Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0323-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-06-01T04:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

DATE:	May 17, 2007

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

FROM:	Ellen Wentworth   s/s

		Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Linda Miller, Acting Chief  s/s

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On March 27, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle (the “Harrisburg Area”) nonattainment
Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) of 40 CFR 50.10.  The Harrisburg Area is comprised of
the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Perry.  Also on March
27, 2007, in conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted
a maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area, along with a 2002 base-year
inventory, as SIP revisions.  The maintenance plan will ensure continued
attainment in the Area for at least ten years after the Area is
redesignated.

The Harrisburg Area was designated a subpart 1 or “basic” 8-hour
ozone nonattainment Area in a final rule published on April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23857), based its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for
ozone during the years 2001-2003.

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

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

As identified above, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”  The
following is a discussion of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
March 27, 2007 submittal satisfies the five requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  The EPA will discuss its evaluation of the
maintenance plan under its analysis of the redesignation request.

A.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Harrisburg Area

1.  8-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.10

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average of the monitored annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration.  The air quality monitoring data
used for Pennsylvania’s redesignation request was the air quality data
for 2003-2005.  There are three monitors located in the Harrisburg Area
that measure air quality with respect to ozone.  Two monitors are
located in Dauphin County (Harrisburg and Hershey), and one monitor is
located in Perry County (Little Buffalo State Park). 

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, which establishes the procedure for interpreting ozone monitoring
data under the standard promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10, the Harrisburg Area
is attaining the 8-hour ozone standard for the most recent three-year
period of 2003 through 2005 (see Table 1 below).  The data collected at
the ozone monitors satisfies the CAA requirement that the three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation of the
Harrisburg Area indicates that the data was quality assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  The PADEP uses the Air Quality System
(AQS) as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures
the data transfers and content for accuracy.

Table 1:  Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Dauphin County, Harrisburg Monitor, AQS ID 42-043-0401

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2003	0.074

2004	0.076

2005	0.084

2006	0.077

The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078 ppm

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

Dauphin County, Hershey Monitor, AQS ID 42-043-1100

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2003	0.079

2004	0.072

2005	0.085

2006	0.081

The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078 ppm

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

 Perry County, Little Buffalo State Park Monitor AQS ID 42-099-0301

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2003	0.084

2004	0.069

2005	0.082

2006	0.077

 The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.078 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.076 ppm

The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Harrisburg Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.078 ppm, and continues to
maintain the standard through the period 2004-2006 with a design value
at each monitor of 0.084 ppm or less.  In addition, as discussed below
with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue
monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  (See Appendix 1 for the
available 2006 8-hour data).  In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from the AQS indicates
that the Harrisburg Area has attained and continues to attain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

2. 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.9

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS has a different form as well as limit.  The
1-hour ozone NAAQS is attained and maintained if the average number of
expected exceedances over a three-year period is less than or equal to
1.  With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on January 17, 1995 (62 FR
3349), EPA determined pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, that the
Harrisburg Area had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15,
1993 attainment date, and we believe that the Harrisburg Area is still
in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  For the period 2003 through
2005, the average number of expected exceedances was 0.0, which is less
than 1.  EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the
available 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the
Harrisburg Area in 2006. (See Appendix 2 for available 1-hour data).

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

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

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

1. General SIP Requirements

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

 

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

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

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

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Therefore, EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the CAA.

2.  Part D Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the
basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment areas.  Section
182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification under section 181 of subpart 2 to part D of the CAA.  The
Harrisburg Area was classified as a subpart 1 basic nonattainment area
by an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858).

However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast
Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
((hereafter “South Coast).  The Court held that certain provisions of
EPA’s Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act.  The Court rejected EPA’s reasons for implementing the
8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of
subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act.  The Court also held that EPA
improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations:  (1) nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity
requirements for certain types of Federal actions.  The Court upheld
EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.

