed MO VES defaults to estimate the effects of the phase

- in provision.

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program. I n early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program into the Harrisburg/ York Area . The program ap plies to gasoline

- powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under, model years 1975 and newer. For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program consists of an annual

on

- board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure test. For subject vehicles 1995 and older, the program consists of an annual visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are present, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap pressure test. These regulations can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 177. The Department submitte d the expanded emissions program as a SIP revision on December 1, 2003. EPA approved the SIP revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313 ).

Low Sulfur Gasoline

. Sulfur is a natural ly occuring component of crude oil that ends up in gasoline and diesel unless removed. Sulfur in gasoline impairs the effectiveness of emission control systems and contributes to air pollution. By removing most sulfur from gasoline, new advanced emission controls will work longer and more efficiently, and air pollution will be re duced.

The 1999 federal Tier 2 regulations (65 FR 6698; Feb. 10, 2000) reduce d the sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent, enabling the use of new emission control technologies in cars and trucks that reduce harmful air pollution. The emission in ventory analysis in this Maintenance Plan uses the default assumptions provided in MOVES2010 to account for the implementation of the federal standards for low sulfur gasoline. Requirements for use of low

- sulfur gasoline enabled use of advanced emission c ontrol systems in light

- duty vehicles beginning in MY 2004.- 32

- Vehicles meeting Tier 2 emission standards are 77 to 95 percent cleaner than earlier models.

On May 21, 2013, EPA proposed a rulemaking reducing sulfur content in gasoline further with a Tier 3 Low Sulfur Gasoline program and establishing ta ilpipe and evaporative emission standards for motor vehicles including passenger cars, light

- duty trucks, medium

- duty passenger vehicles, and certain heavy

- duty vehicles (78 FR 29816). The
pre

- publication ver sion of the final rule was signed by the EPA Administrator on March 3, 2014. These federal standards will take effect 60 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. The Tier 3 program requires the annual average content of sulfur in g asoline to be reduced to 10 parts per million, starting January 1, 2017. By 2018, EPA estimates that SO 2 emissions will be reduced by 56 percent. When fully implemented, this program, by 2030, will increase the effectiveness of vehicle emission controls even further and reduce onroad emissions of NOx by 25 percent, direct particulate matter by 10 percent and VOCs by 16 percent. The rule will also significantly reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and hazardous air pollutants including acrolein, benzene, f ormaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

3

. Nonroad Sources

The 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. In formation on these federal rules, including their implementation dates, can be found at www.epa.gov/nonroad. The Department used the assumptions built into the nonroad model (NONROAD2005) and NMIM to estimate emissions for all milestone years.

While the EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking for more stringent standards for locomotives and large commercial marine diesel engines, the agency has not finalized any new standards.

On June 29, 2004, EPA adopted a rule establishing a comprehensive

na tional program to reduce emissions from nonroad diesel engines (69 FR 38958). The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content of diesel used in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in fuel sulfur content prevent s damage to the more advan ced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standards; it will also reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines. In 2007, fuel sulfur levels were limited to 500 ppm for nonroad applications other than ocean

- going marine vessels. In 2 010, fuel sulfur levels were reduced to the same sulfur concentration as in highway fue l, 15 ppm; this requirement began applying in 2012 to locomotive and marine diesel fuel. EPA ado pted- 33

- technical a mendments to the program in rules published in the Feder al Register on November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70498)

, and May 1, 2006 (71 FR 25706). On April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22896), EPA adopted changes to the nonroad diesel fuel program to allow for the production and sale of diesel fuel with up to 1

, 000 ppm sulfur for use in Category 3 marine vessels. This requirement does not impact the Harrisburg/ York Area because the Harrisburg/ York Area does not have emissions from commercial marine vessels.

4

. Stationary Area Sources

Low Sulfur Fuel Oil. The Environmental Quality B oard has adopted a rule to reduce the sulfur content of fuel oil in Pennsylvania. This final rule, published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin February 9, 2013 (43 Pa.B. 806), corrected April 20, 2013 (43 Pa.B. 2140 ), will limit the sulfur content of No. 2 fue l oil to 500 ppm, No. 4 fuel oil to 2,500 ppm and Nos. 5 and 6 fuel oils to 5,000 ppm. Compliance with the lower sulfur content limits will be required beginning July 1, 2016. The Department estimates statewide SO 2 emission reductions of approximately 25 ,000 tons per year from this rule. These emission reductions will allow the Commonwealth to attain and maintain the PM 2.5 standards and improve visibility. The final

- form regulation was submitted to EPA for approva l as a SIP revision on February 26, 2013 and determined by EPA on March 28, 2013 to be administratively complete. On February 20, 2014, EPA proposed approval, as a revision to the SIP, Pennsylvania ’ s regulation for the “ Control of Commercial Fuel Oil Sulfur Limits for Combustion Units ” ( 79 FR 9 701 ). Action on the final SIP revision is expected this summer

.

Consumer Products. This 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 th e Commonwealth. The program is contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapter B. It was submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision on March 26, 2003

, and approved on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70895). Amendments to the Consumer Products regulations were adop ted on October 11, 2008

, submitted to the EPA for approval as a SIP revision on March 11 , 2009

, and approved by EPA as a SIP revision on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63717)

.

Adhesives , Sealants, Primers and Solvents. Pennsylvania adopted a regulation in 2010 to control VOC emissions from Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents. This regulation was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 25, 2010 (40 Pa. B. 7340)

, and approved by EPA as a SIP revision on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59090).- 34

-

B

. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity

Section 176 of the CAA provides a mechanism by which federally funded or approved highway and transit plans, programs, and projects are determined not to produce new air quality violations, worsen exi sting violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. EPA regulations issued to implement transportation conformity provide that motor vehicle emission “ budgets ” establish caps of these emissions that cannot be exceeded by the predicted transportatio n system emissions in the future. Transportation agencies in Pennsylvania are responsible for making timely transportation conformity determinations. The responsible
agenc ies in the Harrisburg/ York Area

, designated as Metropolitan Planning Organization s (MPO) under federal transportation planning requirements , are:

 F or Cumberland and Dauphin counties : the Tri

- County Regional Planning Commission;

 F or Lebanon County : the Lebanon County Metropolitan Planning Organization; and

 F or York County : the York Area Metr opolitan Planning Organization.

In this Maintenance Plan, Pennsylvania establish es budgets for highway emissions for direct PM 2.5 and NO X in order to ensure that transportation emissions do not impede clean air goals in the next decade and beyond

. The highway emission budgets include a safety margin, which was created by setting aside a portion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway vehicles.

Amendm ents to the 40 CFR part 93 transportation conformity regulations to address the 2006 PM 2.5 standard were published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2010 ( 7 5 FR 14260 )

, to account for PM 2.5 and its precursors. 7 In the transportation conformity regulati ons, S ection 93.102 requires conformity determinations to be applicable to direct emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X (unless a determination is made that transportation

- related emissions are not significant contributors to PM 2.5 ), but to emissions of SO 2 , VOC, and NH 3 only if a finding is made that transportation

- related emissions of these pollutants are significant contributors to PM 2.5
. EPA approved Pennsylvania ’ s SIP revision establishing transportation conformity requirements in the Commonwealth on April 29, 2 009 (74 FR 19451).

