### Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

TheSecretary

Ms. Judy Katz, Director U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency RegionIII 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
DearJudy: Rachel Carson State OfficeBuilding P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg,PA 17105-2063 July 19, 2001
Phone: 717-787-2814 E-Mail:DavidHess@state.pa.us

Enclosed for yourapproval are two revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Planfor thePhiladelphiaOzoneNonattainment Areawhich were subjectto a public comment period closingJune 29, 2001. The first revisiondescribes the analysis ofadditional reasonably available control measures that would advance the ozone attainment date for the Philadelphiaarea as requestedby your letter ofApril 12, 200l. This SIP revision.includes the Secretary'sletter ofFebruary 25, 2000. The second revision contains a newmotorvehiclebudget for 2005 which includesthe reductions expected from the federal Tier2/10wsulfur program for light-duty vehicles. Should youhave questionsregarding these submissions, contactJames M. Salvaggio, BureauofAir Quality, at 717-772-9702.

Secretary

An Equai Opportunitv fmployer www.dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled PaperCommonwealth ofPennsylvania DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection

StateImplementationPlan (SIP) Revision ForthePhiladelphiaOzone NonattainmentArea ReasonablyAvailable Control Measure (RACM)Analysis

July2001

Division ofAirResource Management Bureau ofAirQuality PennsylvaniaDepartment ofEnvironmentalProtection POBox 8468 Harrisburg, P A 17105-8468 717-787-9495 1. Wick Havens, Chief

www.dep.state.pa.usPurposeand Background OnApril 12,2001,the PennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) received arequest from the

## u.s. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) asking Pennsylvania to submit additional informationto theEPA, as arevision ofPennsylvania's State ImplementationPlan (SIP) forthe PhiladelphiaOzoneNonattainmentArea, onthe analysis of additional reasonablyavailable control measures (RACMs)that would advancethe ozone attainment date for the Philadelphia area. In accordancewiththeApril 12, 2001 request,this document servesto demonstrate to theEPAthat additional control measures were consideredbyDEPbyclarifyingrelevant documentationpreviously submittedto EPA, andtoreaffirmthe DEP'scommitmentto the reductions contained inthe state implementationplan(SIP) and revisions currentlyunderreview bytheEPA. OnAugust 1, 1998, DEP submittedtotheEPAitsproposedPhaseI SIP for the attainment ofthe national ambientairquality standard for ozone for the Philadelphia metropolitan area as part ofthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-TrentonNonattainmentArea. The PhaseIrequirements include adoption ofspecific control strategies necessaryto meetthe Post 1996Rate-of-Progressplanthrough 1999; commitmentsto adopt, oradoption of, otherClean AirActmandated and regional controlprograms; and modeling with interim assumptions. PhaseII ofthe SIP, submittedonApril 30, 1998 andrevised inFebruary2000, includes participationin a two-yearregional consultativeprocess with other statesin the easternUnited States, and withEPA, to identifyand committo additional emissionreductions necessaryto attainthe health-based ozone standardbythe statutorydates. The Phase II SIP further describes the work undertakenbythe SoutheastPennsylvaniaOzone Stakeholders Group. Itwasinthis forum where the additional measures describedbythe EPAinthe April 12, 2001 letterwere analyzed. OnFebruary25,2000,DEPrespondedtoEPA'sNotice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPR) onthe one-hourattainment demonstration for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-TrentonAreathat waspublishedinthe FederalRegisteronDecember 16, 1999 (64 F.R. 70428) andtheNotice of Adequacy Statusthatwas publishedinthe Federal RegisteronJanuary20,2000 (65 F.R. 3230). Thatresponse, included as Appendix A, referenced the work donebythe SoutheastPennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Group and includedtheirfinal reportthat was issued onJanuary 16, 1997. Thatreport contained a list ofrecommendedcontrol strategies baseduponthe analysis conducted bythe group. The SoutheastPennsylvania OzoneStakeholders Group InJanuary 1996, GovernorRidge convenedthe SoutheastPennsylvaniaOzone Stakeholders Group to address the ozonenonattainmentissues in SoutheastPennsylvania. The stakeholdergrouprepresented awiderange ofinterestsfrom environmental and citizengroups, industry,public utilities, small business, transportation, government, and motorist andhealthcare organizations. Twenty-eight stakeholders, includingEPA, were invited toparticipate in the stakeholderprocess. CDRAssociates, anindependentmediatorwithaninternationalreputation,wasretainedbyDEPto facilitate the discussions inthe stakeholdergroup. The group also formed datamanagementcommittees andworked withnationallyrecognizedtechnical consultants onpreparationofinventorydata, control measurepotential, and air qualitymodeling. The stakeholdereffort was apublicprocess,heldin openmeetings, representing a broad base ofconstituencies. In addition, the stakeholdersmade an effortto ensurethat othergroups andthe generalpublic were aware oftheprocess and had anopportunitytoprovide input. The stakeholdersmetfortwo full days eachmonth, from April throughDecemberto discuss and, wheneverpossible,to find agreement on strategiesthat couldmaterially improve airqualityin southeasternPennsylvania. Therecommendations were containedin a final report, released on January 16, 1997. Thedeliberations ofthe stakeholdersfollowed two guidingprinciples and objectives: 1) to identifycontrol strategiesthat collectivelyproducedregional airqualitythatmeetsthe current healthbased standard, and 2)to reflectthe unique conditions ofsoutheasternPennsylvania. In so doing, therecommendations containedinthereport seekto balancefederal requirementsfor air qualitywith cost effective strategiesthat protectthe public health andtheregional economic integrityofthe nonattainment area. The StakeholdersProcess and RACM As aresult ofthe stakeholderprocess,the group discussed hundreds ofmeasures and formally evaluated over 150 control measures for stationary, area and mobile sources. Ofthese, one-third were measuresrelatedto transportationunderthe following general categories: 1. Generalprograms for improvedpublictransitwithinthe cityofPhiladelphia and regional suburbancommunities; 2. Restriction ofcertainroads orlanesto, orconstruction ofsuchroads orlanes for use by, passengerbuses orhighoccupancyvehicles; 3. Employer-basedtransportationmanagementplans, includingincentives; 4. Regional trip-reductionregulations orordinances; 5. Traffic flow improvementprogramsthat achieve emissionreductions; 6. Fringe andtransportation corridorparkingfacilities servingmultiple occupancy vehicleprograms ortransit services; 7. Programsto limitorrestrictvehicle use indowntownareas orotherareas ofemission concentrationparticularlyduringperiods ofpeakuse; 8. Programsfortheprovision ofall forms ofhigh-occupancy, shared-ride services; 9. Programsto limitportions ofroad surfaces orcertain sections ofthemetropolitan areato the use ofnon-motorized vehicles orpedestrianuse, both as to time andplace; 10. Programsfor securebicycle storage facilities and otherfacilities, includingbicycle lanes, for the convenience andprotection ofbicyclists, inbothpublic andprivate areas; 11. Programsto control extendedidling ofvehicles; 12. Programstoreducemotorvehicle emissions,consistentwith TitleII, which are causedbyextreme cold start conditions; 13. Employer-sponsoredprogramstopermitflexible work schedules;

214. Programs and ordinancesto facilitate non-automobiletravel, provision and utilization ofmasstransit, andto generallyreducetheneed for single-occupantvehicle travel, as partoftransportationplanning and development efforts ofa locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and othercenters ofvehicle activity; 15. Programsfor newconstructionandmajorreconstructions ofpaths, tracks orareas solelyfor the usebypedestrianorothernon-motorizedmeans oftransportationwhen economicallyfeasible and inthepublic interest; 16. Programsto encouragethevoluntaryremoval from use and the marketplace of pre-1980model yearlight dutyvehicles andpre-l980 model lightdutytrucks. Pennsylvaniaincludedrecommendedreasonably available measures inthe Philadelphia Ozone SevereNonattainment SIP iftheywere cost-effective and would advance the attainment date, such as the ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology(RACT)programfor stationary sources.Measures werenotincluded inthe StateImplementationPlanifthey: 1) were consideredtobe economicallyortechnologicallyinfeasible, based ondatapresentedto the group andtaking into account local circumstances, 2)had emissionsreductionsthat were insignificant or3)wouldnot advancethe area's attainment date. A numberofstakeholderrecommendations notincludedinthe SIP are nonethelessbeing implemented. Manyofthese measures serve additional purposes orare effective on a long-term basis. While notpractical for SIP purposes, they still assist inreducing emissions growth and in transportation conformity. The stakeholders' final report, previously submittedto EPAonFebruary25,2000, contains a detailed explanationofthe stakeholderprocess,the OperatingAgreement and summaries ofthe specific strategies analyzed. Foryourconvenience, Appendix B ofthis document contains a copyofthe stakeholders' final report. Appendix C is detailed dataonthe measures considered. Summary DEP is committedto the developmentand implementationofcontrol measures and requirementsinaccordancewiththeprocessprovidedin the PennsylvaniaAirPollutionControl Act and otherapplicablelawsin orderto attainthe one-hourozone standardto thebenefitofthe citizens ofPennsylvania. Itrecognizesthatthe stakeholderprocesshelps ensurethat goal. In addition, DEPcontinuesto workwiththe Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) in developing severalregional controlmeasuresto ensureattainment. DEPis a signatoryto a March28, 2001 OTC memorandum ofunderstandingregardingthe developmentofthese measures. DEPis confidentthatthe clarification submitted in this document will serveto substantiate informationpreviously submittedbyDEPregarding RACMs andDEP'sanalysis regardingthose measures deemed appropriateto further the attainment date for the Philadelphia area as expeditiouslyas practical. As we statedin ourletterofFebruary25,2001,we recognize thatregularevaluationis animportantpart ofanyplanningprocess. Therefore, Pennsylvania

3will submitto EPA suchmid-coursereviewby December31, 2003 as the CleanAirAct andthe rules andregulations underthe CleanAirActrequire. Public Comment. This SIPrevisionwas available forpublic commentfor theperiodMay26 throughJune 29,2001. Onepublichearing was held onJune 28, 2001 in DEP's Southeast Regional Office, Conshohocken. Notice wasprovidedinthe majornewspaperinthe five-county areaand as anotice inthePennsylvaniaBulletin.