This section sets forth EPA’s views on the potential effect of the
Court’s ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action.  For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court’s ruling
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation.  EPA believes that the Court’s decision, as it
currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for
rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward
with redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.

a.  Subpart 1 Nonattainment Requirements Specified by Section 172

EPA believes that no subpart 1 requirements need to be approved prior to
redesignation.  Of the nonattainment plan provisions due under section
172, none were due prior to redesignation as section 172 sets the
deadline as no later than 3 years after redesignation.  See 40 CFR 51
subpart X; see 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005.

b.  Subpart 2 Requirements Specified by Section 182

With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court’s ruling in South Coast
rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the
8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency.  Consequently,
it is possible that this Area could, during a remand to EPA, be
reclassified under subpart 2.  Although any future decision by EPA to
classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future
requirements for the Area, EPA believes that this does not mean that
redesignation cannot now go forward.  This belief is based upon (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance
with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied. 

First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Harrisburg Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
subpart 1 requirements.  Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation,
states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the
relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request.  September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division).  See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)(redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor).  See Sierra Club v EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation.  See also, 68 FR 25418, at
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted.  The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking, See Sierra Club v. Whitman , 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date.  Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area.  The
Court stated: “Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse.  Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.” Id. at 68.   Similarly
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request.  

If this area initially had been classified for the 8-hour standard on
June 15, 2004, under the April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951) under
subpart 2, the first two part D, subpart 2 requirements required would
be: a 2002 base-year inventory pursuant to section 182(a)(1) of the CAA
and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section
182(a)(3)(B).

Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an emissions statement rule
for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the Harrisburg Area,
and which satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour
standard.  This regulation is codified at Section 135.21 “Emission
statements” in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1); see also 60 FR
2881, January 12, 1995.  

A separate Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared for this rulemaking
contains a detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania’s 2002 base-year
inventory for the Harrisburg Area and concludes that this inventory can
be approved.  See “Technical Support Document (TSD) For Emissions
Inventories for the Harrisburg Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Redesignation
Request, Maintenance Plan, and State Implementation (SIP) Base Year
Inventory,” dated January 11, 2007.  EPA has determined that this
emission inventory requirement meets the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3) and that, if necessary, meets the emission inventory
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1).

Although any future decision by EPA to classify the Harrisburg Area
under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for this
area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of this
area cannot now go forward.   This belief is based upon (1)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements, such as the emissions statement rule and 2002 base year
inventory, that might be applicable in the future; and, (2) EPA’s
longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance
with only  the requirements due at the time the request was submitted. 
With respect to the emissions statements and 2002 base year inventory
requirements, EPA believes that the emissions statement requirement is
satisfied by the current rule in the approved Pennsylvania SIP.  With
respect to the 2002 base year inventory requirement, EPA can propose to
approve the base year inventory SIP as fulfilling the requirement of CAA
section 172(c)(3) and if necessary CAA section 182(a) concurrently with
the maintenance plan.  

Furthermore, with respect to other subpart 2 requirements, for the
reasons indicated above, EPA believes it would be inequitable to
evaluate a redesignation request based on subpart 2 requirements that
might apply in the future based upon a future, higher classification
under subpart 2.  If the Harrisburg Area is classified under subpart 2
at some point in the future, the base year inventory and emissions
statement requirements would apply to the area under any subpart 2
classification, and, whether or not Pennsylvania submitted a complete
redesignation request before what ever due date is established for these
two requirements is not an issue because EPA believes that Pennsylvania
has satisfied these two requirements.  As for any other subpart 2
requirements which may become due, EPA believes it would be especially
inequitable to evaluate a redesignation request based on retroactive
application of subpart 2 requirements resulting from a higher
classification that might apply in the future based upon a higher
classification due to a future revision of the classification table for
the 8-hour standard.

c. Other Subpart 1 and 2 Requirements under Part D

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and
NSR requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to
redesignation.  With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements,
section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded projects conform
to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP.  The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23
U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general
conformity”).  State conformity revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

In the case of the Harrisburg Area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Harrisburg Area need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program (under subpart 1 or 2) be approved prior
to redesignation.  First, EPA has also determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without Part D NSR in effect.  The rationale
for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.''  See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at
12467-12468); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458,
20469-20470); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23,
2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834-31837, June 21,
1996).