T his Maintenance Plan SIP revision establishes motor vehicle emission budget s for PM 2.5 and NO X . The informatio n in Table III

- 2 , once t he EPA approves it for

7 The Federal transportation conformity regulati ons were again amended on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14979)

, to restructure several sections so that they apply to any new or revised NAAQS and make several clarificati ons to improve implementation.- 35

- purposes of conformity, will establish transportation conformity budgets for the Harrisburg/ York Area.

Table III

- 2: Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (Tons per Year)

The highway emission budgets include a safety margin to accommodate unanticipated growth in highway vehicles . The safety margins were created by setting aside a po rtion of the difference between attainment year and maintenance year emissions of PM 2.5 and NO X . Table III

- 3 shows that the amount of emission reductions anticipated between 2007 and 2017 and between 2007 and 2025 easily accommodat es the safety margins gr anted.

Table III

- 3 : Comparison of Saf ety Margin to Total Anticipated Emission Reductions in 2017 and 2025

Harrisburg/York PM 2.5 NO X 2007 10,271 73,806 2017 9,072 50,092 2025 8,840 42,710

2007

- 2017 1,199 23,714 Margin Granted 83 1,630

2007

- 2025 1,431 31,096 Margin Granted 6 2 1,079

For informational purposes, the Department analyzed the projected 2025 inventory and found that highway emissions of VOC, NH 3 , and SO 2 account for 18.52 percent , 3.05 percent , and 0.50 percent of the t otal projected 2025 inventory, resp ectively, as shown in Table III

- 4.- 36

-

Table III

- 4 : Comparison of 2025 On

- Road Mobile VOC , NH 3 , and SO 2 Emissions

to the Total Projected 2025 Inventory

Harrisburg/York SO 2 VOC NH 3 2025 On

- Road Mobile Source Projected Inv entory (Tons) 100 4,472 367 Total Projected 2025 Inventory (Tons) 20,032 24,155 12,051
Percent of Total Projected 2025 Inventory (%) 0.50 18.52 3.05

The motor vehicle emission budgets include PM from vehicle exh aust, brake wear, and tire wear, which ar e estimated by the MOVES model. The Department has included direct PM 2.5 re

- entrained road dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads in the area source inventory , not in the motor vehicle emission budgets. Appendi x B

- 2 , rela ting to area source annual e missions, contain s estimates of the PM 2.5 emissions attributable to paved and unpaved roads.

The York and Harrisburg monitoring site s include monitor s that measure PM 2.5 mass and speciation monitor s that collect data on the chemical constituents of PM 2.5
. Transportation construction

- related fugitive dust emissions are not a significant contributor to the PM 2.5 concentrations observed at either the York or Harrisburg monitor

. T he crustal component was found to be small compared to other components of PM 2. 5 ( See, Figure 1 ). Given that construction

- related fugitive dust is one of many source categories contributing to the crustal material observed at the monitor, and transportation construction is a small subset of all construction, it is reasonable to conc lude that transportation construction

- related fugitive emissi ons are insignificant.- 37

- Figure 1 : Pie Chart s of 2007 Harrisburg/ York Speciation Data

Harrisburg Percentage of Total Mass Year 2007

Nitrate

15%

Sulfate

27%

Ammonium 14% Organic carbon 24% Elemental carbon 6% Crustal component 3% Other

11% York Percentage of Total Mass Year 2007

Nitrate

15%

Sulfate

26%

Ammonium 14% Organic c arbon 24% Elemental carbon 6% Crustal component 4% Other

11%- 38

-

IV

. A MBIENT A IR Q UALITY M ONITORING N ETWORK

The Commonwealth will continue to operate the air monitorin g network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify the attainment status of the Harrisburg/ York A rea for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS , with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the

ex isting network unless pre

- approved by EPA. The Commonwealth has concurrently submitted to EPA a request for redesignation of the Harrisburg/ York A rea that contains analysis of ambient air quality data and related factors.

V

. V ERIFICATION OF C ONTINUED A TT AINMENT

The Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Harrisburg/ York A rea 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 this plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under E PA ’ s Air Emiss i on Reporting Requirements (40 CFR 51

, Subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory (2007 ) by more than 10 percent. Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures should be impleme nted.

VI

. C ONTINGENCY M EASURES

The Commonwealth will adopt and expeditiously implement corrective actions , as necessary and appropriate, in the following circumstances:

A first level response will be prompted if the 98 th percentile 24

- hour PM 2.5 concent ration exceeds 35.0 μ g/m 3 in a single calendar year within the maintenance area or if the periodic emissions inventory for the Harrisburg/ York Area exceeds the attainment year inventory (2007) by more than 10 percent . The first level response will consist of a study to deter mine whether the PM 2.5 value indicates a trend toward higher PM 2.5 values and whether emissions appear to be increasing. If there appears to be an increasing trend, the study will evalu ate whether the trend is likely to continue and, if so, the necessary and appropriate control measures to reverse the trend. Implementation of necessary and appropriate controls would take place as expeditiously as possible.

A second level response will be prompted if the 2

- year average of the 98 th percentile 24

- hour PM 2.5 concentrations exceeds 35 .0 μ g/m 3 within the maintenance area. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. T he Department will analyze the conditions leading to the PM 2.5 levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the PM 2.5 levels. The Department will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state and local
measures t hat have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the second level- 39

-

response is triggered

. The Department will then begin the process of adop ting any selected measures that are necessary and appropriate so that in the event of a violation, the meas ures can be implemented as expeditiously as practicable.

If a violation of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS occurs, the Commonwealth will propose and adopt additional emission reduction measures , as necessary and appropriate, as expeditiously as practicable in accord ance with the implementation schedule in this section , the CAA, the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act , other Pennsylvania statutory requirements, and the Department ’ s Policy for Development, Approval and Availability of Regulations in order to return the area to attainment with the standard.

Additional emission reduction measures to be considered for adoption if a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the Harrisburg / York Area would be based on criteria including the following :

 A ir quality analysis indicat ing nature of violation ( cause, location, source );

 E mission reduction potential, including extent to which emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area;

 T imeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the area to attainmen t as expeditiously as practicable; and

 C osts, equity and cost

- effectiveness.

Additional emission reduction measures the Department would consider pursuing for promulgation if a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the Harrisburg/ York Area include the followi ng :

Regulatory measures :

 A regulation based on the OTC Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products ;

 A regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for industrial cleaning solvents ; and

 Other regulatory measures identified bas e d on the above

- listed criteria.

Non

- regulatory measures:

 Voluntary diesel projects:

o Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets;

o Idling reduction technolo gy for Class 2 yard locomotives; and- 40

- o Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and
ot her freight

- handling facilities.

 Promotion of a ccelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, e specially commercial equipment.

 Additional promotion of alternative fuel s for fleets, home heating and agricultural

use.

Once the Department ’ s Bureau of Air Quality has obtained an approved request to initiate a rulemaking, the rulemaking may proceed as follows:

Within 2 months: Review by Air Quality Techni cal Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council and other advisory committees

, 8 as appropriate. Within 5 months: Environmental Qual ity Board (EQB) meeting/action. Within 7 months: Publi cation in the Pennsylvania Bulletin for c omment as proposed rulemaking. Within 9 months: Public hearing takes place and comment period on proposed rule closes. Within 10 months : Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IR RC) comment on proposed rule. Within 12 months: AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council and other advisory committee s, as appropriate, review responses to comme nts and draft final rulemaking. Within 15 months: EQB meeting/action. Within 16 months: IRRC action on final rulemaking. Within 17 months: Attorney General review/acti on. Within 18 months: Publi cation in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final rulemaking and submi ssion to the EPA as a SIP revision. The regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin

.