4

# APPENDIXA

SE P A Ozone StakeholderWorking Group Final Report

# SOUTHEAST 

# PENNSYLVANIA

STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP 

# FINAL REPORT 

# January 

# 16, 1997

# Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholder Working Group

Final Report January 16, 1997

Convener: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania James M. Seif Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 Bradley L Mallory Department ofTransportation 555 Walnut Street Forum Place Harrisburg, PA 17101 Facilitator: CDR Associates

2710-BK-DEP2071 100Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302

RecycledPaper

# ftMarch 12, 1996

SeeAttached List**Dea~**____ _ We are pleased to invite you to participate in the Southeast Pennsylvania Clean Air Stakeholders Group. The Stakeholders Groupwill work during the nextyearto develop a course ofaction for the attainmentand maintenance ofthe health-based ozone standard, a strategy tailored to meetthe regional needs ofthe Philadelphia area. We believe that new clean air strategies in areas with continuing air pollution problems should be developed from the ground up, by those with significant stakes in the outcome. The Commonwealth needs a plan that is based on good air pollution science, is equitable among air pollution sources and meetsthe requirements ofthe federal Clean AirActAmendments. The Clean Air Stakeholders Group has been charged with this important mission. We expect the outcome ofthis effortto be recommendations thatthe Commonwealth can use as the basis for continuing to meet its clean airobligations. The group will operate by a consensus decision-making process. Areas on which there is no consensus will also be identified. Since the sources contributing to ozone pollution and the people affected by it are diverse, the stakeholders group has to be large enough to represent these interests, yet small enough to form a groupthat can work together. You have been selected because ofyour ability to provide appropriate representation, as well as your personal qualifications and capacity to worktoward consensus on a broad range ofclean air issues. The first meeting has been scheduled for April 1and 2, 1996. Mostofthe time atthis convening meeting will be spent on developing principles ofoperation forthe group, identifying agenda items, and participating in a brieftraining session on interest-based negotiation and consensus building. The groupwill also develop its own meeting schedules. You will be getting a packet of materials forthe first meeting in the nextfew days. The Commonwealth will reimburse you foryourtravel expensesthrough a procedurewhich will be explained atthe first meeting. As you already know, the Commonwealth has engaged an independent facilitator from CDR Associates to help us achieve a common understanding ofthe problem and arrive at potential solutions. Consensus is notan easy process. Ittakes communication, compromise, common sense and most ofall, commitment. We appreciate yourwillingness towork with us, and we lookforward to working withyou in the coming months. Should you have questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact Robert Barkanic, Special Assistant; Air, Recycling and Radiation Protection, DEP, at 717-772-2725.
Sincerely,

James M. Seif Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Sincerely,

Bradley L. Mallory Secretary Department ofTransportationJanuary 16, 1997

TheHonorableJamesM. Seif Secretary DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection P.O. Box2063 Harrisburg,Po'\. 17105
Gentlemen, TheHonorableBradleyL. Mallory Secretary**DepartmentofT~rtation** 555 WalnutStreet 

### ForumPlace Harrisburg, P A 17101

The SoutheasternPennsylvaniaOzone Stakeholders submittheenclosedreportforyour consideration. Thisreportprovidestheresultsofourdeliberations, includingrecommended control measures, supportingassumptionsandcontext. Inaddition, wehave indicatednonconsensusitemswhichwefeel will require additional attentionfrom the Commonwealth.
Inaccordance withth

... stakeholders' adopiedmission statementandcharge, the recommendationsare

### based onthecurrenthealth-basedhourly ozone standardof.12ppmto be achievedbytheyear2005.
We lookforward toyourcommentsandyourfull supportforourrecommendations. Our deliberationswerethoroughanddiligent;theoutcomemerits seriousconsideration. Collectively, the stakeholders standreadyto meetwithyouto discusstheseproposals. Sincerelyyours,

SoutheasternPennsylvaniaOzone Stakeholders

# ~cf}d-Jv**C?~~** 

# )1f-f**cJl--i~**

# ~/~

2

# ~~.**~,fd&-** ASESAE

3INTRODUCTION

Stakeholders Mission The Governor of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, created the Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders to recommend control strategies to the Commonwealth for attainment and maintenance of the current health-based standards and the requirements of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Underthe Clean AirActAmendments, the five counties in southeastern PennsylvaniaBucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia-are currently classified as "severe non-attainment" for ground-level ozone. The non-attainment area also includes parts of NewJersey, Maryland and Delaware. Ground-level ozone is a colorless, odorless gas produced when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence ofheat and sunlight. In accordance with the stakeholders' adopted mission statement and charge, the recommendations in this report are based on the current health-based standard of .12 ppm ofozone to be achieved by theyear 2005. The stakeholders attempted to balance emission reductions equitably among different source types-area, mobile and stationary. It is important to preserve this balance as the recommendations are implemented. Stakeholders Process The stakeholder effort was a public process, held in open meetings, representing a broad base of constituencies. In addition, the stakeholders made an effort to ensure

. that other groups and the general public were aware of the process and had an

opportunity to provide us with input. The stakeholders held one public input meeting on November 7, 1996. The recommendations contained in this report are the result oflong hours ofdeliberation and struggle. The stakeholders met for two full days each month, from April through Decemberto discuss and, whenever possible, to find agreement on strategiesthat can materially improve air quality in southeastern Pennsylvania. At the same time that the stakeholders began to deliberate, the Inspection and Maintenance (11M) Working Group began to design the Commonwealth's decentralized inspection and maintenance program. The stakeholders worked to avoid issues associated with implementation of the inspection and maintenance program, leaving those issues to the 11M Working Group.

4Stakeholders Members The Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders represent a wide range of interests from environmental and citizen groups, industry, public utilities, small business, transportation, government, and motorist and health-care organizations. Twenty-eight stakeholders were invited to participate in the stakeholders process. During the process, some invitees withdrew, and others were added by the group to maintain the group's balance.

CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS The recommended strategies outlined in this report are based on a consensus decision-making process as outlined in the Stakeholders' Operating Agreement (See Appendix D). Consensus is an agreement built by identifying and exploring all parties' interests and drafting a recommendation that satisfies these interests to the greatest extent possible. The recommended control measures throughout this report are labeled as consensus recommendations only if all the stakeholders agree that their major interests have been taken into consideration and addressed in a satisfactory manner. This report also contains items without consensus agreements. In those cases, the control measure is described along with differing points ofview.

STAKEHOLDERS EVALUATION PROCESS The deliberations ofthe Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders have followed two guiding principles and objectives: 1) to identify control strategies that collectively produce regional air quality that meets the current health based standard, and 2) to reflect the unique conditions of southeastern Pennsylvania. In so doing, the recommendations contained in this report seek to balance federal requirements for air quality with cost effective strategies that protect the public health and the regional economic integrity ofthefive county non-attainmentarea.

EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT Modeling The stakeholders reviewed Urban Airshed Modeling results as a way to test transport and boundary assumptions, examine the impact of control strategies already adopted or proposed for implementation and lay the groundwork for southeastern Pennsylvania's subsequent attainment demonstration. The transport (movement) of ozone and its precursors, VOC and NOx, into and out of the five-county area was discussed many times during stakeholder deliberations,
5including during modeling work. The impact oftransport on attainment appears to be significant, particularly for NOx. The stakeholders make their recommendations in anticipation that other regions, particularly up-wind areas, will implement similar levels of control to positively impact southeastern Pennsylvania's air quality. The stakeholders recognize that the five-county area will not demonstrate attainment until downwind areas are also ableto demonstrate attainment.