In the case of the Harrisburg Area, the Chapter 127 part D NSR
regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)
explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to
attainment areas within the OTR.  Therefore, upon redesignation to
attainment, the Harrisburg Area will become subject to Pennsylvania’s
part D NSR applicable to attainment areas in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR). The OTR requirements are more stringent than those required in
marginal, moderate or subpart 1 “basic” ozone nonattainment areas:
the OTR requirements are more stringent because a lower threshold for
what constitutes a major stationary source of VOC emissions is required
than that required in marginal, moderate or subpart 1 “basic” ozone
nonattainment areas and a higher offset ratio is required than that
required in marginal, or subpart 1 “basic” ozone nonattainment
areas.  The Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP
explicitly apply the requirements for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to
attainment areas within the OTR.  Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP also imposes
the NSR requirements on major sources of NOx emissions as required by
section 182(f) of the CAA.  On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully
approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision consisting of
Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations that cover the
Harrisburg Area. 

All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment.  The
section 184 requirements include reasonably available control technology
(RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and Stage II
vapor recovery or a comparable measure.   In the case of the
Harrisburg Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will be
applicable after redesignation.  On, October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA
fully approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision consisting of
Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the
Harrisburg Area.  The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the
Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the requirements for NSR of section
184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR.  

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  See 61 FR
53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997 (Reading,
Pennsylvania Redesignation).  The rationale for this is based on two
considerations.  First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the
section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after
redesignation to attainment.  Therefore, the State remains obligated to
have NSR, as well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation.  Second,
the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not
apply to the area by virtue of the area's nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an
action changing an area's designation.  See 61 FR 53174 at 53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).  Thus,
Pennsylvania has met all applicable part D requirements under the 8-hour
standard for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.

3.  Part D Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard

General

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Harrisburg Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the
1-hour standard.  See 56 FR 56694 at 56822, November 6, 1991.  

In its December 22, 2006 decision in South Coast, the Court also
addressed EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard.   The current
status of the revocation and associated anti-backsliding rules is
dependent on whether the Court ‘s decision stands as originally issued
or is modified in response to any  petition  for rehearing or request
for clarification that has been filed.  As described more fully below,
EPA believes that the area has attained the 1-hour standard and has met
all of the requirements applicable for redesignation under the 1-hour
standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be
reinstated and those requirements are viewed as applying under the
statute itself.  Thus, the Court’s decision, as it currently stands,
imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Area
to attainment.  

Further, even if the Court’s decision were modified based upon any
petition for rehearing that has been filed, such that the ultimate
decision requires something less than compliance with all applicable
1-hour requirements, since the area meets all such requirements, as
explained below, it would certainly meet any lesser requirements and
thus similarly redesignation could proceed.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The conformity portion of the Court’s ruling
does not impact the redesignation request for the Harrisburg Area
because there are no conformity requirements that are relevant to
redesignation request for any standard, including the requirement to
submit a transportation conformity SIP. Under longstanding EPA policy,
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. See 40 CFR 51.390.  See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See also
60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation).

With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures
for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency
measures for marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion of the
Court’s ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the
Harrisburg Area.

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Harrisburg Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the
1-hour standard.  With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D (section 182) for
the Harrisburg Area are discussed in the following paragraphs:

Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for
sources in  marginal areas, such as the Harrisburg Area, that were
subject to control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November
15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108.  On December 22, 1994, EPA fully
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under
section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994).  EPA
believes that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher
classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments
to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time requirement.  After an area
has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS,
there is no requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS.

Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M).  It requires marginal areas to adopt
vehicle I/M programs.  This provision was not applicable to

the Harrisburg Area because this area did not have and was not required
to have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.  

Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory
for the nonattainment area.  The most recent inventory for the
Harrisburg Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision with the maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area.

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

Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NOx in the
nonattainment area to submit annual Emissions Statements regarding the
quantity of emissions from the previous year.  As discussed previously,
Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP, a previously approved
emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which applies to the
Harrisburg Area.