8 Other committees could include the Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee and Agriculture Advisory Co mmittee.- 41

- ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEO Annual Energy Outlook AQTAC Ai r Quality Technical Advisory Committee BACT Best Available Control Technology BAT Best Available Technology CAA Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CA LEV California Low Emission Vehicle (program) CF Control Factor CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMU Carnegie Mellon University CMV Commercial Marine Vessel DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EGAS Economic Growth Analysis System EGU Electric Generating Unit EIA Energy Information Admi nistration EIS Emission Inventory System EPA The U nited S tates Environmental Protection Agency EQB Environmental Quality Board ERC Emission Reduction Credit ERTAC Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIP Federal Implementation Plan FIRE Factor Information Retrieval FMVCP Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program FR Federal Register FRM Federal Reference Method HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant I/M Inspection and Maintenance IRRC Independent Regulatory Review Commission IT N Itinerant LDGV Light Duty Gasoline V ehicles LDGT Light Duty Gasoline T rucks MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MANE

- VU Mid

- Atlanti c/ Northeast Visibility Union MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission S imulator MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MY Model Year NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emissions Inventory NH 3 Ammonia NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle (program)- 42

-

NMIM Nat ional Mobile Inventory Model NO X Oxides of Nitrogen NSR New Source Review OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality OTC Ozone Transport Commission OTR Ozone Transport Region OWB Outdoor Wood

- fired Boiler PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportatio n PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter or Fine P articulates PM 10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RWC Residential Wood Combustion SCC Source Classif ication Code SIP State Implementation Plan SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide TAF Terminal Area Forecast TCM Transportation Control Measures TSD Technical Support Document
μ g/m 3 M icrogram per cubic meter
μm Micrometer VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound WOE Weight of Evidence ZEV Zero Emissions Vehicle

### Comment and Response Document

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Nonattainment Area 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

On January 25, 2014 , the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP ) requested written comments and provided notice of the opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Nonattainment Area. A public hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2014 on the proposed redesignation request and plan revision, but the hearing w as cancelled since no person requested a hearing. The comment period closed on February 28 , 2014

. One commentator provided comments on the proposed SIP revision

.
Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

- 2029

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

1. Comment: The discussion, in both the Redesignation Requests and the Maintenance Plans, of the permanent and enforceable reductions of direct PM2.5 and precursor emissions from the 2005 baseline to the 2007 attainment year include details r elated to the sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) controls installed on the Brunner Island power plant in 2009. These controls, while contributing to reductions for continued attainment in these areas, did not contri bute to the improvement in air quality that led to attainment between 2005 and 2007. It is recommended that this discussion be removed from the pertinent sections and added to the discussion of measures that assure current attainment and/or maintenance of the standard. In its place, please provide details or a list of the permanent and enforceable reductions that led to attainment in 2007.

Response: DEP appreciates the comment. DEP originally included the discussion of controls installed on the Brunner Island power plant in 2009 in the section indicating measures contributing to attainment of the PM 2.5 standard between 2005 and 2007, in order to emphasize the downward trend of emissions. To address the commentator’s

con cern, however, DEP removed the discussion from that section. DEP retained the discussion in the portion of the Maintenance Plan discussing measures that ensure maintenance of the NAAQS. The Redesignation Request already contains a description of the perm anent and enforceable reductions that led to attainment of the standard in 2007.

2. Comment: T he safety margin for the 2025 PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budget on
page 30 of Table III

- 3 should be 62 instead of 61. The sum of the safety margins- 2

-

provided by Table III

- 2 on page 29 for the 2025 PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budget is 62.

Response: The discrepancy was due to rounding. A correction has been made on Table III

- 3.

3. Comment: Redesignation Request Section III.C.1

- It is recommended that the subsection entitled "Stationary Source Permitting Programs," with the exception of the paragraph related to federal standards for hazardous air pollutants, be moved to a separate section, since these are not specific permanent and enforceable control measures (the Title V pe rm itting program in particular does not create new requirements).

Response: DEP appreciates the comment . Because a strong permitting program, particularly standards for Best Available Technology, underli es the basis for continued decreases in emissions of PM 2.5 and its precursors from stationary sources, DEP has retained t he description of Pennsylvania’s stationary source permitting programs . DEP moved the description of the permitting program s to a background section to address the commentator’s concerns.cm!Ji\:]CNI.'J8lHH OF PEN"4SYt_V,I-'>,t\fJP STD-52-1 REV. 12-88

TQ: (1:-lAM!;; AND ADDRESS OF )'IEWSF'AI'>im} ! FEPERAL t.D-. NO./SOC, pEe, NO, : 23-1394402**"1-0VV"t'+~OO't** I V!U f

FROM: (NM<1C: ANO.AODRS:SS bi'"AGENCYJ 'AGENCYIELI:PHONENO, 787-9495 Harrisburg Patriot News Co. Attn: Pina

- Legal Ads Alex Haas PA DEP/BAQ**!__~--** •• " ••

- -----·. ---

2020 Technology Parkway-Suite**M~eloanicsbur~** PA 17050 300

HEREWITH IS ENCL..OSEO COI'>Y FOR PUBUCA"t10N OF" ADVERTISEMEI-It FOR PROPOSALS 'f'D 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 1710.5



### D EMPI.,.OY 

### 0 PURCHASE; 

### D CONtl'fAC.T 

# I TYPE OF AD 

### D SELL 

### 0 CLASSIFIED I;d LEGAL NOTICE**~USI,.ISH** ADVERTISEMENT (NO.**O~TIMES)** DATE 

# I

ORDER NO, Jan.l5, 2014

OATES OF INSERTION On or before January 24, 2014

You, as vendor, are authorized to publish this advertisement in your newspaper, subject to the terms of this order, as follows: Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no position specified; caption of two lines and signature to be in capita'ls and subject matter and tit[e of officer.to be sei: solid in type regu,arly usOO by_v.our newsP-aP-er for RUbric**(~gql)** notice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and occupying similar space; advertisement to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any q:mtract awarded to it hereunder, said vendor will not discriminate against any employs or other persons on account of race, color, se)(, religious creed; ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon t'eceipt of satisfactory evidence of such discrimination, shall have the righttocanoel said contract. Return this copy at once jfyou will not accept this advertisement under the terms set forth.

Pmof of advertishl!l**i~** tlia foo·m of" tearslieet**mOJJs~ ~e**  ii1lcln.ooled oU'I Parts**~,** 2 & 3. Rsto.nm**origir>~l** ancl two**copi~s** (si!IJr>sd**~11** the editor or**p~.nff:llishar)** to**A!Jet~cy lis~ed**  lilbo:we.**!'art~** mMst be notari2ed. l'srt 4 is yo:mrs.

. Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.



### ---

ACCOUNT FUND 

### """ APP YE:AI'l. LOG ORG COST FUNCTION 

## ""' AMOUNT

COD!:: it:::"""hlf'Ji 70.;1. 