Stakeholders' Emissions Targets In southeastern Pennsylvania there are a variety of different sources of both NOx and VOC. Point sources include large industries and utilities. Area sources are small emission sources. Mobile sources, both highway and off-road vehicles, are the third category of ozone forming emissions. The 1990 estimates of pollutant by source (excluding biogenic or natural emissions) are depicted below. Pennsylvania Portion of Philadelphia Non-AttainmentArea Anthropogenic VOC Emissions by Source Estimated Total Emissions: 612 tons per summerday Point 24.5% Area 30.4% Mobile 45.1% (Highway 30.7%, Off-Road 14.4%) Pennsylvania Portion of Philadelphia Non-AttainmentArea Anthropogenic NOx Emissions by Source Estimated Total Emissions: 451 tons per summerday Point 37.7% Area 5.1% Mobile 57.2% (Highway 35.1%, Off-Road 22.1%)
Source: Pennsylvania DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection The stakeholders spent a great deal of their time reviewing emission inventories, emission projections and other baseline information. In one such presentation, Dr. S.T. Rao from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, suggested that a 25% reduction in VOC and a 50% reduction in NOx from the 1990 baseline across the entire eastern United States could lead to attainment. The group agreed to use the information from Dr. Rao as the best available overriding strategy to set emission reduction targets. Because NOx and VOC emissions are not evenly distributed throughout the region, the stakeholders understand that these reduction goals must be viewed as regional in nature. Thus, they will not be achieved in Southeastern Pennsylvania alone, but over a multi-state area. The development of Pennsylvania's attainment demonstration will be coordinated with Pennsylvania's neighboring states and the Ozone Transport Commission. Reductions from adopted and proposed control measures are projected to result in a 35% reduction of VOC emissions by the year 2005. The stakeholders recommend VOC control strategies beyond the 

### 35% reduction from 

### 1990 baseline. Thus, the 25% 6voe reduction target (approximately 150tons per day) will be exceeded by as much as 100tons. Reductions from adopted and proposed control measures are projected to result in a 27% reduction in NOx emissions by the year 2005. The group looked for additional NOx reductions beyond the 27%. To reach 50% reduction from 1990 baseline, the stakeholders would have to identify measures that reduce approximately 105 tons of NOx per typical summer day. However, the NOx reductions were more difficult to achieve, and the stakeholders identified measures that reduced approximately 50 ofthe 105tons. Voluntary measures recommended by the stakeholders in this report could yield approximately 8 additional tons ofvoe and approximately 10 additional tons of NOx. The stakeholders recognize that the interplay between the two pollutants is uncertain. The additional reduction in VOC emissions will result in benefits to local air quality as well as benefits to the more regional ozone problem. The following table lists the recommended strategies and an estimated NOx or VOC reduction. In some cases no estimated emission reduction is listed. Those cases include:

• recommended strategies that require research to quantify (e.g. heavy-duty diesel inspection) • recommended strategies with unresolved implementation issues (e.g. change in fuels beyond the five-county area), or • strategies with uncertain agency commitment (e.g. 200 additional eNG buses).

7Southeast Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Control Measures and Emission Reduction Estimates
Description 2005 CAA Baseline Emission Estimate Auto and Truck Body VOC Content Limits Auto and Truck Body Refinishing Degreasing Gasoline Service Stations: Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems Lawn Care Additional Remote Sensing Heavy-Duty Diesel NOx Research National Low Emission Vehicle Alternative Fuels Programs Airport Emission Controls Fuel Changes Beyond 5-County Area Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Clean Diesel Program Park and Ride Lot Expansion Rail Headway Improvements Improvements to Suburban Bus Service CNG Buses Utility Boilers: Phase III of NOx MOU Industrial Boilers Process Heaters Reciprocating IC Engines Subtotal VOC (tpd) Reduction Total

3.8 1.0 5.9 1.9 11.2

1.2 11.5 2.4 0.2

0.5 0.03 0.04

0 0 0 0 39.7 397 NOx (tpd) Reduction Total



# o o o o 0.7 0.6 13.5

1.4 0.07



### 2.2 0.04 0.06

6.4 331

3.5 to 4.5

6.8 to 8.6 11.0 46.3 to 49.1

8

### Southeast Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Voluntary Measures
Description Mobility Alternatives Comprehensive Regional Ride Sharing Transit Chek Telecommuting Alternative Work Schedules 

### Educational Programs and Ozone Action Program School-Based Public Awareness We Care Programs Promotion Outreach and Education Transit Strategies Voluntary No Drive Days Voluntary No Burn Days 

### Legislative Initiative Bicycle Promotion and Improvement WorklRail/Non-work Trips Land Use Planning Promote Community Centers and Transportation Centers Subtotal 

### Total 

## voe (tpd) Reduction 

### 0.08-1.76

4.6-5.1

1.1 5.8

- 8.0 45.5

- 47.7 NO. (tpd) Reduction 

### 0.1-1.94

7.4-7.8

1.0 8.5

- 10.7 53.9

- 58.9

9EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED CONTROL MEASURES
Existing Measures (by summer 1996) The stakeholders assume the following strategies are required by the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act: NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) VOC RACTfix-up New Federal MotorVehicle Emission Standards Phase 

### 1\ GasolineVolatility Reductions Phase I Federal Reformulated Gasoline Stage ITerminal Controls (Required at Service Stations before 1990) Stage 

### 1\ Vapor Recovery-Service Stations Improved Rule Effectiveness VOC Controls at Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Anticipated Measures The stakeholders assume the following strategies will be fully implemented as required bythe Clean AirActAmendments: Highway Vehicles Federal Reformulated Gasoline-Phase 

### 1\ (5-county area) High-Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (5-county area) The Stakeholders assume the recommended control strategies contained in this report will include a Decentralized, High-Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance program. A separate Inspection and Maintenance Working Group is developing recommendations for program implementation. A pilot program will be underway in early 1997. MACTStandards-CleanAirActTitle III (National) Petroleum Refinery Printing and Publishing MarineVessel Loading National Rules/Control Technique Guidelines (National) Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Consumer Products Rule Autobody Refinishing Fuel Combustors (OzoneTransport Region) OTC Stationary Source NOx Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)-Phase II Controls (see attached NOx MOU) Non-Road EnginesNehicles (National) Federal Emissions Standards by Engine Type
lORECOMMENDED EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES

Introduction The stakeholders attempted to reach consensus on a package of emission control strategies. The results oftheir discussion follows. Estimated emission reductions for the following control measures are listed in the table on page 8. For a list of control strategies considered by the stakeholders, referto Appendix C.
Funding Consistency The stakeholders agree that federal, state, regional and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) funding should be consistent with the recommendations in this document.

Area Source Emissions Auto and Truck Body VOC Content Limits The stakeholders recommend limiting the VOC content of auto body refinishing productstothe South CoastAir Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Standard. Auto and Truck Body Refinishing The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection should pursue improvements in the auto and truck body repair industry to address improper handling, application and disposal ofproducts containing VOC. Most ofthe stakeholders support state-wide limits on the sale of paint containing vac to auto and truck body repair shops to only those that have hazardous waste generation 10 numbers, equipment to control vac emissions and industry-funded training for employees handling and using the products. Degreasing The stakeholders recommend requiring the use of citric-based, water-based and other low VOC degreasers for commercial and industrial sources using VaC-containing degreasing solvents during the production, repair, maintenance or servicing of parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment or general work areas, using SCAQMD as a model. The stakeholders recommend that the control apply to all persons who store and dispose of VaC-containing materials used in degreasing. The stakeholders recommend exempting degreasing solvents with lessthan a 

### 0.1 psi vapor pressure.

11Gasoline Service Stations: Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems The stakeholders recommend that service stations with vacuum assist systems be required to install pressure vacuum valves on vent lines on underground storage tanks to further reduce VOC emissions. Stations switching from a balance system to a vacuum assist system should be required to install pressure vacuum valves. Lawn Care The stakeholders recommend that the state ban the use of non-commercial gasolinepowered lawn mowers and other gasoline-powered lawn equipment on Ozone Action Days. Most of the stakeholders recommend extending this ban to commercial lawn services. Mobile Source Emissions Additional Remote Sensing (on-road emission screening) Recognizing the role new technologies can play in reducing mobile source emissions, the stakeholders recommend expanding the enhanced inspection and maintenance (11M) remote sensing program beyond the proposed Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Inspection and Maintenance. If remote sensing identifies an automobile registered outside the 11M testing area, the Commonwealth should request voluntary correction ofthe emission problem. Heavy-Duty Diesel NOx Research The stakeholders recommend that the Commonwealth initiate a research project to determine the NOx levels from heavy-duty diesel vehicles. If the research indicates significant NOx increases (in excess of manufacturer specifications), the stakeholders recommend the Commonwealth adopt appropriate NOx standards and initiate an inspection and repair program. (There is no estimated emission reduction associated with this strategy in the table on page 8 ofthis report.) Air Quality Benefits From Existing Transportation Programs The stakeholders recommend that the appropriate Commonwealth agencies determine the air quality value of programs such as transportation management and intelligent transportation systems (ramp metering, EZ Pass, smart route, etc.) and gas cap replacement programs. (There is no estimated emission reduction associated with this strategy in the table on page 8 ofthis report.)