Section 182(a)(1) provides for the submission of a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as
described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by
the Administrator.  In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a
2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Harrisburg Area as meeting
the requirement of section 182(a)(1).  While EPA generally required that
the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard be for calendar year
1990, EPA believes that Pennsylvania’s 2002 inventory fulfills this
requirement because it meets EPA’s guidance and because it is more
current than 1990.  EPA also proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour
standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 base-year inventory for
the 8-hour standard will provide an acceptable substitute for the
base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard.

Therefore, the only 1-hour part D elements currently applicable to the
Harrisburg Area by virtue of its designation and classification as a
marginal nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS were the
corrections of any RACT deficiencies regarding enforceability of
existing rules in order to be redesignated to attainment, and the
emission inventory requirement.

On December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all
corrections required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971,
December 22, 1994).  EPA believes that this requirement applies only to
incomplete data and subpart 2 areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to
the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time
requirement.  After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirements for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the
8-hour NAAQS.

Section 173(c)(3) provided for the submission of a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources as
described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by
the Administrator.  In a separate technical support document in the
docket for this rulemaking, EPA concludes that the 2002 base-year
emissions inventory for the Harrisburg Area meets the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) as well as section 182(a)(1).  While EPA generally
required that the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard be for
calendar year 1990, EPA believes that Pennsylvania’s 2002 inventory
fulfills this requirement because it meets EPA’s guidance and because
it is more current than 1990.  EPA also proposes to determine that if
the 1-hour standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 base-year
inventory for the 8-hour standard will provide an acceptable substitute
for the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard.

EPA has previously determined that the Harrisburg Area attained the
1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349,
January 17, 1995), and we believe that the Harrisburg Area is still in
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone monitoring
data for the years 2003-2005.  To demonstrate attainment, i.e.,
compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number of
expected exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a three-year period
must be less than or equal to 1.  Table 2 provides a summary of the
number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005
and three-year annual average at each of the Harrisburg Area monitors.  

Table 2:  Harrisburg Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour
Ozone Standard 

Harrisburg Monitor/AIRS ID 42-043-0401

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

2006	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.0

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

Hershey Monitor/AIRS ID 42-043-1100

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

2006	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.0

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

Perry County Monitor/AIRS ID 42-099-0301

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

2006	0.0

The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003
through 2005 is 0.0

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

In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania
and taken from AQS indicates that the Harrisburg Area is maintaining air
quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  EPA believes this
conclusion remains valid after review of the available quality assured
2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the Harrisburg Area in
2006.

Transport Region Requirements 

All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment.  The
section 184 requirements include RACT, enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery, or a comparable measure.

In the case of the Harrisburg Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation.  As discussed
previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision
which applies the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to
attainment areas within the OTR.

As discussed previously in this notice, EPA has interpreted the section
184 OTR requirements, including NSR, as not being applicable for
purposes of redesignation.  See 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996, and 62 FR
24826, May 7, 1997 (Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation).  

5.  Harrisburg Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of this
redesignation.  EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request.  Calgagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR at
25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.

The Harrisburg Area was a 1-hour marginal area at the time of its
designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on April 30,
2004(69 FR 23857).  Because the Harrisburg Area was a 1-hour marginal
area, the only previous part D SIP submittal requirement was the RACT
corrections due under section 182(a)(2)(A) and the comprehensive
emissions inventory due under section 172(c)(3) for the 1-hour standard.
 The RACT corrections are fully approved (59 FR 65971, December 22,
1994), and EPA is proposing to approve a comprehensive inventory for the
Area in this notice of proposed rulemaking.  No other part D submittal
requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour
maintenance plan for the Area.  Therefore, all part D submittal
requirements have been fulfilled.  Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of
the Harrisburg Area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements.  As indicated previously, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected with part D nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked to the Area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.  EPA also
believes that no 8-hour part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation have yet become due for the Harrisburg Area, and therefore
they need not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.

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

EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the Harrisburg Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.    Emission
reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 3.