### fl1Xl3**~00** 

# no '\ 

### I**>~oc** 

### oc?lD 

### ·-;;;;:r; "J::i: 

## :;.77 190711 .t:1d 

### • -z.. (j.**:5~"** 

# no I 

# . UNVOICE (To be comoletedby publisher): ;.!.··- 

# :

..**~** 

# ..**:~::t:~:j~~:** 

# :· ": ·:1.'."• l

.. -
..
......**~~i:;** DATE OF INSERTlON ACTUAL NO. OF PRINTE;D 1-!NE:E COST PER LINE TOTALAMOUI'lT l:'.

'

_ .. ··./ ; 

## '

.. ·'h**~~-i(** 

# : ("/ 1st Ad

. '. /

2nd Ad 

### ''

. ,( 

# l .·/ / 

# /i ••-'c

. .. 3rdAd I ;, 

# f 

# 'i (

'/

·.·. '

GRAND TOTAl.'+ '' ' ''



### '

PASTE TEARSHEET HERE

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of

_____________ _ Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally came who being duly sworn, doth depose and say that he is***~----.,.·-----------------------** the · a general newspaper published at that the advertisement, of which tearsheet is attached·hereto, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspaper, in the editions of said newspaper, in all respects as ordered and invoiced above; and that the Commonwealth is not charged therefor at a rate higher than is charged any ordinary commercial advertiser for a similar amount of matter occupying similar space and set in a similar manner, in said newspaper.

*This affidavit must be made by the Own-er, Pubrisher, or the designated agent of the owner or publisher. .. ,_ .. ,,,,The Patriot-News Co. 2020 Technology Pkwy Suite 300 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Inquiries- 717-255-8213 

# [be patriot-News

Now you know

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
400 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG PA 17105


# STATEMENT

AD ORDER# DATE EDITION ADDTL INFO.

233427 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 0002283502 01/23/14 REGULAR

233427 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 0002288502 01/23/14 REGULAR Department of Environmental Protectiorr



### JAN 2 9 2014

Air Resource Management Division

ALL CHARGES ARE NET

TYPE OF CHARGE AMOUNT

BOLD TEXT CHARGE $4.00

BASIC AD CHARGE $464.07

AFFIDAVIT CHARGE $5.00

TOTAL: $473.07

This is not an invoice. Please do not remit payment from this Statement. An invoice will be generated at the end of the month. --Thank you.

NOTE: This Statement replaces the Order Confirmation which we previously sent with Proofs of PublicationThe Patriot-News Co. 2020 Technology Pkwy Suite 300 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Inquiries- 717-255-8213 

# [be patriot

.. Ncws

Now you know

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
400 MARKE'T STREET

PA 17105

THE PATRIOT NEWS THE SUNDAY PATRIOT NEWS



### Proof of Publication
Under Act No. 587, Approved May 16, 1929 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Dauphin} ss

ing duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:

'\ccountant of The Patriot News Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 'ania, with its principal office and place of business at 2020 Technology Pkwy, Suite 300, in the 1nty of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania, owner and publisher of The Patriot-News and The Sunday f general circulation, printed and published at 1900 Patriot Drive, in the City, County and State Jews and The Sunday Patriot-News were established March 4th, 1854, and September 18th, 1949,**~en** continuously published ever since; ice or publication which is securely attached hereto is exactly as printed and published in their regular unity Weekly editions which appeared on the date(s) indicated below. That neither she nor said ' subject matter of said printed notice or advertising, and that all of the allegations of this statement as der of publication are true; and nal knowledge of the facts aforesaid and is duly authorized and empowered to verify this statement on**~o.** aforesaid by virtue and pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed and adopted severally by the lirectors of the said Company and subsequently duly recorded in the office for the Recording of Deeds tuphin in Miscellaneous Book "M", Volume 14, Page 317.

ran on the dates shown below: January 23, 2014

ary, 2014 AD.The Patriot-News Co. 2020 Technology Pkwy Suite 300 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Inquiries- 717-255-8213 

# [bt 

# patriot-News

Now you know

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
400 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG PA 17105

THE PATRIOT NEWS THE SUNDAY PATRIOT NEWS



### Proof of Publication
Under Act No. 587, Approved May 16, 1929 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Dauphin} ss

Marianne Miller, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:

That she is a Staff Accountant of The Patriot News Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal office and place of business at 2020 Technology Pkwy, Suite 300, in the Township of Hampden, County of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania, owner and publisher of The Patriot-News and The Sunday Patriot-News newspapers of general circulation, printed and published at 1900 Patriot Drive, in the City, County and State aforesaid; that The Patriot-News and The Sunday Patriot-News were established March 4th, 1854, and September 18th, 1949, respectively, and all have been continuously published ever since; That the printed notice or publication which is securely attached hereto is exactly as printed and published in their regular daily and/or Sunday/ Community Weekly editions which appeared on the date(s) indicated below. That neither she nor said Company is interested in the subject matter of said printed notice or advertising, and that all of the allegations of this statement as to the time, place and character of publication are true; and That she has personal knowledge of the facts aforesaid and is duly authorized and empowered to verify this statement on behalf of The Patriot-News Co. aforesaid by virtue and pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed and adopted severally by the stockholders and board of directors of the said Company and subsequently duly recorded in the office for the Recording of Deeds in and for said County of Dauphin in Miscellaneous Book "M", Volume 14, Page 317.

ran on the dates shown below: January 23, 2014

and**sub~cribed be~ll**  23 day of Janrry, 2014 A.D.

tary PublicCOMf:iiONWE.<\LTH OF**,cENNSYL\r~l\1~;\** STD-52"1 REV. -12-33 4,']00445684 10/07

! !

York Daily Record
1891 toucks Road PO Box W-401 York, PA 17404 : 91-020905 Alex Haas PA DEP/BAQ 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17105

You, as vendor, are authorized to publish this advertisement in your newspaper, subject to the terms of this order, as follows: Advertisement to be published in regular advertising co!umnsr no position specified; caption of two lines and signature to be in capitals and subject matter and title me officer. to be**set_S~olid** in type reguftarly used by: v..our newsRaQ:er for (.?ublic (!§gal} notice advertising: charge to be made at the rate charged to. and paid by commercial**advertis~rs** for matter simflarly set and occupying similar space; advertisement to be nm in the editions specified above. Vendor .agrees that, in the performance of any contract awarded to it hereunder, said vendor will not discrimina'i:e against any emplo)le or other persons on accoun·i: of race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of such discrimination, shal! havetherigh1l:tocanoe! said contract. Return this copy at once if you will not accept this advertisement uncfertheterms set forth.**!Flmo~oifadlverUsing ~nthefoq-m** **!Cl~"ij=a'teatrsfraeetmlllls'i** lbe indi!.Jldsd on pgrts**~,** 2 & 3.**~etllllm origill!lSJ~**  S'J:ndtwo copies**~si.gnedl** by th" edito' or P"blishar) to**Ago~cylisted** "lbove. !'aO"I 1 .Ni1us1ll:;e**~ota,ized.** l'art 4 is yo1ns.

Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

ACCOUNT

CODE

2nd Ad

3rdAd FUND**D~**

Commonwealth cf Pennsylvania YEAR

Countyof

__**_e~~--------------------** COG ORG COST FUNCTION AMOUNT

TOTAL AMOL;NT

TOTAl_..

Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally came

_ whobe.ing duly sv:'ofn, dotp depos

.. e

... a. nd

... say that he is'**~·** __**l"-'"'""f¥'"""'-''""--~)'"--'.'i'l>'f'-."'""n.-·,'-;'-'-"'c'c.--:** . .....,-. --------------------------- the**'1.::::.::~-,** ..;,:.z.:-?vii)2J,l::t-H'if4c\

_ . _ _ __ a general newSpaper published at f,-<V**·------~------------·--·----.** _. that the**adver~serrient** of which tearsheet is attached· hereto, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspaper, in the editions of said newspaper, in all respects. as ordered and invoiced above; and that the Commonweafth is not charged therefor at a rate higher than is char'ged any ordinary commercial advertiser for a similar amount of matter occupying similar space and set in a similar manner, in Said newspaper.

My commission expires

. .tl.»_r..c·..:.I

__ ..Jic_,_=J-"o'-''-"'=--

*This affidavit must be made by the Owner, Pllb!isher, or the dealgmted -agent of the owner or publisher.

TREASUfW SlGNATURE: OF' Af-'F!ANT

·-

Notary Public WEST MANCHESTER TWP. YORK COUNTY My Commission Expires r\p- 1, 2016**-~---___;,_:..;;,;_;__...J**PROPOSED STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS
Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans for the Cumberland, Dauphin, Leba·
non and York Counties Attaining the 1997 Annual and 24-hour 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards: Public Hearing

· Particulate matter (PM) includes both solid and llquid particles suspended in the air. Fine particle pollution describes particulate matter that Is less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in 'diameter {PM2.5). PM2.5 concentrations above the federal health-based standard pose a serious human health threat. With significant improvements in air quality in Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon and York counties, these nonattainment areas now meet the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the Department o1 Environmental Protection (OEP) intends to submit requests to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) to redesignate these areas to attainment.

The DEP Is seeking public comment on the three redesignation requests and proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) containing the 2007 comprehensive inventory : as required under Section 172(c)(3) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and maintenance plans demonstrating that the areas can maintain the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 health-based NAAQS for the next 10 years as required under section 175A(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. § 7505a}. Upon EPA a.ppmval, the maintenance plans will also establish new motor vehicle ' emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes.

The requests to redesignate the**are~s** to attainment and the proposed SIP revisions are available on the Department's website at 'www.dep.state.pa.us (choose "Air," choose

1 "Bureau oi Air Quality," choose "Regs/Plans," choose "Clean Air Plans") or through the contact persons fisted below.

The Department will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the proposal on Wednesday, February 26, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., at the Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street, Room 105, Harrisburg, PA. Persons wishing to present testimony at the hearing should contact Alex Haas, P.O. Box 846B, Harrisburg, PA 17105, (717) 787-9495
or alehaas@pa.gov to reserve a time: Wit-:
nesses should keep testimony to ten mmutes and should provide two written copies of their statement at the hearing.

If by Monday, February 24, 2015, no person has expressed an interest in testifying at the hearing, the hearing wlll be cancelled. The ' Department will provide public not\ce on the Bureau of Air Quality webpage at the following link if the hearing is cancelled:

1 http://www.dep.state.pa,us/depldeputate/ai

1 rwastelaq/default.htm. Persons may also con1act the Department to find out if the hearing is cancelled by contacting Alex Haas at (717} 787-9495 or alehaas@pa.gov.

Persons wlth a disability who wish to attend the hearing and requlre an auxiliary aid, service or other accommodation to participate in the proceeding should contact Alex Haas at (717) 787-9495 or alehaas@pa.gov. TDD
users may contact the AT&T Relay Service at (BOO) 654-5984 to discuss how the Department can best accommodate their needs. The Department must receive comments no later than February 28, 2014. Written comments should be sent to the attention of Nancy Herb, Bureau of Air Ollality, P.O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468, or nherb@pa.gov. Use "Harrisburg/York PM2.5 Redesignatlon" as the subject line in written communication and specify whtch document you are commenting

on.

E. CHRISTOPHER ABRUZZO, Secretary 

## Proof of Publication State ofPennsylvania Ad# 0001421985-01

The York Dispatch/York Sunday News and York Daily Record is the name of the daily newspaper(s) of general circulation published continuously for more than six months at its principal place of business, 1891 Loucks Road, York, PA 17408.

The printed copy of the advertisement hereto attached is a true copy, exactly as printed and published, of an advertisement printed in the regular issues of the said The York Dispatch/York Sunday News and York Daily Record published on the

01/23/2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF YORK Before me, a Notary Public, personally came Linda Smith who being duly sworn deposes and says that she is the Layout Supervisor of The York Dispatch'York Sunday News and York Daily Record and her personal knowledge of the publication of the advertisement mentioned in the foregoing statement as to the time, place and character of publications are true, and that the affiant is not interested in the subject matter of the above mentioned advertisement.

Sworn and subscribed to before me, on this 23 day of January 2014 

# }

Notary Public

The charge for the following publication of above mentioned advertisement and the expense of the affidavit.

Advertisement Cost $566.20

Affidavit Fee $5.00

Total Cost $571.20Ad OrdQ.r Number
0001421985**Sales~...:.** dswords

Order Taker
dswords**T~HH** Sheets
0

lnvolce Text

Gross Amount $571.20

Ad Number
0001421 tl85-01

Product Information

YNC Dairy Record::

YNC Online::

WYSIWYG Contgnt

2/14/2014 2:04:46PM 

# MEDI RECEIVED

MARKETPLACE**201~** 

## FEB 14 PH 

## 2= 06

Order Confirmation IIEI'"BI1REAU £1F A-IR OU/\f.IJ'(

Customer
PA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PR

Customer Account
108739

Customer Address
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE
HARRISBURG PA 17105-8468 USA Customer Phone 717-787-9495 Payor Customer
PA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

Payor Account
108739

.E§Y.or Address
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BU
HARRISBURG PA 17105-8468 USA

Payor Phone
717-787-9495 PO Number 152078

Ordered By

Customer Fax

Customer EMail

Affidavits
1 !=Jiind Box

Ad Type Legal Liner Ad Order Notgs

Payment Method

Ad Size
:2.0X103Li

PlacementJCiassification

Public Notices

Public Notices Production Method

Ad Booker Payment Amount $0.00

Production Notes

Run Dates

112312014

1/2312014 ----------COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA STD-521 REV. 06-2010 PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION AND INVOICE

PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION (To be completed by agency): INVOICE NO.

TELEPHONE NO. 717-787-9495 TO: (NAME AND ADDRESS oF NEWSPAPER) !FEDERAL I. D. NO./SOC. SEC. NO. FROM: (NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY) AGENCY i Harrisburg Patriot News Co. 23-1394402 Alex Haas i

'·············································································· 2020 Technology Parkway PA DEP: Bureau of Air Quality Suite 300 400 Market Street Mechanicsbura. PA 17050**~::uri<::hnrn** PA 171(11

HEREWITH IS ENCLOSED COPY FOR PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO TTYPE OF AD. 