12National Low Emission Vehicle The stakeholders recommend the Commonwealth implement the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) because of its national focus and cost-effectiveness. In the absence of NLEV, the stakeholders recommend the Commonwealth implement the Ozone Transport Commission Low Emission Vehicle (OTC LEV). Alternative Fuels Programs The stakeholders support continuation and expansion of voluntary liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG) and other alternative fuels programs at refueling sites, including toll roads, to encourage the use of alternative fuels. The stakeholders also recommend expanded funding of the alternative fuel incentives program at the current match level to encourage the purchase and conversion of public and commercial fleets. Airport Emission Controls Stakeholders recommend efforts to control emissions from shuttle buses, ground support equipment and auxiliary power units at Pennsylvania's commercial airports and majortransportation pOints to reduce NOx and VOC emissions. While the stakeholders believe that specific measures should be left to the discretion ofthe individual facilities, the stakeholders strongly recommend these facilities use alternative fuels wherever possible. The stakeholders also recommend that measures be taken to restrict curbside idling at airports and other transportation hubs statewide. The Department of Environmental Protection and commercial airports should negotiate emission targets for overall emissions. Fuel Changes Beyond 5-CountyArea The stakeholders agree that a fuel change in contiguous counties (Lancaster, Berks, Lehigh and Northampton counties) would be helpful in reaching attainment. The stakeholders did not reach consensus on expanding the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to selected areas beyond the five county Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). During the discussion, the stakeholders considered three options:

• Federal RFG • low reid vapor pressure (RVP) gasoline with VOC and toxics reductions equal to RFG • a supplier option to provide low RVP gasoline or RFG, with a contingency to provide RFG ifthe attainment goal is not reached. No option received consensus support, although significant support exists for each option. Those who support expanding the area for RFG cite the greater ozone reduction, the NOx reduction beginning in the year 2000, the lower than expected cost
13and the secondary toxies benefit as reasons why RFG is preferable. Those who supportthe low RVP proposals cite the cost-effectiveness of RVP as a control measure and are concerned over the increased cost of RFG. (Given this disagreement, the emission reduction table on page 8 does not reflect an emission reduction.) Southeast PennsylvaniaTransportation Authority (SEPTA) SEPTA is changing its operations and upgrading its equipment in ways that should improve air quality. Although these improvements are not motivated primarily bythe air quality benefit, the secondary regional air quality benefit should be accounted for in the Commonwealth's SIP. Clean Diesel The stakeholders support SEPTA's Clean Diesel program including SEPTA's plan to purchase 400 Cleaner Diesel Icarus buses, and the potential purchase of 200 additional cleaner diesel buses. SEPTA will determine an additional bus purchase strategy in the near future; a decision is likely within the time frame of the development of Pennsylvania's Attainment SIP. (Because of uncertainty associated with the 200 buses, there is no estimated emission reduction in the table on page 8 ofthis report.) Park and Ride The stakeholders support SEPTA's short-term park and ride lot expansion on the regional rail system-approximately4500 spaces. Headway Improvements The stakeholders support SEPTA's rail service headway improvements on the R7 regional rail line (up to 5 trains/hour) in conjunction with the 1-95 highway reconstruction project

. Improvementsto Suburban Bus Service Stakeholders recommend that the state find ways to assist SEPTA to expand public transit to suburban Philadelphia. The stakeholders also recommend that public and private partnerships be pursued to fund these efforts. (There is no estimated emission reduction associated with this strategy in the table on page 8 ofthis report.) CNG Buses Possible purchase of70to 100 CNG-fueled buses for SEPTA's Frontier Division. SEPTA will continue to review the viability of this project and will determine whether a commitment can be made within thetime frame ofthe development of Pennsylvania's Attainment SIP. (There is no estimated emission reduction associated with this strategy in the table on page 8 ofthis report.)

14Stationary Sources Utility Boilers The stakeholders support Phase III NOx reductions for utility boilers as described in the NOx MOU, if they occur state-wide (see attached NOx MOU, Appendix B). The Department of Environmental Protection should pursue implementation of fair-share reduction requirements for utility boilers throughout the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) region. Heaters/Boilers The stakeholders recommend expanding emission controls to some boilers, process heaters and other combustion units not currently included in the NOx MOU. Emission reduction requirements should apply to combustion units with rated heat inputs greater than 100 mmbtu/hour heat input and less than 250 mmbtu/hour heat input. Reductions should be based on a cost-effectiveness analysis foreach boiler/heater similarto RACT with a $3000/ton threshold for installation of controls. The baseline to be used in the analysis is the average of the actual post-RACT ozone season operations of the boiler/heater for the previous three years. Boilers and heaters that are already below an average of 0.2 Ibs/mmbtu emissions rate during the ozone season will be exempt from further reductions. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines The stakeholders recommend NOx control technologies such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or low emission combustion technology to reduce emissions from stationary internal combustion engines to at or below 2 grams/brake horse power hour, except emergency generators, unless they are used primarily during high ozone days. Stakeholders recommend that the Department of Environmental Protection base these measures on rated engine capacity of 1000 horse power or larger. We further recommend that permit restrictions be made available to those facilities that either underutilize their engines or have special circumstances. In such cases, the permit restriction should be designed so that facilities operating under the restrictions cannot produce emissions beyond a specified level and thatthis level is verifiable and enforceable. Shutdowns The stakeholders support flexibility in how emission reductions from shutdowns are used. (There is no estimated emission reduction in the table on page 8 ofthis report.)

15Trading Programs By consensus, the stakeholders recommend that the state implement an emiSSion reduction credit trading program to harness market mechanisms and to encourage innovation and competition in the private sectorto achieve emission reductions. The stakeholders support the maximum feasible innovation and flexibility in the design ofanytrading program, provided thatthe reductions are: 1) quantifiable, 2)

. verifiable, 3) surplus, 4) enforceable, and 5) the transaction includes a benefitforthe environment. The Commonwealth should require that protocols for generating and using emission credits supportthefive principles listed above and provide forthe following:

• A one-time emission reduction can generate a credit only iftraded for a one-time emission. • Trading mechanisms, including inter-sectortrading, should produce transactions with comparable air quality benefits. • Any trading program should consider the seasonal effects of credit generation and use on air quality. An unresolved point in stakeholder deliberations was that trading non-ozone-season emissions for ozone-season emissions may reduce the likelihood ofattainment. The stakeholders differover otherdetails ofatrading program: Inter-Pollutant Trading-Some stakeholders are opposed to trading one kind of pollutant for another because they believe that differences in toxicity between different VOC should renderthem untradable for one another. In addition, some oppose trading NOx for VOC and recommend limiting the trading to NOx for NOx and similar VOC for similar VOC. Most believe that a vibrant market requires having flexibility to trade between different pollutants and that appropriate trading ratios can be established among differentVOC and between VOC and NOx. Geography-The location of the emission reduction and the location of the traded emissions is of concern to some stakeholders. They are concerned that businesses and residents near the facility that purchases the emission credit will be unwilling to accept a higher level ofemission than would have occurred without a trading program. Open Market Trading-The stakeholders remain in disagreement about perhaps the mostfundamental question-whetherthe trading should occurthrough a hybrid system ofopen-market trading and a cap-and-trade program, or exclusively through a cap-and16trade program. Most of the stakeholders support a hybrid approach. Some stakeholders support only a cap-and-trade approach. Voluntary Measures The stakeholders recommend voluntary emission reduction programs to augment the emission reductions from regulatory controls. The stakeholders recommend that EPA provide recognition and incentivesforvoluntary measures. Energy Conservation The stakeholders recommend that the Commonwealth promote and support energy conservation programs and work with local governments and federal agencies to encourage participation in these programs. MobilityAlternatives The stakeholders recommend thatthe Department of Environmental Protection support and encourage a comprehensive Mobility Altematives Program, including the following elements:

• a voluntary regional ride-sharing program to encourage public transit and ride sharing including employer participation incentives, • promotion and expansion ofthe Transitchek program to further encourage the use ofregional masstransit and ride sharing, • a telecommuting program to provide incentives to area businesses to reduce commuting traffic and • encouragement of alternative work schedules to stagger commuter traffic on area highways. Educational Programs The stakeholders recommend that the Department of Environmental Protection pursue other educational programs including the following voluntary and community education efforts:

• a school-based program to promote knowledge of the ozone problem and the actionsthat lead to emission reductions, • a business-based program to promote voluntary pollution prevention and bestmanagement-practices programs and • a media-based program to alertthe general publicto dayswhen ozone is forecast to be unhealthful and to request ozone-reducing actions.

17OzoneAction Program The stakeholders recommend continuation of existing efforts to predict and announce high ozone days as part ofan ozone action program and as part ofother recommended control strategies that take effect on high ozone days. The stakeholders further recommend an ozone action program thatwill include the following elements:

• transit strategies that will encourage transit use through incentives available on ozone action days, • promote a variety of voluntary ways to eliminate single-occupant vehicle travel on ozone action days, primarily by eliminating unnecessary automobiletrips and • encourage citizens in southeastern Pennsylvania to eliminate open burning voluntarily on ozone action days. Bicycle Promotion and Improvements

• The stakeholders further recommend that the Commonwealth encourage the use of bicycles (or other non-motorized means oftravel) as substitute for short automobile trips. In order to promote bicycle use, the Commonwealth is urged to carry out bicycle and pedestrian improvements designed to offer safe and comfortable rightof-way. The stakeholders urge the Commonwealth to develop comprehensive bicycle improvements at regional facilities, including improvements at 14 selected rail stations, and expand non-motorized programs.
Legislative Initiatives Land Use Planning-Promote Community Centers and Transportation Centers The stakeholders support and recommend that legislative initiatives be pursued to give county and municipal planning agencies greater powers and incentives to promote cooperative and comprehensive regional, county and local plans and coordinated implementation strategies, based on the concepts of compact community centers and transportation centers. Such centers would help to foster more concentrated development patterns, reduce unnecessary trips and facilitate choice in travel such as pedestrian, bicycle and publictransit modes. Fuel Quality The stakeholders recommend that the Commonwealth implement a fuel quality testing program.

18Funding Funding The stakeholders disagreed about whether to include recommendations about funding specific projects or organizations. The stakeholders discussed increasing dedicated publictransitfunding butdid not agreeto make a recommendation.