Table 3:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in tons per day
(tpd)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Mobile	Nonroad	Total

2002	3.0	29.5	43.4	19.6	95.4

2004	2.4	28.9	36.9	19.0	87.2

Diff (02-04)	0.6	0.6	6.5	0.6	8.2

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Mobile	Nonroad	Total

2002	16.7	3.0	86.8	21.4	127.9

2004	12.9	3.1	76.2	20.2	112.5

Diff (02-04)	3.8	-0.1	10.6	1.2	15.4

Below in Tables 4 and 5 is a breakdown of the 2002 and 2004 emissions by
County and Source Type.

Table 4:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 in tons per day (tpd) by
County and Source Type

VOC Emissions

County	Point	Area	Mobile	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	0.9	10.3	15.0	4.6	30.8

Dauphin	0.9	10.8	17.6	10.5	39.7

Lebanon	1.2	6.0	7.1	2.8	17.1

Perry	0*	2.4	3.6	1.7	7.8

Total	2.97	29.5	43.4	19.6	95.4

NOx Emissions

County	Point	Area	Mobile	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	11.9	1.0	35.9	5.3	54.1

Dauphin	2.1	1.1	30.3	7.1	40.7

Lebanon	2.3	0.7	15.1	4.8	22.9

Perry	0.3	0.2	5.5	4.2	10.3

Total	16.7	3.0	86.8	21.4	127.9

*Rounds to zero

Table 5:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2004 in tons per day (tpd) by
County and Source Type

VOC Emissions

County	Point	Area	Mobile	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	0.9	10.2	13.0	4.4	28.5

Dauphin	0.9	10.5	14.9	9.9	36.1

Lebanon	0.6	5.8	5.9	2.9	15.3

Perry	0*	2.4	3.2	1.8	7.3

Total	2.4	28.9	36.9	19.0	87.2

NOx Emissions

County	Point	Area	Mobile	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	8.1	1.0	31.8	5.1	46.1

Dauphin	2.1	1.1	26.3	6.8	36.3

Lebanon	2.3	0.7	13.3	4.5	20.8

Perry	0.4	0.2	4.8	3.9	9.3

Total	12.9	3.1	76.2	20.2	112.5

* Rounds to zero

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 8.6 percent from 95.4
tpd to 87.2 tpd; NOx emissions decreased by 12.1 percent from 127.9 tpd
to 112.5 tpd.  These reductions and anticipated future reductions are
due to the following permanent and enforceable measures implemented or
in the process of being implemented in the Harrisburg Area:

1.  Stationary Point Sources

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.  In response to the Federal
NOx SIP Call rule, Pennsylvania and other covered states adopted NOx
control regulations for large industrial boilers and internal combustion
engines, electric generating units, and cement plants.  The regulation
covering industrial boilers and electric generators required emission
reductions to commence May 1, 2003, while the regulation covering large
internal combustion engines and cement plants required emission
reductions to commence May 1, 2005.  

 Stationary Area Source Measures

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

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

3.  Highway Vehicle Sources

While VMT increased approximately four percent between 2002 and 2004,
highway vehicle emissions decreased.  These decreases can be
attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (an increased
proportion of cleaner (Federal Tier 1) light-duty vehicles in the fleet,
an increased proportion of cleaner heavy-duty highway vehicles (Federal
1998 + 2002/2004 standards) and implementation of the vehicle emissions
inspection program.  The emission reductions from the programs covering
fleet turnover are permanent reductions.  The effects of fleet turnover
between 2002 and 2004 (that is, more vehicles subject to tighter
tailpipe standards became part of Pennsylvania’s fleet) produced
emission reductions between 2002 and 2004. 

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAAA of 1990 include NOx
and VOC limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light-duty
gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards began to be phased in starting
in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were also reduced in
gasoline-powered cars starting with model year 1998. 

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

In 1999, EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV, referred
to as the Tier 2 standards (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).  Tier 2 was
phased in beginning with the 2004 model year.  The new Motor Vehicle
Control Program (25 Pa. Code section 126, Subchapter D) adopted in 1998
includes the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program which incorporated the
CA LEV program by reference.  The regulation allowed automakers to
comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania
program until Model Year (MY) 2006.  In order to participate in NLEV,
Pennsylvania was required to adopt language that extended its
“commitment” to NLEV until MY 2006.  Because automobile
manufacturers had to comply with the more stringent regulations (NLEV
vs. Tier 2), the Federal Tier 2 program governs new vehicles sold in
Pennsylvania in the attainment year, 2004. 