### D EMPLOY 

### D PURCHASE 

### D CONTRACT 

### D SELL 

## c CLASSIFIED**~** LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT {NO. OF TIMES) 

# 1

MAXIMUM NO. OF LINES DATE 

# I

ORDER NO. 1x Only January 29,2014

DATES OF INSERTION**SIGNA~; FORAGE~.**  ) j /J7l /7 On or Before February 1, 2014**J·j~** 

### C:.

. /A / YJ./ kh. )

You, as vendor, are authorized to publish this advertisement in your newspaper, subJect to the terms of th1s order, as follows: Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no position specified; caption of two lines and signature to be in capitals and subject matter and title of officer to be set solid in type regularly used by your newspaper for public (legal) notice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and occupying similar space; advertisement to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any contract awarded to it hereunder, said vendor will not discriminate against any employee or other persons on account of race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of such discrimination, shall have the right to cancel said contract Return this copy at once if you will not accept this advertisement under the terms set forth.
Return original and two copies (signed by the editor or publisher) to the agency listed above. Proof of advertising in the form of a tear sheet must be stapled to original and copies. Original must be notarized.
Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

SAP FUND COST CENTER GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT CODE % 7027313000 3522710000 6343200

1/0 V16414000000

INVOICE (To be completed by publisher)·

. DATE OF INSERTION ACTUAL NO. OF PRINTED LINES COST PER LINE TOTAL AMOUNT

1st Ad 

# 7 

# 7 '

. 'c.. 

### /j

· .• 

## ·· ('(' -')

.... 

### /:;'**~~** 

## :f/<, 

# 7t/

' 2nd Ad ---::'

.

### :(~~ 

# l":**\~** 3rd Ad 

### /)/ L;. {. /



### ·- GRAND TOTAL-+ 1 

# 1-:J I 

# h:J (

'

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of

-------------- Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally came

_______________ _ who being duly sworn, doth depose and say that he is*

-------------------------- the a general newspaper published at that the advertisement, of which tearsheet is attached hereto, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspap• in the editions of said newspaper, in all respects as ordered and invoiced above; and that the Commonwealth is not charg therefor at a rate higher than is charged any ordinary advertiser for a similar amount of matter occupying similar space and set ir similar matter, in said newspaper.

COMMONWJ:ALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SWOJJl-<lnd subscribed before me this 

## I 

## at.\t 

# ,., ,, m**~~** 

# 'i! (\**DeW.'~** OJ

N R PUBLIC**~~** My commission expires 

### V@

## lt~ 

# /1 U Notarial Sf::DI frlogy Lynn Warfe!, N;A0r')" Fut:!ic 

# J

\hi.:s!<i;·;;)-.Jn 1\r>,'p,, C:;;uphin Cctmty

;1 • •·";**-~··<t'** •r-" r.**"'":v,·;<~p-** {"**"">0~** Ly**~-~AI.u!S5JO,** !:".;

.....**;.'"~::>** ,Jec 1'2:, £,·)

... 6 *This affidavit must be made by the Owner, Publisher, or the designated agent of the owner or publisher.

MEMGER ?ENN5VtV11Jil1A P.SSOG4TI0N OF NOTfl.R.lESThe Patriot-News Co. 2020 Technology Pkwy Suite 300 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Inquiries- 717-255-8213 

# '<ibt 

# patriot-News

Now you know

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
400 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG PA 17105

THE PATRIOT NEWS THE SUNDAY PATRIOT NEWS



### Proof of Publication
Under Act No. 587, Approved May 16, 1929 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Dauphin} ss

Marianne Miller, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:

That she is a Staff Accountant of The Patriot News Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth ;(If Pennsylvania, with its principal office and place of business at 2020 Technology Pkwy, Suite 300, in the Township of Hai'Tlpden, County of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania, owner and publisher of The Patriot-News and The Sunday Patriot-News newspapers of general circulation, printed and published at 1900 Patriot Drive, in the City, County and State aforesaid; that The Patriot-News and The Sunday Patriot-News were established March 4th, 1854, and September 18th, 1949, respectively, and all have been continuously published ever since; That the printed notice or publication which is securely attached hereto is exactly as printed and published in their regular daily and/or Sunday/ Community Weekly editions which appeared on the date(s) indicated below. That neither she nor said Company is interested in the subject rnatter of said printed notice or advertising, and that all of the allegations of this statement as to the time, place and character of publication are true; and That she has personal knowledge of the facts aforesaid and is duly authorized and empowered to verify this statement on behalf of The Patriot-News Co. aforesaid by virtue and pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed and adopted severally by the stockholders and board of directors of the said Company and subsequently duly recorded in the office for the Recording of Deeds in and for said County of Dauphin in Miscellaneous Book "M", Volume 14, Page 317.

373 ran on the dates shown below: February 02, 2014The Patriot-News Co. 2020 Technology Pkwy Suite 300 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Inquiries- 717-255-8213 

# [be**patriot~Ncws** Now you know

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
400 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG

CORRECTlON Proposed state ffnPiemeniQfion Plan Revisions Public Heqring for Rede:si9'nafion Requests a:nd Mo:intenance Pkms. for Cumberlandr Dauphin, Lebanon and York Counties Attaining the 1997 Annual and 24-hour 2006 Fine Particulate Matte!" Stanltfards; Public**He<~rfng** The Department of Environmental Protection (Oeparfmenf} intends to submit requests to the U.S. Environmental Protecf(on Agency (EPA) toredeshmateCumbertand, Dauphin. Lebanon and York c:ounttes to attainment for the 1997 and 201M PM2.5 National Ambient Atr Quol{ty Standards CNAAQSL

The Department**rece~y** published a notice of a Pub fie heorlrt ' o receive co.mments-Dn the three r designonon requests and proposed revisions to the State ltnPiemerttaffon Pran (SIP) containing the 2007 comprehensive tnvli!ntorv as required under Section tn(c)(3} of the federal Clean Air Act CCAA} anct maintenance ptans d:emcmstratfng tttat the areas can maintain the 1997 and 20:()"6 PM2.S health-**base~** NAAQS ftw the rnaxt 10 years as re:qUtred under**~cffon** 175A(a1 of the CAA (42 U,S.CA 7SIJSa}.

. That notice contofnectatHirror, It mdlcated that If by Monday, February ?4, 2Ul5, no Person had exPressed an mterest in testifYing at the hearing, tha hearing woo!d be cancel ted, The cO;'rect Information is that ihe hearing wm be cance!lett if by Monday, February 24, · 21H4, no Person h<ts expressed an Interest In te.stifYfng at the hearing.

As indicafed in that notice-, the heetrlns Is scheduled for Wednesday, February 26,2014, at 10::0:0' a.m., of the Rachef Carson Stote OffiCe Ekr11dlm;, 400: Market Street, Room.l05$ Harr-Isburg, PA. Persons wlslltng tt;J present testimony at the hoorins shoUld confcrct Alex Haas P.O, Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 171115 ' {7l7) 787-9495 or olehoas@pa,gov to '

reserve et time, W!fnesses sho:utd keep testimony to ten minutes and should provide two wrrtten copies: of their statement at the hearing.

Persons witt} a dJsabllltv who wls:h to attend the hearfng and requrra an ouxitlary aid, service or other accommodotlon to participate in tt'ffi proceeding should contact Alex Haas at (717) 787·'?495 or alehoa:s@pQ,gov, roo**user~** may contoct fheAT&T Relay Servtce at (80tf) 654-5984 to discuss how fhe.Depa.rtment can best accommodate fhetr needs.