19

# APPENDIXA Organizations/Stakeholders Invited To Participate In The Stakeholders Process

20Philadelphia Stakeholders Representative Area Sources/Small Mark Hammond GraphicArts/Printing Business Area Sources Jim Bauer Coatings Large Business/Employee MarthaAnderson Thomas Jefferson Trips Hospital Stationary Tony Ippolito Sun Oil Source/Economic Development Stationary Source Susan Verzilli Rohm and Haas Large Business/Mobile Ned Griffith ARCO Chemical Sources Transportation Jill Welch Delaware CountyTMA Sector/Suburban County Transportation Sector Rich Bickel Septa Transportation/Small David Lee I and M Working Group Business Transportation /Mobile JackWeber AAA Sources Transportation Sector Jim Perudo NewCar Dealers Mobile Sources/Small Larry Potts Service Stations Business Health Norm Childs American Lung Health/Citizen Dr. Robin Foster-Drain To Our Children's Future With Health Environmental Shirley Loveless Pennsylvania Environmental Council Environmental Joe Minott Clean Air Council Environmental Nancy Parks Sierra Club Local Government Pat O'Neill City of Philadelphia Public- PeterQuinn GVFTMA 

### PrivatelTransportation 21Regional Government Rob Roggenburk DVRPC State Jim Rue DEP State Fran Carlini DEP State AndyWarren DOT State Audrey Minor DOT Federal Tom Maslany EPA

22

# APPENDIXB
NOx Memorandum 

# ofUnderstanding

23MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE STATES OFTHE OZONE TRANSPORT COMMISSION ON DEVELOPMENT OFA REGIONAL STRATEGY CONCERNING THE CONTROL OF STATIONARYSOURCE NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS WHEREAS, the States of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) face a pervasive problem in their efforts to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone; and WHEREAS, a 1991 National Academy of Sciences study on ground-level ozone indicates that a combination of reductions in emissions ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) will be necessary to bring the entire Ozone Transport Region (OTR) into attainment bythe statutory attainment dates; and WHEREAS, modeling and other studies confirm that NOx emission reductions are effective in reducing ozoneformation and help to reduce ozonetransport; and WHEREAS, the States of the OTC are requiring major stationary sources of NOx to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT); and WHEREAS, by November 15, 1994, the States must submit attainment demonstrations to EPAas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions; and WHEREAS, the implementation of RACT for the control of NOx emissions will not be sufficientto enable all States in the OTR to reach attainment; and WHEREAS, the undersigned States seek to develop an effective regional program to reduce NOx emissions, which would be implemented in conjunction with other measures to control ozone precursors (including state-specific measures, regional measures and Federal measures required underthe Clean AirAct); and WHEREAS, these measurestogether may enable EPAto approvethe States' SIPs and refrain from imposing sanctions that could restrict economic growth throughout the OTR; and WHEREAS, information that the States have collected in their emissions inventories shows that large boilers and other large indirect heat exchangers are the source of a substantial portion ofthe NOx emissions in the States, and will continue to be so after they implement RACT; WHEREAS, the States intend to complete a reevaluation of stationary source controls for 2003 and beyond in 1997, based on results of EPA-approved models and other relevanttechnical data;

24THEREFORE, the undersigned member States hereby agree to propose regulations and/or legislation for the control of NOx emission from boilers and other indirect heat exchangers with a maximum gross heat input rate ofat least 250 million BTU per hour; and FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to propose regulations that reflect the difference in conditions in (i) the OTR's "Northern Zone" consisting of the northern portion ofthe OTR: (ii) the OTR's "Inner Zone" consisting ofthe central eastern portion ofthe OTR: and (iii) the OTR's "Outer Zone" consisting ofthe remainder ofthe OTR; and FURTHERMORE, that to establish a credible emissions budget, the States agree to propose regulations that require enforceable specific reductions in NOx emissions from the actual 1990 emissions set forth in each State's 1990 inventory submitted to EPA in compliance with_'182(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act or in a similar emissions inventory prepared for each attainment area (provided that for exceptional circumstances that a more representative base year may be applied to individual sources in a manner acceptableto EPA) subjectto public notice; and FURTHERMORE. thatthe States agree to develop a budget in a manner acceptable to EPA based on the principles above no laterthan March 1, 1995; and FURTHERMORE, if such a budget is not developed by March 1, 1995, that the 1990 interim inventory used by EPA in its Regional Oxidant Model simulations for the 1994 OTC Fall Meeting 

### will be used forthe budget; and FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to propose regulations that require subject sources in the Inner Zone to reduce their rate of NOx emissions by 65 percent from base year levels by May 1, 1999, or to emit NOx at a rate no greaterthan 0.2 pounds per million BTU; and FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to propose regulations that require subject sources in the Outer Zone to reduce their rate of NOx emissions by 55 percent from base year levels by May 1, 1999, orto emit NOx at a rate no greater than 0.2 pounds per million BTU; and FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to propose regulations that require sources in the InnerZone and the OuterZone to reduce their rate of NOx emissions by 75 percent from base year levels by May 1, 2003, or to emit NOx at a rate no greater than 0.15 pounds per million BTU; and FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to propose regulations that require subject sources in the Northern Zone to reduce their rate of NOx emissions by 55 percentfrom base year levels by May 1, 2003, or to emit NOx at a rate no greater than 0.2 pounds per million BTU; and

25FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to develop a regionwide trading mechanism in consultation with EPA; and FURTHERMORE, that in lieu of proposing the regulations described above, a State may propose regulations that achieve an equivalent reduction in stationary source NOx emissions in an equitable manner; and FURTHERMORE, that the regulations for May 1, 2003 described above may be modified if (i) additional modeling and other scientific analysis shows that the regulations as modified together with regulations governing VOC emissions, will achieve attainment ofthe ozone NMQS across the OTR, and (ii) this Memorandum of Understanding is modified to reflect those modeling results and other analysis no later than December 31,1998; and FURTHERMORE, that the States agree to propose regulations that are otherwise consistent with the attached recommendations of the OTC's Stationary/Area Source Committee; and FURTHERMORE, that the undersigned States agree to request that the EPA Administrator determine whether the SIPs of States outside the OTR contain adequate provisions to prohibit the emission of air pollutants in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NMQS) within the OTR, as required under42 U.S.C. Section 110(a)(2)(O).

26

# APPEND/XC ControlMeasures Summary

27Measure No. Source Category Primary Control Measures Under Consideration

1 Industrial Surface Coating Wood Furniture
- Point Wood Furniture
- Area Auto Body
Can Coating Misc. Metal Parts Plastic/Rubber/Glass Parts Fabric/Paper Coating Vinyl Coating MagnetWire
Coil Coating Metal Furniture/Appl. Industrial Adhesives 2 Surface Coating

- Aerospace Aerospace Ctg.

- Point Aerospace Ctg.

- Area 3 Autobody Refinishing
Auto Ref.
- Area 4 Surface Cleaning/Degreasing
Surface Cleaning/Degreasing
5 Gasoline Service Stations: Underground Storage Tanks SE Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Group Control Measures Summary

VOC 2005 2005 Emission Cost Control Measure Emissions tpd Reduction tpd PerTon

Add-on Controls orvec Content Limits 1997 SCAOMD Limits 0.3 0.1 25 CTG Limits 2.9 1.0 1,800-5,900 none (more stringent levels were not 0.4 0 0 identified) CARB RACT/BARCT 9.0 2.2 4,000-5,000 CARB RACT/BARCT 2.2 0.7 4,260 SCAOMD Limits 0.3 0.2 1,110 SCAOMD Limits 23.1 5.5 4,000-5,000 SCAOMD Limits N/A 41% 4,000-5,000 none (more stringent levels were not N/A 0 identified) CARB RAeT/BARCT 0.9 0.3 4,000-5,000 CARB RACT/BARCT 7.5 1.5 4,000-5,000 SCAOMD Limits 0.9 0.8 800-6,800 Extend RACT, vec Content Limit none (assumed to be covered by MACT) 0 0 MACT/SCAOMD limits 0.5 0.3 4,000-5,000 vec Content Limits; CA Best Available Retrofit Control Technology SCAOMD Limits 10.8 3.8 3,700 CARB's BestAvailable Control Technology; Low-VeC Solvents SCAOMD Limits 14.8 5.9 Cost Saving $100 Install Pressure Vacuum (PV) Valves on 0.2 0 20·615 Vent Line NO. 2005 2005 Emission Cost Emissions tpd Reduction tpd PerTon

