Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0898-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-04-29T04:00Z

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

Transportation Conformity State Implementation Plan Revision

COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT

Section 176 of the CAA requires transportation plans to conform to clean
air plans.  The public comment period on the proposed Transportation
Conformity revision to the State Implementation Plan began on March 2,
2008 and closed on April 4, 2008.  A public hearing was held on April 1,
2008 at the Department of Environmental Protection’s South Central
Regional Office, 909 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110.   

COMMENTATOR:

1.	Jennifer McKenna, President

Clean Air Board

528 Garland Drive

Carlisle, PA 17103

COMMENTS

  	COMMENT:  A reviewing agency cannot know whether a transportation
activity will cause new violations or worsen existing violations unless
someone measures the existing air quality in the vicinity of the
proposed activity. (1)

The Department disagrees.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has provided regulations and guidance to describe the methods by
which the agency  performing a hot-spot analysis can assess whether the
activity will cause new violations or contribute to an existing air
quality violation.  On March 10, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 12468),  EPA
published a final rule entitled, PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in
Project-Level Transportation Conformity Determinations for the New PM2.5
and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, amending 40
CFR Part 93 (relating to determining conformity of Federal actions to
State or Federal implementation plans). On March 29, 2006, guidance and
associated materials were issued jointly by EPA and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), including Transportation Conformity Guidance for
Qualitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas. 

EPA suggests that an agency can compare a project of air quality concern
to another location with similar characteristics or can use air quality
studies and data from previously conducted studies.  Nearby monitors,
air quality data from monitors with similar traffic and environmental
conditions, and emission source apportionment studies can also be used. 
The lead agency is required to document within the project-level
conformity determination the air quality information used and why it is
appropriate.  Neither the EPA regulation nor the EPA-FHWA guidance
requires microscale air quality monitoring or analysis. 

2.  	COMMENT:  The proposed SIP does not specifically state the steps
the various agencies will take to conduct the hot-spot analysis for
projects that meet the criteria for air quality concern in 40 CRF
93.123(b)(1).  (1)

The Pennsylvania Transportation Conformity SIP revision satisfies
federal requirements by requiring processes that meet or exceed those in
 40 CFR 93.105, binding local and state agencies to that process via a
Memorandum of Understanding, and implementing detailed consultation
processes specific to general and specific project level PM2.5 
screening and, where required, analysis.  

Federal requirements for the conformity SIP revisions were modified by
Public Law 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), signed by
the President on August 10, 2005.  These amendments, specifically in
SAFETEA-LU Section 6011(f)(4), deleted and modified prior portions of 40
CFR Part 93, leaving three provisions that must be addressed in the
state’s conformity SIP: section 93.105 (relating to consultation),
section 93.122 (relating to procedures for determining regional
transportation-related emissions), and section 93.125(c) (relating to
enforceability of design concept and scope and project-level mitigation
and control measures).  For all other transportation conformity
provisions, Pennsylvania is subject to the federal requirements without
a SIP revision.  The Memoranda of Agreement included in the SIP revision
and signed by the Department, the Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
and the Commonwealth’s regional transportation planning partners
include provisions that bind all parties to compliance with federal
requirements.

Section V(A) and (B) of the proposed SIP revision contain extensive
descriptions of the Intergovernmental Consultation Group (ICG) process
to address requirements of Section 93.105.  The ICG process includes
screening of projects for potential hot-spot analysis and performance of
the analysis itself.  

Under federal regulations (see references in Comment #1), a qualitative
analysis is required if a project is “a project of air quality
concern” as defined in 40 CFR Part 93.123 (relating to procedures for
determining localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations (hot-spot
analysis)), pending federal approval of a quantitative analysis
methodology.  Federal regulations and guidance do not prescribe a
procedure, a methodology, analytical tools, data, models or thresholds
in conducting a project review or analysis of a project that is of air
quality concern.  (Federal regulations are more specific regarding the
identification of projects that are not “projects of air quality
concern.”)  Federal regulations and guidance provide a general
framework, and defer to the ICG process for decisions regarding, among
other things, the analysis approach and data to be utilized.

PennDOT implemented procedures to comply with the federal requirements
for intergovernmental consultation for hot-spot screening and analysis. 
PennDOT amended its Air Quality Handbook (Publication #321) with the
PennDOT PM2.5 /PM10 Hot-Spot Project Screening Process, effective June
8, 2007.  The process itself was developed through the interagency
consultation process described in this SIP submission.  This addition to
the Air Quality Handbook is available from PennDOT at (717) 772-2526 or
on the web at   HYPERLINK
"ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/bureaus/BEQ/hs/pdf" 
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/bureaus/BEQ/hs/pdf  . 

If, through this process, it is uncertain whether the project is “of
air quality concern” or it is determined that the project is “of air
quality concern,” the lead agency for the project is to perform a
PM2.5 hot-spot analysis following federal procedures and guidance for
that analysis.  As no specific methodology is required or applicable to
all projects, the lead agency is responsible for drafting an analysis
approach, presenting this to the ICG, refining the approach per ICG
input, conducting the analysis, conducting a public comment period, and
submitting the analysis to federal and state agencies for review.  

Public comment regarding the hot-spot determination is obtained as part
of the regular public comment period for the project, or if this has
already occurred (i.e., the project had completed the National
Environmental Policy Act process prior to April 5, 2006), an additional
opportunity for public comment will be provided.  

3.  	COMMENT:  Due to the concentration of diesel truck traffic and
warehouse facilities, fine particulate pollution from diesel exhaust is
much higher in Cumberland County, particularly in Carlisle, than in most
areas.  PM2.5 sampling conducted by CAB indicates that significant
levels are found in areas east and west of Carlisle borough, the Miracle
Mile and at Interstate 81.   Pollution levels at the 1000 Walnut Street
site are quite high.  (1)  

While the Department appreciates the information provided by the
commentator regarding air quality sampling in Carlisle, Cumberland
County, the proposed SIP revision describes the statewide process by
which the Commonwealth will meet transportation conformity requirements
and does not address potential determinations for any particular
project.  