Afso, as indicated ·correctly In the previous nonce, the Department must**n~t;eive** comments no later than February 28, 21l14. Written .comments should be sent to the attention of Nanev HerD, Bureau at Atr Quantv, P-.o. sox 8468, Harrtsburs, PA,J7lOS-8468, or nherb@pa.gov. Use ''HarrlsburglYork**~M2,?** Redesronatlon'' os the subiect line
m wntten communication and specify which ®cument vou are commenting on.

E. CHRfSTOPHER ABRUZZO, Secretary PA 17105

THE PATRIOT NEWS THE SUNDAY PATRIOT NEWS



### Proof of Publication
Under Act No. 587, Approved May 16, 1929 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Dauphin} ss

J duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:

:countant of The Patriot News Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 1ia, with its principal office and place of business at 2020 Technology Pkwy, Suite 300, in the ty of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania, owner and publisher of The Patriot-News and The Sunday Jenera I circulation, printed and published at 1900 Patriot Drive, in the City, County and State

ws and The Sunday Patriot-News were established March 4th, 1854, and September 18th, 1949,

·n continuously published ever since;

e or publication which is securely attached hereto is exactly as printed and published in their regular nity Weekly editions which appeared on the date(s) indicated below. That neither she nor said subject matter of said printed notice or advertising, and that all of the allegations of this statement as ter of publication are true; and 31 knowledge of the facts aforesaid and is duly authorized and empowered to verify this statement on
o. aforesaid by virtue and pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed and adopted severally by the ectors of the said Company and subsequently duly recorded in the office for the Recording of Deeds 1phin in Miscellaneous Book "M", Volume 14, Page 317.

ran on the dates shown below: February 02, 2014The Patriot-News Co. 2020 Technology Pkwy Suite 300 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Inquiries- 717-255-8213

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
400 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG PA 17105


# STATEMENT 

# [be**patriot~Ncws** Now you know

ALL CHARGES ARE NET

AD ORDER# DATE EDITION ADDTL. INFO. TYPE OF CHARGE AMOUNT

233427 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 0002289373 02/02/14 REGULAR

233427**DE~ARTMENT** OF ENVIRONMENTAL 0002289373 01/31/14 REGULAR
233427 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 0002289373 02/02/14 REGULAR BOLD TEXT CHARGE

BASIC AD CHARGE
BASIC AD CHARGE $4.00

$2.50 $415.74

AFFIDAVIT CHARGE $5.00

TOTAL: $427.24

This is not an invoice. Please do not remit payment from this Statement. An invoice will be generated at the end of the month. --Thank you.

NOTE: This Statement replaces the Order Confirmation which we previously sent with Proofs of Publication**~---------------------------------** -- ------------------------,

-------

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA lr-NOICE NO. STD-521 REV. 06-2010 PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION AND INVOICE

PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION (To be completed by agenc '):

TO; (NAME AND AotlltESS Of J'IEWSPN'EJV f FEDERAL to. NOJSOC, SEC. NO. FROM: (NAME AND ADDRESS OF AnENa'f) AGENCY 1 TELEPHONE NO. York Daily Record ! 91-020905 Alex Haas 717-787-9495

'·-'"""'"'"''"'''' 1891 Loucks Road**'"'""'"''""''"'"'"'"''~'""'"'"'""'''''''** __ ,. ____ PA DEP: Bureau of Air Quality York, PA 17408 400 Market Street D H;;rrio::hnrn PA 111m D

HEREWITH IS ENCLOSED COPY FOR PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO 

### I TYPE OFAD 

### D EMPLOY 

### D PURCHASE 

### D CONTRACT 

### D SELL 

### 0 CLASSIFIED 

### IR! LEGAL NOTICE PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT {NO. OF TIMES) 

### I MAXIMUM NO. OF LINES DATE 

### I ORDERNO.

### i"!.~jCl\~

1x Only January 29,2014

DATES OF INSERTION**SIG"J};;o~pCILfl)j** 

# P-A On or Before February 1, 2014 

### '

You, as vendor, are authonzed to publish th1s advertisement 1n your newspaper, subJect to the terms of th1s order, as follows: Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no posilion specified; caption of two lines and signature to be in capitals and subject matter and title of officer to be set solid in type regularly used by your newspaper for public (legal) notice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and occupying similar space; advertisemenl to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any contract awarded io ii hereunder, said vendor will not discriminate against any employee or other persons on account of race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of such discrimination, shall have the right to cancel said contract Return this copy at once if you will not accept this advertisement under the terms set forth.
Return original and two copies (signed by the editor or publisher) to the agency listed above. Proof of advertising in the form of a tear sheet must be stapled to original and copies. Original must be notarized.
Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

SAP**FU~D** COST CENTER GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT CODE
7027313000 3522710000 6343200

1/0 V16414000000

INVOICE (To be completed by publisher):

DATE OF INSERTION ACTUAl NO. OF PRINTED UNES COST PER LINE TOTAL AMOUNT

1st Ad

2nd Ad

3rdAd

:"""'-- GRAND TOTAL-+



## ----------------------

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of**-----"""''-"'~---------** Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally came _.::Lc=' "'-'"'"""\ .U..--""'-"'l.W.-IJ------
who being duly sworn, doth depo. se and say thai he is***,...,\,~,&"'·** -'il-.**c,.'~·''-'-'-l--7'~\,_,v"tl-''-"'·'-'i--'V'-''-'-'-"''"-~'-----~--------** the 

### '·h<\ I),-**~** '"'\' I \\ 3 ,k B,<jj general newspaper published al .- · that the adverMement, of whlch tearsheet is attached herelo, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspap• in the editions of said newspaper, in all respects as ordered and invoiced above; and that the Commonwealth is not charg• lherefor at a rate higher than is charged any ordinary advertiser for a similar amount of matter occupying similar space and set ir similar matter, in said newspaper.

Sworn and subscribed before me this ---:=---- daym

__________________________ 20

____ _

NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires

*This affidavit must be made by the Owner, Publisher, or the designated agent of the owner or publisher.CORRECTION



### I , Proposed**~tate** Implementation Plan Revisions

Publle Hearing for Redesignation Requests

and Maintenance Plans for Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon and Vork Counties Attaining the 1997 Annual and 24-hour 2006 Fine · Particulate Matter Standards; Public Hearing

The Department of Environmental Protection (Department} intends to submit requests to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate Cumberland, Dauphin, Leba- ·

. non and York counties to attainment for the

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards {NAAQS).

The Department recently published a notice of
a public hearing to receive comments on the

· three redesignation requests and proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) containing the 2007 comprehensive inventory
as required under Section 172(c){3) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and maintenance plans demonstrating that the areas can maintain the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 health-based NAAQS tor the next 10 years as required under Section 175A(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. § 7505a)

.

• That notice contained an error. It indicated ·that if by Monday, February 24, 2015, no per- '

, son had expressed an interest in testifying at
: the hearing, the hearing would be cance!fed. The correct Information is that the hearing will be cancelled if by Monday, February 24,2014,
no person has expressed an interest in testifying at the hearing.