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

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

In late 2003-early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program into the Harrisburg Area.  The
program applies to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under,
model years 1975 and newer.  For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program
consists of an annual on-board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure
test.  For subject vehicles 1995 and older, the program consists of an
annual visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are
present, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap
pressure test.  These regulations can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter
177.  Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program as a SIP
revision on December 1, 2003, and EPA approved the revision on October
6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

4.  Nonroad Sources

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

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

Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg Area

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in the area for at least  years after redesignation.  A
maintenance plan consists of the following requirements as outlined in
section 175A of the CAA:  (a) an attainment inventory; (b) a maintenance
demonstration; (c) a monitoring network; (d) verification of continued
attainment; and (e) a contingency plan.

Under section 175A(a) of the CAA, a maintenance plan must provide for
maintenance of the standard for at least ten years after the area is
redesignated to attainment.  Under section 175(A)(b), the SIP must be
revised to provide for maintenance for a further ten-year period beyond
the initial 10-year period.  Under section 175A, the SIP must provide
for maintenance for a minimum of twenty (20) years after redesignation. 
This TSD will evaluate the maintenance plan in light of any applicable
requirements under section 175A with respect to both the 1-hour and
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Harrisburg Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted for approval under section
175A of the CAA, the March 27, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill section
175(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard.  Pennsylvania submitted the
January 25, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill section 175A(a) by
demonstrating that the Harrisburg Area will maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation as required by section
175A(a).

Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will
ensure that the SIP for the Harrisburg Area meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour
ozone standard.

(a)  Attainment Inventory

An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.  The PADEP
determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year was 2004. 
That year establishes a reasonable year within the three-year attainment
period of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.  These
2004 levels of emissions are representative of attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is
based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NOx during
2004, and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. 
(See Table 6).  The Technical Appendices submitted with this
redesignation request contain more detailed information for each sector
on the emissions inventories required for this redesignation. 

Table 6:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	NonRoad	Mobile	Total

VOC	2.4	28.9	19.0	36.9	87.2

NOx	12.9	3.1	20.2	76.2	112.5

To develop the NOx and VOC base-year emission inventories, PADEP used
the approaches and sources of data listed below.  More information on
the compilation of the 2002 base-year emissions inventory can be found
in the Appendices to this submittal.

Point Source Emissions

Pennsylvania requires larger facilities to submit annual production
figures and emission calculations each year.  Throughput data are
multiplied by emission factors from the Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE) Data System and are based on Source Classification Code (SCC). 
Each process has at least one SCC assigned to it.  If the facilities
provide more accurate emission data based upon other factors, this data
supersedes that calculated using SCC codes.  For the 2004 attainment
inventory, emissions from stationary point sources have been compiled
from the submissions described in the previous section for the
compilation of the 2002 base year.  

Area Source Emissions

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

On-Road Mobile Sources 																				

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. The Harrisburg Area’s highway vehicle
emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates
of VMT by vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information
specific to the Harrisburg Area where appropriate.  More information on
highway methods is available in the Technical Appendixes (Appendix C) of
the submittal. 															

Non-road  Sources

The 2002 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD
model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions
from aircraft or locomotives.  For 2002 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  Emissions from
commercial aircraft for 2002 are estimated using the EPA-approved
Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) 4.20, the latest version
available at the time the inventory was developed.  Commercial aircraft
operations were significant in the Harrisburg Area and were modeled by
the EDMS model directly.  Harrisburg International Airport (HIA)
accounts for all commercial operations in the area.  Small aircraft
emissions were calculated by using small airport operation statistics,
which can be found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com" 
www.airnav.com  and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) APO
Terminal Area Forecast Detailed Report.  The 2004 emissions for the
majority of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the
EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  For 2004 locomotive emissions, the Department
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  Emissions from
commercial aircraft were estimated using the EPA-approved Emissions &
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  Growth was estimated using estimates
of future operations at HIA from the FAA APO Terminal Area Forecast
Detailed Report.  Small aircraft emissions were calculated using small
airport operation statistics, which can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com  and the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) APO Terminal Area Forecast Detailed Report.