0 N/A

0 N/A

0 N/A

0 N/A

0 N/A

287 Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emission Inspection and Maintenance Program 0 Leaks Refinery Fugitives More Stringent LDAR 5.3 1.0 680-1,150 0 8 Rule Effectiveness Improvements Increase Compliance with Regulations Rule Effectiveness Improvements Increased Compliance Activities 21.7 Unknown 0 9 Web Offset Lithography Carbon Adsorber 0 Web Offset Lithography Beyond CTG Req. (e.g., carbon adsorp.) 0.7**~O** Unknown 10 GraphicArts Low-VOC Inks and Cleaning Solvents 0 GraphicArts Extend RACT to Small Sources 2.4 1.5 3,500-4,800 N/A 12 Pesticides Reformulation to LowerVOC Content 0 Pesticides CA FIP Rule 1.4 0.3 1,000 13 Utility Boilers Coal-Fired Boiler LNB +Overfire Air Plus (Phase 2 NO. MOU) 0.3 10.8 Coal-Fired Boiler Selective CatalytiC Reduction (SCR) 0.3 10.8 4.0 4,000 Oil/Gas-Fired Boiler LNB 0.8 23.2 SCR 9.0 4,400 14 Industrial Boilers 1.0 29.0 Coal-Fired LNB 0.1 3.3 1.8 2,400 Gas/Oil-Fired LNB + Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) 25.3 16.5 2,000- 4,000 18 Glass Manufacturing LNB 0 1.6 SCR 1.2 800-2,950 Oxy-Firing 1.2 2,150- 5,300 19 Gas Turbines: Natural Gas LNB SCR +Steam Injection 0 0 0 0 3,580- 10,800 20 Gas Turbines: Oil Water Injection 0.6 0 6.6 NSCR +Water Injection 4.0 2,690- 8,100 21 Reciprocating IC Engines: Diesel/Oil Ignition Timing Retard 0 0 0.1 SCR 0.1 580-4,810 22 Reciprocating IC Engines: Natural Gas Air/Fuel (AF) Ratio Adjustment + ITR 0.5 0 11.3 SCR 10.1 580-4,810 NSCR 10.1 180-310 23 Process Heaters: Natural Gas or Oil LNB + FGR 0.1 0 10.4 6.8 1,500- 2,300
2924 Iron and Steel Mills LNB + FGR or LNB +SCR 0.4 0 1.0 0.8 800-2,960 LNB +SCR 0.8 2,150- 5,300 25 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional RACT to Small Sources 1.0 0 25.2 12.6 Combustion RACT (LNB) to Smaller Sources: Coal 0.6 0.3 1,600 Oil/Gas 24.6 12.3 760-1,400 26 Residential Water Heaters LNB 0 0 0.9 0.1 Unknown 27 Residential Space Heaters LNB 0 0 0 0 28 Medical Waste Incinerators SNCR 0 0 0 0 12,000 29 Municipal Waste Incinerators SNCR 0 0 0.1 <0.1 1,000- 4,000 31 Highway Vehicles and Stationary Sources Ozone destroying paint
- air handling 0 0 systems, car radiators 32 Asphalt Paving Driveways
- Non-HC Asphalt 1.6 0 0 0 N/A 33 Consumer Solvents Driveways
- Sealer Low VOC 0.16 0.01 237 0 0 N/A 34 Transportation Land Use Planning
- Promote Community 66.6 1.06 17,500- 105.8 0.96


## -- Centers 19,100 35 Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Diesel California Reformulated Diesel Program 2.8 0 N/A 11.3 0.8 $3,700- Vehicles and Trucks 7,700 36 Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles and Trucks More Remote Sensing 63.8 1.2 3,340 94.5 0.6 

## -- 37 Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles and Trucks Scrappage Programs 63.8 0.1 4,800 94.5 0.1


### -- 38 Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks Vehicle Emission Inspections 2.8 <0.1 11.3 0 39 Llght-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Diesel Emission-Based Registration Fees 66.6 2.8 18,750 105.8 8.7 

## -- Vehicles and Trucks 41 All Vehicles Eliminate Excessive Curb Idling 0 0 0 0 42 Urban Buses Emissions Reduction Credit for Heavy-Duty Buses 42a Highway Vehicles Emissions Reduction Credit for Heavy-Duty 2.8 .47 0 11.3 2.19 0 Buses: Clean Diesel for SEPTA-baseline 42b Highway Vehicles Alternative Fuel Vehicles SEPTA: CNG for 2.8 .01 457,800 11.3 0.23 26,700 Frontier Division Business 43 All Vehicles Smoking Vehicle Program 66.6 0.2 6,300 105.8 0 

## -- 44 Highway Vehicles Traffic Flow Improvements
-Advanced 66.6 0.15 21,620 105.8 0.16 Signal on 50 miles of Congested Arteries 45 Highway Vehicles Traffic Flow Improvements
- CSD 0.35 125,048 0.27 Signalization 46 Highway Vehicles Traffic Flow Improvements
- Congestionl 0.16 200,452 0.07
30Incident Management on Freeways 47 Highway Vehicles Traffic Flow Improvements
- Ramp Metering 0,41 2,700 0,034 48 Highway Vehicles Traffic Flow Improvements
- Enforce 55 mph 0,18 11,166 0,63 on PA Turnpike 51 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Rail Headway 66,6 0,04 369,600 105.8 0,06 246,400 Improvements· Planned R 7Changes 55 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations· Improve Suburban Bus 0.Q7 45,356 0,10 Service 56 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

-Transit First Principles 0,02 123,079 0,02 57 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Reuse of Surplus Light 0,01 92,277 0,01 Rail and Trackless Trolleys 58 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Improve City Transit 0,09 42,637 0,09 Division Service 59 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Philadelphia to 0,01 619,774 0,03 Harrisburg Rail Service Improvements 61 Highway Vehicles Transportation Management Plans
- 0,30 10,262 0,33 Comprehensive Regional Ridesharing Program 62 Highway Vehicles Transportation Management Plans
- 0,12 128,691 0,14 Availability and Promotion ofAverage $25 Transitchek 63 Highway Vehicles Transportation Management Plans
- 0,59 14,272 0,68 Telecommuting 64 Highway Vehicles Transportation Management Plans
- 0,21 11,226 0,27 Compressed WorkWeeks 69 Highway Vehicles Parking Management
- Construct New Park 0,05 139,991 0,08 and Ride Lots Along Highways 70 Highway Vehicles Parking Management
- Expand Parking at 66,6 0,03 274,150 105.8 0.04 169,950 Rail Stations (combine with #69) Planned Expansion 71 Highway Vehicles Non-Motorized Programs and Facilities
- 0,21 48,740 0,18 Comprehensive Bicycle Improvements
- Auto Work Trips 72 Highway Vehicles Non-Motorized Programs and Facilities
- 0.00 65,513 0.00 Comprehensive Bicycle Improvements
- 14 Rail Station Trips 73 Highway Vehicles Non-Motorized Programs and Facilities
- 0.33 21,709 0.34 Comprehensive Bicycle Improvements
- Non-work Trips 74 Highway Vehicles Emissions Reduction Programs
- Removal of 66,6 0.4 57,354 105.8 0.3 50% of Pre-1980 Vehicles

3175 Highway Vehicles Emissions Reduction Programs
- Reduction 1.00 1,864 0.63 in Cold Starts/lnsulate Catalytic Converters 76 Highway Vehicles Emissions Reduction Programs
- National 66.6 11.5 1,860 105.8 13.5 LEV Program 77 Highway Vehicles Pricing Mechanisms
- Feebate on New Car 0.28 4,393 0.17 Purchase 78 Highway Vehicles Pricing Mechanisms
- Gas Tax (84¢ per 5.20 (205,484) 8.70 gallon) 79 Highway Vehicles Pricing Mechanisms
- VMT Tax (4¢ per 66.6 5.20 (205,412) 105.8 8.70 gallon) 84 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Grants to Non-profits to 0.016 52,700 0.023 35,800 Promote Transit 91 Highway Vehicles High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 66.6 0.6 Very High 105.8 1.3 Very High 96 Highway Vehicles LPG

- Pilot Programs at Service Stations 2.41 11,200 1.42 Highway Vehicles CNG

- Pilot Programs at Service Stations 66.6 2.41 174,100 105.8 1.42 294,300 100 Highway Vehicles Area Source Business
- Credits for 3,700-9,200


## -- Alternative Fuel Vehicles 103 Marine Vessels Control of Emissions (NO.) from Ships and 0 0 N/A 0 0 $10,000 Ports 104 Commercial Marine Vessels Emission fees ($10,000 perton NO.) 0 0% N/A 0 0 $10,000 105 Lawn and Garden Emission Reduction Credits for Leaf Blowers; 30.1 3.0 1,200 1.3 0.1 62,000 Electric Lawnmowers 106 Lawn and Garden Incentives for Electric Lawnmowers 30.1 3.0 1,200 1.3 0.1 62,000 107 Nonroad Nonroad Engine Emission Reduction Credit 16.0 1.6 3,700-9,200 63.0 6.3


## -- Programs 109 Aircraft Control of Emissions from Aircraft and 9.4 1.6 -0 10.7 0.23 $970 Ground Support Equipment Aircraft CNG-fueled Shuttle Buses 0.01 730,200 0.05


## -- Aircraft LPG-fueled Shuttle Buses 0.005 (207,500) 0.003 

## -- III**~175** horsepower Compression Ignition California Phase II Exhaust Standards and (Diesel) Engines: EPA Statement of Principles with Engine Manufacturers Construction Equipment: Scrapers, 7.1 0 Unknown 43.3 0.8 Unknown Bore/Drill Rigs, Excavators, Cranes, Off-Highway Trucks, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Off-Highway Tractors Logging Equipment: Fellers/Bunchers 

# . 112 Recreational Vehicles 0.6 9.3 2-stroke engine category Potential CARB Standards 0.3 60-700 0 N/A 4-stroke engine category Potential CARB Standards 0 60-700 0 N/A
32113 Open Burning Ban on High Ozone Days 0.23 0.18**~O** 0.1 0.08 114 Open Burning Year Round Ban 0.23 0.18**~O** 0.1 0.08 116 All Lawn Care Ban on High Ozone Days 30.1 11.2 0 1.3 6.7 118 MotorVehicles Voluntary "No-Drive" Measure 63.1 5.1 92.6 7.4 119 All Sources (or a Subset) Cap and Trade 1,000-1,800 120 All Sources (or a Subset) Open MarketTrade 1,000-1,800 122 Various School-Based Public Awareness 4.6 101,700 7.8 