It should be noted that monitoring in Cumberland County as part of the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PM2.5 nonattainment area is performed by the
official Federal Reference Monitor (FRM) in Carlisle at Imperial Court. 
The Department is also collecting PM2.5 information from a special
project FRM monitor located in Carlisle at Walnut Street at the request
of the Clean Air Board.  DEP disagrees with the claim made by the
commenter that the data collected at the Walnut Street monitor are
“quite high”.  Data comparisons between the DEP operated sites in
Carlisle are extremely good. The average of the samples for the period
during which the Walnut Street site has been operational are 15.2
micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and 15.6 ug/m3 from the Imperial
Court and Walnut Street sites, respectively.  The federal standard is
15.0 ug/m3.

Attainment of the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
PM2.5, however, is measured by the three-year average of the annual
means.  This value is called the “design value.”  Data from the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle regional FRM monitors have been showing
attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS since 2006. When compared against
the standard of 15.0 ug/m3, the design values for the Carlisle (Imperial
Ct.) monitor are 14.4 and 13.9 ug/m3 for the 2004-2006 and 2005-2007
attainment years respectively. For the Harrisburg monitor, the annual
design values are 15.0 and 14.6 ug/m3 for the same attainment years. 

FRM monitors measure total PM2.5 and do not have the capability to
determine whether the PM2.5 comes from diesel exhaust, power plants or
any other specific source.  The Commonwealth operates several speciation
monitors, which can assist in that assessment, with the sampler located
in Harrisburg being the only speciation monitor in the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle area.  

It is the Department’s understanding that daily data collected by the
Clean Air Board was collected with an Environmental Beta Attenuation
Monitor (EBAM). Data from EBAMs cannot necessarily be correlated with
FRM data. Studies have shown that the EBAM sampler reads high when
compared to FRM units, especially during periods of high humidity. This
high bias can be seen in the data provided by the commentator as the
attachment called, “Comparison of PM2.5 Monitoring Sites along I-81
Corridor”.  Each of the highest concentration data points was recorded
on a day for which weather records record fog, snow or rain.  

The conformity rules in 40 CFR Part 93 do not require that new
monitoring be conducted for use in a qualitative analysis now required
by EPA and FHWA.  Should a hot-spot analysis be done for a project in
Cumberland County, the lead agency would most likely include information
such as data from similar sites and information from nearby monitor(s),
potentially including the one-year special project study at Walnut
Street.  The project’s lead agency may also consider data from an
existing EBAM study.  The Department would advise the lead agency that
such data should be part of a hot-spot analysis only if appropriate
sampling methodology and quality assurance procedures had been followed
and the positive bias of EBAM instrumentation (over-prediction when
compared to FRM) were considered.  

4.  	COMMENT:   Plans are in place to expand Exit 44 at I-81 to allow
greatly increased diesel truck traffic, which will affect a hot spot of
nonattainment for PM2.5 and no air quality analysis has been performed.
(1)

The proposed SIP describes the statewide process by which the
Commonwealth will meet transportation conformity requirements and does
not address potential determinations for any particular project.   Note,
however, that “air quality analysis” does not necessarily mean air
quality monitoring at the project site (see Responses to Comments No. 1
and 3).

 COMMENT:  If the project planners do not consider air quality issues,
then the project plan is not in conformance with the SIP and does not
satisfy EPA’s requirements for hot-spots.  (1)

The Department agrees.  The procedures in the transportation conformity
SIP revision, the process for screening projects for hot-spot analyses,
performance of required analysis, the federal regulations and guidance,
and NEPA require that project planners consider air quality issues.

6.	COMMENT:  Local agencies currently do not have an inventory of
existing and potential hot-spots within the nonattainment areas nor a
plan to vigorously identify potential hot-spots in the nonattainment
areas.  The lack of a plan that will ensure careful analysis of
hot-spots within the nonattainment areas of the Commonwealth renders the
consultative procedures contained in the proposed SIP ineffective.

The Department disagrees  An inventory of PM2.5 hot-spots is impractical
with anticipated monitoring resources, unnecessary, subject to
considerable change and uncertainty, and not required by 40 CFR Part 93
or other federal statute or regulation.  The criteria in 40 CFR
93.123(b)(1) define characteristics of those projects likely to raise
issues of concern.  Four of those five criteria involve diesel vehicles,
with metrics that are known (namely, number of diesel vehicles, effects
at intersections with significant numbers of diesel vehicles, increase
in number of diesel vehicles, new and expanded bus terminals, rail
terminals and transfer points.)  These project-by-project criteria,
coupled with the PennDOT PM2.5 /PM10 Hot-Spot Project Screening Process
(see Response to Comment No. 2), are sufficient to identify projects
that may be of air quality concern for PM2.5.  This issue may be
revisited once EPA and FHWA issue additional requirements or guidance.  

The Department disagrees that the lack of such an inventory constitutes
lack of a plan to “ensure careful analysis of hot-spots.”
Consultation procedures as required by the SIP and 40 CFR 93.105, and as
implemented by Pennsylvania via its ICG, are described in detail in the
Response to Comment No. 1.  That response also references documents
describing and governing these procedures relative to PM2.5 hot-spot
analyses.  These inter-agency consultation procedures are extensive,
thorough, involve all relevant parties, and meet all federal and state
requirements.  

A justification of the decision regarding whether a hot-spot analysis is
necessary must be included in the NEPA process and, thus, subject to
public review.  

 PAGE   

 PAGE   4