 (b)  Maintenance Demonstration 

												

On March 27, 2007, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Harrisburg Area maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and continued maintenance of the
1-hour ozone NAAWS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of
VOC and NOx remain at or below the  attainment year emission levels
throughout the Harrisburg Area through 2018.  A maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, Supra;
Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra.  See also 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at
25430-32.															

Table 7 specifies the VOC and NOx emissions for the Harrisburg Area for
2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the
10-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and
NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment
level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period.  Tables 8 and 9
specify the 2009 and 2018 emissions by County and Source Type.										
	

Table 7:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2004-2018 (tons per summer
day)

Total VOC Emissions

Source Category	2004	2009	2018

Stationary Point Sources	2.4	3.0	3.8

Stationary Area Sources	28.9	27.4	29.4

Highway Vehicles*	36.9	30.1	20.6

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles	19.0	16.0	13.4

Total	87.2	76.5	67.2

*Includes safety margin identified in motor vehicle budgets for
transportation conformity.

Total NOx Emissions

Source Category	2004	2009	2018

Stationary Point Sources	12.9	19.8	23.8

Stationary Area Sources	3.1	3.2	3.4

Highway Vehicles*	76.2	56.0	24.4

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles	20.2	17.1	12.3

Total	112.5	96.2	63.9

*Includes safety margin identified in motor vehicle budgets for
transportation conformity.

Table 8:  2009 VOC and NOx Emissions by County and Source Type

VOC Emissions

	Stationary Point	Stationary Area	Highway	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	1.0	9.9	10.1	3.6	24.6

Dauphin	0.8	9.7	11.0	8.0	29.5

Lebanon	1.1	5.6	4.2	2.7	13.6

Perry	0.0	2.3	2.2	1.7	6.3

Conformity Margins

	

2.6

2,6

Total	3.0	27.4	30.1	16.0	76.5

NOx Emissions

	Stationary Point	Stationary Area	Highway	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	14.4	1.1	22.9	4.3	42.6

Dauphin	2.4	1.2	17.8	5.8	27.2

Lebanon	2.7	0.7	9.3	3.8	16.5

Perry	0.3	0.2	3.3	3.3	7.1

Conformity Margins

	

2.7

2.7

Total	19.8	3.2	56.0	17.1	96.2

Table 9:  2018 VOC and NOx Emissions by County and Source Type

VOC Emissions

	Stationary Point	Stationary Area	Highway	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	1.3	11.0	7.1	3.1	22.5

Dauphin	1.0	10.1	6.7	6.8	24.6

Lebanon	1.5	5.9	2.1	2.1	11.7

Perry	0.0	2.5	1.2	1.3	5.0

Conformity Margins

	

3.4

3.4

Total	3.8	29.4	10.6	13.4	67.2

NOx Emissions

	Stationary Point	Stationary Area	Highway	Nonroad	Total

Cumberland	17.8	1.2	9.6	2.8	31.4

Dauphin	2.7	1.2	7.0	4.4	15.3

Lebanon	3.0	0.8	3.5	2.5	9.8

Perry	0.4	0.3	1.5	2.7	4.7

Conformity Margins

	

2.8

2.8

Total	23.8	3.4	24.4	12.3	63.9

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

Stationary Point Sources

NOx SIP Call -  In response to the Federal NOx SIP Call rule,
Pennsylvania adopted NOx control regulations for large industrial
boilers and internal combustion engines, electric generating units, and
cement plants which became effective between May 1, 2002-2005 (66 FR
43795 August 21, 2001). 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) --The Federal CAIR regulations (70 FR
25162, May 12, 2005) will transition from the NOx SIP Call electronic
generating unit regulations in 2009 and continue to ensure that large
electric generation facilities upwind of the Area will maintain
background emissions at or below 2002 levels while any new facilities
locating within the area will be required to obtain both offsets and
allowances that will ensure ambient equivalence with regard to ozone
production potential.  Pennsylvania and other nearby States are required
to adopt a regulation implementing CAIR or its equivalent.  On April 28,
2006 (71 FR 23528), EPA promulgated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
to reduce the interstate transport of NOx and sulfur dioxides that
contribute significantly to nonattainment and maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  The electric generating units (EGUs) in the
CAIR-covered States will be regulated under the FIPs until revisions to
SIPs for the implementation of the CAIR requirements are approved by
EPA.  