## -- Ozone Action 123 Various Promote We Care Programs to Businesses Included in 122 124 Various Outreach and Education
- Environmentally Included in 122 Responsible Behavior
- Green Light 126 Various Buying Emission Reduction Credits So They Market Price Market Cannot be Used (NO. and VOC) Price 127 Various Reduce ERCs by X% per YearWhile They Market Price Market Are in the Bank (NO. and VOC) Price 129 Highway Vehicles Ozone Action Days Transit Strategy 66.6 1.4 25,600 105.8 2.5 130 Non-road Spark Ignition Engines <25 hp No Non-road SI Engines Standard Because (21.0) 13.0 of NO. Disbenefit 131 Lawn &Garden Refueling Leakless Gas Can Nozzles 2.5 2.2 1,400-5,800 0 0 NfA Outside Five County Area Measures 85 Highway Vehicles Stage II
- Entire Region (Beyond 5 County) 5.0 3.3 900 0 0 128 Highway Vehicles and Non-road Expand Reform Gas Area to Counties North 56.0 14.8 5,800-10,300 67.0 4.0 

## -- and West of Five County Area

33Demoted Measures 6 Bulk Terminals Vapor Recovery System 11 Adhesives: Industrial Reformulation and Product Substitution 0 15 AdipicAcid Manufacturing Plants Thermal Reduction 0 0 16 NitricAcid Manufacturing Plants Extended Absorption 0 0 SCR Nonselective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) 17 Cement Manufacturing LNB 0 0 SCR SNCR (Urea-based) 30 Various Small Business Tax Incentives 40 Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks Eliminate Excessive Car Dealership Vehicle Starts 49 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Restore Regional Rail 0.01 857,915 0.02 Service 50 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Extension of Route 66 0.00 952,400 0.00 Trackless Trolley 52 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Systemwide Fare 66.6 0.09 109,255 105.8 0.13 Reductions of 10% 53 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Systemwide Fare 0.20 99,102 0.26 Reductions of 20% 54 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Systemwide Fare 0.47 112,247 0.69 Reductions of 50% 60 Highway Vehicles Transportation Management Plans
- ETRP 1.80 (36,649) 2.20 65 Highway Vehicles Parking Management
- Prohibit New Parking Negligible Negligible Negligible Facilities in CBD Impact Impact Impact 66 Highway Vehicles Parking Management
- Limit Parking 0.08 (33,728) 0.08 Facilities at New Suburban Employment Sites 67 Highway Vehicles Parking Management
- $3 Parking Surcharge 1.90 (435,912) 2.50 68 Highway Vehicles Parking Management
- $3 Parking Tax in the 0.47 (43,909) 0.73 CBD 80 Highway Vehicles Pricing Mechanisms
- Double Tolls on PA 0.01 0 0.00 Turnpike During Peak Periods 81 Highway Vehicles Emission Reduction Programs
-Alternative 2.8 0.14 229,500 11.3 2.4 13,550 Fuels
- SEPTA (0.61 with 42a) (53,300 with (4.6 with 42c) (7,100 with 42a) 42a) 82 Highway Vehicles Transit Operations

- Reduce SEPTA Fares July-August

3483 Highway Vehicles Pricing Mechanisms
- HOV Parking Rate Incentive 86 Highway Vehicles Stage II
- Statewide 60-70% : 0 87 Highway Vehicles Ride Sharing 88 Highway Vehicles Increase Mass Transit Ridership
- Parking Taxes, Market Incentives 89 Highway Vehicles FlatTax on Vehicles
- $2007 90 Highway Vehicles Build Two-Tier Highways 92 Highway Vehicles Traffic Flow @ 45 mph 93 Highway Vehicles Insulate Catalytic Converters 94 Highway Vehicles Promote Telecommuting 95 Highway Vehicles Credits for Compressed WorkWeek 97 Highway Vehicles Non-Employee Trip Reduction
- Health Clubs 98 Highway Vehicles Buy New Engines for SEPTA

- CNG, LPG Highway Vehicles Buy New Engines for SEPTA

- LNG

- Fleet 2.8 .14 337,000 11.3 2.4 19,900 Replacement Program (.61 with 42a) (78,300 with (4.60 with 42a) (10,400 42a) with 42a) 99 Highway Vehicles Clean Fleet Replacement for Institutions, Large Businesses Highway Vehicles Clean Fleet Replacement for Institutions, 66.6 2.89 12,400 105.8 1.71 20,900 Large Business· Light-Duty Vehicles 101 Highway Vehicles Voluntary ETR 102 Highway Vehicles Alternative Fuel Vehicle
- Build Fuel Stations 108 Locomotives Regional Railroad NO. Emissions Reduction 0.8 0% 8.2 2.9-3.5% Measure 110 Locomotive Engines Potential Federal NO. Emission Standards 0,8 8.2 3.3% Potential CA NO. Emission Standards 6.6% 115 Commercial Lawn Care Ban on High Ozone Days 117 Recreational Boating Ban on High Ozone Days 10.9 1.1 121 All Sources (or aSubset) Across the Board Emission Reductions 125 Various Environmental Think Tank

35

# APPENDIXD OperatingAgreements

36OPERATING AGREEMENTS FOR STAKEHOLDER DELIBERATIONS Finalized - May 6, 1996 PURPOSE To recommend strategies for ozone attainment and maintenance based on the currenthealth-basedstandards and the requirements ofthe Clean AirActs. ROLES Stakeholder Representative Roles Each member of the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group is expected to: (a) regularly attend and prepare for work sessions of the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group; (b) clearly articulate and represent the interests of his/her group, when appropriate; (c) listen to other points of view and try to understand the interests of others; (d) openly discuss issues with people who hold diverse views and participate in a cooperative problem solving procedure to resolve differences; (e) generate and evaluate options to address the needs expressed by the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group; (f) keep his/her constituent group(s) informed and solicittheir input, when appropriate. Facilitators CDR Associates will provide facilitation services to the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group. The facilitators will design and implement discussion and decision making procedures to help the Working Group accomplish its goals. In consultation with the Process Advisory Committee, the facilitators will design work session agendas. They will conduct the meetings, provide a procedural structure, and make strategic suggestions as to how cooperative problem solving can be implemented. They will remain impartial toward the substance of the issues under discussion. Any decision that results from the facilitators' activities will be a group decision, not a decision ofthe facilitators. The facilitators will remain responsible to the whole group and not to one member or interest. The facilitators will enforce ground rules that are accepted by the group and that supportthe effectiveworking relationship ofthe group. ProcessAdvisory Committee The Process Advisory Committee (a subset of the stakeholders) will work with the facilitators to help with the process (develop agendas, frame issues, develop the problem solving process, etc.). Stakeholders may raise any procedural concerns with a member of the Process Advisory Committee or directly with the facilitators to improve the problem solving process.

37Technical Consultants The Ozone Stakeholder Working Group will solicit technical assistance as needed to inform the deliberations. Services might include data collection, modeling and analysis. The Commonwealth will provide the technical consultant to support the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group. In order to support the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group in a expeditious manner, the technical consultant will be selected from an existing PA Department of Transportation contract. Penn DOT will manage the administrative aspects of the contract; the substantive focus will be managed by the stakeholder group and its Data Advisory Committee. Individual stakeholders may bring additional information, collected through their own sources, into the stakeholder deliberations. The stakeholders may accept the information directly or refer it to the Data Advisory Committee. Data Advisory Committee The Data Advisory Committee (a subset of the stakeholders) will work with the facilitators and the stakeholders to help with technical questions, data collection, technical presentations, consultant selection and budget allocation. DECISION MAKING Consensus' The negotiators will use a consensus decision making process. Consensus is an agreement built by identifying and exploring all parties' interests and by assembling a package agreement which satisfies these interests to the greatest extent possible. A consensus is reached when all parties agree that their major interests have been taken into consideration and addressed in a satisfactory mannerso that they can support the decision of the group. The process of building consensus involves the development of alternatives and the assessment of the impacts of those alternatives. A consensus agreement is one that all parties can livewith. Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. Some parties may strongly endorse a particular solution while others may accept it as a workable agreement. Group members can participate in the consensus without embraCing each element of the agreementwith the same fervor as other members, or necessarily having each of his or her interests satisfied to the fullest extent. In a consensus agreement, the parties recognize that, given the combination of gains and trade-offs in the decision package and given the current circumstances and alternative options, the resulting agreement is the best onethe involved parties can make atthis time.