As Indicated in that notice, the hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, February 26, 2014, at 10:00 a.m

.. at the Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street, Room 105, Harrisburg, PA. Persons wishing to present testimony at the hearing should contact Alex hlaas, P.O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 17'105, (717) 787-9495 or alehaas@pa.gov to reserve a time. Witnesses should keep testimony to ten minutes and should provide two written copies of their statement at the hearing.

Persons with a disabillty who wish to attend the hearing and require an auxiliary aid, serv- Ice or other accommodation to participate in the proceeding should contact Alex Haas al (717) 787-9495 or alehaas@pa.gov. TDD
users may contact the AT&T Relay Service at (800)**654~5984** to discuss how the Depart- ment can best accommodate their needs.

Also, as. indicated correctly in the previous no- tice, the Department must receive comments
no later than February 28, 2014. Written com- ments should be sent to the ·attention of Nancy Herb, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468, or**nherb@pa.~ov.** Use "Harrisburg/York PM2.5**Redesignat1on~** as the subject line in written communication and specify which ·document you are commenting on.

E. CHRISTOPHER ABRUZZO,

, Secretary 

## Proof of Publication State of Pennsylvania Ad# 0001423929-01

The York DispatchNork Sunday News and York Daily Record is the name of the daily newspaper(s) of general circulation published continuously for more than six months at its principal place of business, 1891 Loucks Road, York, PA 17408.

The printed copy of the advertisement hereto attached is a true copy, exactly as printed and published, of an advertisement printed in the regular issues of the said The York DispatchNork Sunday News and York Daily Record published on the

01/31/2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF YORK Before me, a Notary Public, personally came Linda Smith who being duly sworn deposes and says that she is the Layout Supervisor of The York Dispatctr'York Sunday News and York Daily Record and her personal knowledge of the publication of the advertisement mentioned in the foregoing statement as to the time, place and character of publications are true, and that the affiant is not interested in the subject matter of the above mentioned advertisement.

Sworn and subscribed to before rne, on this 31 day of January 2014

Notary Public

The charge for the following publication of above mentioned advertisement and the expense of the affidavit.

Advertisement Cost $444.40

Affidavit Fee $5.00

Total Cost $449.40Ad Order Number 0001423929

Sales Rep. rgodfrey

Order Taker rgodfrey

Tear Sheets
0

Invoke Text

Gross Amount $449.40

Ad Number 0001423029-01

Product Information

YNC Daily Record::

YNC Online::

WYSIWYG Content

2/"14120"1412:25:31 PM 

# MEDI

MARKETPLACE 

# RECEIVED**201~FEB14** 

## PH 

## f:fto

Order Confirmation 

### tJefi"BIIREAU OF AIR 

### 0UA£1f'l'

Customer
PA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PR

Customer Account
108739

Customer Address
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE
HARRISBURG PA 17105-8468 USA Customer phgng
717-787-9495 Payor Customer
PA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

Payor Account
108739

Payor Address
RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BU
HARRISBURG PA 17105-8468 USA

Payor Phone 717-.787-9495 PO Number

Ordered By

Customer Fax

Customer EMail

Affidavits Blind Box

Ad Type legal Liner Ad Order Notes

Payment Method

Ad Size

: 2_0 X 81 Li

Placement/Classification

Public Notices

Public Notices Production Method
AdBooker Payment Amount $0_00

Production Notes

Run Dates

1/31/2014

"1/3112014PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 1 4-1 98 Page 1 of2**BUll~HN** PRE'\' "E'"f NEXT SEAR.,.;·**~**

-- TOC

,. . '

,, ·' • BtilLitTlN

,.**~n,** ,: •


# NOTICES

Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions; Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans for Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon and York Counties 

### Attaining the 1997 Annual and 24-Hour 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 

### Public Hearing

(44 Pa.B. 5411 (Saturday, January 25, 2014(

Particulate matter**(P~)** includes both solid and liquid rmticles suspended in the air. Fine particle pollution describes particulate matter that is less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (P\1 2 . 5 ). PVJ 2 . 5 concentrations above the federal health-based standard pose a serious humm1 health threat.**\~lith** significant improvements in air quality in Cumberland, Dauphin., Lebanon and York Counties, these nonattainrncnt areas nuw meet the 1997 and 2006 PM 25 National Ambient Air Quality Standards**(~AAQS).** Therefore, the Depmtmcnt

of Environmental Prutedion (Department) intends to submit requests to the Lnited States .Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate these areas to attainment.

The Department is seeking public comment on the three redesignation requests and proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) containing the 2007 comprehensive inventory and maintenance plans demonstrating that the areas can maintain the 1997 and 2006 PM 2

_ 5 health-based NAAQS for the next 10 years as required under
section 175A(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 7505a(a)). l'rnn the EPA approval, the maintenance plans will also establish new motor vehicle emission budgets !Or transportation conformity purposes.

The requests to redesignate the areas to attainment and the proposed SIP revisions are available on the Department's web site at WV/\V.dep.state.pa.us (choose "Air," choose "Bureau of Air Quality.'' choose "Regs/Plan,n choose nclean Air Plansn) or through the

eontact persons listed as follmvs.

The Department \\'ill hold a public hearing to receive comments on the proposal on Wednesday, Februar.y 26,2014, at 10 a.m. althe Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street, Room I 05, Harrisburg, PA. Persons wishing to present testimony at the hearing should contact Alex Haas, P. 0. Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 17105, (717) 787-9495

or alehaas(i1)pa.gov to reserve a time. Witnesses should keep testimony to 1 0 minutes and should provide two written copies of their statements at the hearing.

Ifhy '\tfonday, February 24.2014, no person has expressed an interest in testifying at the hearing, the hearing will be cancelled. lhe Department will provide public notice if the hearing is cancelled on the Bureau of Air Quality web page at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/d.eputate/airwaste/aq/ddault.him. Persons may also contact the Department to find out if the hearing is cancelled by contacting Alex Haas at (717) 787-

http:/ IVvViV.l. pahu lleti n . com/ secure/ data/vo 144/44-4/1 98. html 4/10/2014PA Rulletin, Doc. No. ! 4-198 Page2of2

9495 or alehaas@pa.gov.

Persons with a disability \vho wish to attend the hearing and require an auxiliary aid, service or other accommodation to participate in the proceeding should contact Alex Haas
at the previously listed phone number and e-mail address. TDD users may contact the Pennsylvania AT&T Relay Service at (800) 654-5984 to discuss how the Department can best accommodate their needs.

The Department must receive comments no later than February 28, 2014. Written
comments should be sent to the attention ofl\ancy Herb, Bureau of Air Quality, P. 0. Box 8468. Harrisburg, PA 171 05-846& or nherb@pa.gov. Use**~'Harrisburg/York** PM 2 . 5 Rcdcsignation" as the subject line in written communication and specify which document the comments are addressing.

E. CHRJSlOPHER ABRUZZO, Secretary

fPa.B. Doc.**~o.** 14-198. Filed for public inspection January 24,2014,9:00 a.m.]

No parl of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Penns:vlvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of 1-ITML or diHerenccs in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the oftleial printed version.

Tl><> I' I

webmaster(ir.'PaRu lleti 11.**~'!!.!~!**

http:./ I www. pabullctin. com/ secure/ data/vo 144/44-4/19 8 .html 4/J 0/2014