38Key Principles ofConsensus To achieve consensus, everyone in the group must actively participate. To participate fully and freely, all group members must have a common base of information and keep up-to-date on the progress ofthe group. A norm must be created in which everyone will feel comfortable to state his or herviews and to disagree. A disagreement can illuminate unrecognized problems and serve as a catalyst for improving the decision. The goal of the group is to discover the unmet need that has produced an objection and tofind awayto meetthat need in a revised agreement, ratherthan to suppress the objection. Agreement on definition, principles and criteria should precede and become the underpinnings ofsubstantive agreements. Ifthere are issuesthe stakeholders cannot resolve through consensus decision making, the stakeholders will summarize the issue and fully document the remaining differences, including the specific concerns of individual stakeholders. Implementing agencies will use this summary as they advance ozone attainment in line with their mandates and airquality responsibilities. CONSTITUENTS Informed constituencies will enhance the prospects for approval of the recommendations of the Working Group. The members of the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group who represent agencies or constituencies will inform their constituents on an ongoing basis as to the issues under discussion and the progress being made in the cooperative problem solving sessions. They will represent the interests of their constituent group and bring their constituents' concerns and ideas to the negotiation. Members of the Working Group may elect to hold regular meetings with their constituent group (a formal caucus), to provide copies of work session summaries to their constituents and request comments, and/or to communicate informally with their constituents as appropriate. REPRESENTATION To enhance creativity during meetings, individuals who represent agencies or constituencies are not expected to restrictthemselves tothe prior positions held bytheir agencies or constituencies. The goal of the stakeholder group is to have frank and open discussion of the issues in questions and the options to address the issues.
39Therefore, ideas raised in the process ofthe dialogue, priorto agreement bythe whole group, are for discussion purposes only and should not be construed to reflect the position of a stakeholder orto prematurely commit the group or anyone stakeholder. Stakeholders are expected to serve as a continuous liaison so thatthe interests ofany agency or constituency they represent are represented while the stakeholders give thorough consideration to new options. 

### AITENDANCE Participating in consensus decision making requires consistent attendance. Should a stakeholder be unable to attend, and should the stakeholder choose to nominate an alternate, an alternate may attend the meeting. Alternates must attend as many meetings as possible. Alternates may enter into the deliberations and into decision making when the stakeholder is not present Alternates will not be allowed to keep the group from moving forward ordelay a decision becausethey do not have knowledge or authority to decide. Stakeholder representatives and alternates are responsible for staying current with any sessions they are unable to attend. Stakeholders are not obligated to use the time dedicated to problem solving sessions to backtrack and accommodatethosewho have notattended a prior meeting. 

### SUPPORT Stakeholders are encouraged to bring staff from their agency/organization and members of their constituency to support the problem solving process. Stakeholders can defertothose individuals when their expertise is required orwhen requested bythe Working Group. The use of support staff must not disrupt stakeholder deliberations. Only stakeholder representatives and alternates (when the representative is absent) will enter into consensus decisions. 

### OBSERVERS Ozone Stakeholder Working Group Meetings will be open to the public. Input by nonmembers may be useful to the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group. However, in order for the Working Group to achieve its mission, discussion and deliberation at Committee work sessions must be focused and manageable. Participation of non-members ofthe Working Group will be at the discretion of the Working Group. Opportunities for participation by non-members include: 1. Opportunity for non-members to discuss their views with members of the Working Group during breaks. 2.· Scheduled time at the end ofthe work sessions for questions and comments from non-members (10 or 15 minutes).

40COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC The Ozone Stakeholder Working Group may elect to hold public meetings to provide information to the public on the Working Group's progress and/or to solicit input from the public. Work session summaries will be available to the public upon request. The DEP Newsletter, UPDATE, will list meeting notices and agendas. Information, including meeting summaries, will also be posted on DEP's World Wide Web Public Participation Center. DISCUSSION GUIDELINES The following guidelines encourage productive negotiations. Members of the Ozone StakeholderWorking Group will commit to "best efforts" at following them and will give thefacilitators the authorityto enforcethem: It is absolutely crucial that everyone have a chance to be heard and to hear others. Therefore, side conversations or interruptions while someone is speaking should be avoided. In orderto give everyone a chance to talk, participants should be sensitive about the length and pertinence oftheir comments and the importance ofencouraging participation from all members ofthe group. In order to maximize the productive time available, people should avoid repeating points that have already been adequately made by others, except to briefly indicate concurrence. It is important to remain open-minded about proposals, ideas, concerns, etc., while different points ofview are being presented and discussed. Rather than label particular proposals as "good" or "bad," it will be useful to be open to the underlying concemsthat are expressed in a proposal. Disagreement is inevitable, but must be focused on the issues involved rather than based on perceptions ofmotives or relationships and personalities. The consensus process is a cooperative, joint problem-solving effort. Therefore, members must avoid competitive behavior that denigrates other participants or that is disruptivetothework ofthe group. The work sessionswill begin and end promptly atthe scheduled times.

41COMMUNICATINGWITH THE MEDIA Work sessions of the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group will be open to the public, including the media. The consensus process is a solution-oriented, problem solving approach, nota platform for lobbying the publicthrough the media. The deliberations of the Ozone Stakeholder Working Group should not be used as opportunities for individual membersto posture in orderto gain the attention ofthe media. If the Working Group as a whole decides that there is a need for the Group to communicate with the press, the Working Group members will designate a spokesperson(s) and/or draft a statement. Stakeholders can refer members of the press to CDR for questions about the process and to DEP for information about the stakeholder group's progress on substantive issues. In communicating with the media and the general public, a clear distinction should be made between preliminary information, concept papers, or proposals under consideration and final decisions. It is important to differentiate between discussions and decisions. Preliminary documents will be marked with "DRAFr' or "FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY." Each stakeholder is free to speak with the press on behalf of the agency or constituency he or she represents and must make it clear to the press that the comments should not be attributed to the whole stakeholder group. No stakeholderwill speak for the whole stakeholder group without express authorization by consensus of the stakeholder group. No stakeholder will characterize the point of view of other representatives. EXTERNAL INITIATIVES Stakeholders will disclose to the stakeholder group as a whole any potential initiatives or activities (e.g. law suits, legislative actions) that could impact the functioning of the stakeholder group or be of interest to the stakeholders. Stakeholders will provide the information in an open and timely manner. DEP, EPA, the City of Philadelphia and any other stakeholder will keep the group informed of any policy, regulation or legislation related tothe ozone problem. TASKS GROUPS The Ozone Stakeholder Working Group may form task groups to perform specific functions or develop proposals on specific issues. Information and recommendations the task groups develop will be presented to the stakeholders for the Committee's consideration. The composition and scope of work for each task group will be designated by the stakeholders. The task groups may include technical support from non-members ofthe working group.

42INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKING GROUP While the ozone stakeholder group deliberates, a separate but related group will be working to outline the details of a successful, decentralized emissions program. The ozone stakeholder group is responsible for policy level recommendations about the emissions program's contribution to ozone attainment. The I and M Working Group will take policy direction from the ozone stakeholders and then is responsible for recommendations aboutthe emission program's implementation.

# APPENDIXE Glossary

44AQMD BTU CAAA CFFV CMSA CNG DEP DERs DVRPC EPA ERC FIP g/bhp-hr 

### 11M IC LEV LNB LPG MACT mmbtu MOU MPO MTBE NAAQS NGV NLEV NOx OBO I OBO II OBD OTAG OTC PennOOT ppb ppm psi PV RACT RFG RVP SCR SEPTA SIP SCAQMD SNCR airquality managementdistrict British thermal unit Clean Airs ActAmendments of 1990 clean fuel fleet vehicle consolidated metropolitan statistical area compressed natural gas Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection discrete emissions reductions Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emission reduction credit Federal Implementation Plan grams per brake horsepower hour inspection and maintenance internal combustion low-emission vehicle low NOx burner liquefied petroleum gas maximum achievable control technology million BTU memorandum ofunderstanding metropolitan planning organization methyltertiary butyl ether National AmbientAir Quality Standard(s) natural gas vehicle national emission vehicle nitrogen oxide phase I onboard diagnostics phase II onboard diagnostics onboard diagnostic OzoneTransportation Assessment Group OzoneTransport Commission Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation parts per billion parts per million pounds persquare inch pressurevacuum reasonable available control technology reformulated gasoline reid vapor pressure selective catalytic reduction Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority state implementation plan South CoastAir Quality Management District selective non-catalytic reduction
4S

# OZONESTAKEHOLDERS

Richard Bickel, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
- SEPTA Dennis Capella, PECO Energy Company Francine Carlini, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Philadelphia Region Tom D'Alessandro, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Ned Griffith, ARCO Chemical Company Mark Hammond, GraphicsArtsAssociation Paul Hess, DEP Citizens Advisory Council Anthony Ippolito, Sun Company/Associated Petroleum Industries ofPennsylvania David Jackson, Chester County Health Department Rosalind Johnson, Sea Change David Lee, ASE SAE Shirley Loveless, Pennsylvania Environmental Council Tom Maslany, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Audrey Miner, Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation Joseph Otis Minott, Clean Air Council Patrick O'Neill, City of Philadelphia Nancy Parks, Sierra Club Jim Peruto, Keenan Motors Peter Quinn, GreaterValley Forge Transportation ManagementAssociation Ron Roggenburk, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

Jim Rue, Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection Jerry Schantz, Automotive Service Association of Pennsylvania Michael Stokes, Montgomery County Planning Commission Suzanne Verzilli, Rohm and Haas Andy Warren, Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation Jack Weber, AAA Mid-Atlantic Jill SebestWelch, Delaware County Transportation ManagementAssociation


# FACILITATOR

Mike Hughes
-- CDR Associates

# APPENDIXB

Control Measure Evaluations Prepared for SE 

# PA Ozone Stakeholders Group Draft

FullreportsubmittedtoEPA with SIPrevision. SeeFile for Report.