Because Pennsylvania did not adopt its own CAIR requirements and submit
them to EPA as a SIP revision by September 2006, the FIP remains
operative, imposing the Federal program upon CAIR-affected EGUs in
Pennsylvania.  Therefore, allowances for CAIR-related sources will be
limited to no more than the allowances issued pursuant to the FIP, but
additional allowances may be purchased under the cap-and-trade rule in
the FIP.  The Harrisburg Area has several sources which are subject to
regulation under CAIR.  For the maintenance demonstration, Pennsylvania
did not rely upon any reductions from CAIR from these facilities. 
However, the quality of air transportaed from upwind sources into the
county would be improved.

Stationary Area Sources

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

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

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

The AIM program is contained in 25 PA Code Chapter 130, subpart C.  It
was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 3, 2003, with a
supplement submitted on October 19, 2004.  The program was approved by
EPA on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68080).

Highway Vehicle Sources

Highway vehicle emissions of both VOC and NOx will continue to decrease,
as more vehicles subject to cleaner new car standards replace older
vehicles subject to less stringent new vehicle standards, and the fleet
as a whole emits fewer emissions, compensating for the increase in VMT. 

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

In 2009 and 2018, vehicles manufactured to meet Federal standards
through Tier 0, 1, and 2 will still be in Pennsylvania’s fleet.

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAAA of 1990 include NOx
and VOC limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light-duty
gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards began to be phased in starting
in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were also reduced in
gasoline-powered cars starting with model year (MY) 1998.  

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

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the National Low
Emissions Vehicle (NLEV) program as a compliance alternative to the
Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles program.  The NLEV program became effective
in the OTR in 1999.  Pennsylvania’s New Motor Vehicle Control Program
regulations (25 Pa Code Sections 126.401-441) allowed automobile
manufacturers to comply with NLEV instead of the California Low Emission
Vehicle (CA LEV) program through MY 2005.  These regulations affected
vehicles 6,000 pounds and less and were the regulations in effect for
new motor vehicles in the baseline year, 2002.

In 1999, EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV (Tier 2)
(65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), starting with the 2004 MY.  In order to
participate in NLEV, Pennsylvania was required to adopt language that
extended its “commitment” to NLEV until MY 2006.  In practical
terms, the NLEV program was replaced for model year 2004 and later by
the more stringent Federal Tier 2 vehicle emissions regulations and
vehicle manufacturers operating the NLEV program became subject to the
Tier 2 requirements.  Therefore, this plan assumes that the Federal Tier
2 program governs new vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the attainment
year, 2004.  The incorporated CA LEV requirements are applicable in the
Commonwealth for MY 2006 and each model year thereafter.

The same regulation required the reduction of sulfur in gasoline
beginning in 2004.  In the first year of the program, sulfur levels were
capped at 300 ppm and annual refinery corporate averages were limited to
no more than 120 ppm.  This analysis uses the default assumptions
provided in MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for conventional fuel
sold in the Harrisburg Area.

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

The New Motor Vehicle Control Program, which includes the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles Program, incorporated the California Low Emission Vehicle
Program (CA LEV) by reference, which allowed automakers to comply with
the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania program until MY
2006.  Under the existing program, compliance with the CA LEV
requirements was required as of MY 2006.  Pennsylvania is currently
undergoing rulemaking to delay compliance with the Pennsylvania Clean
Vehicles Program until MY 2008.  Emissions for all maintenance plan
milestone years were estimated based on compliance with the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles Program according to the methodology described in section
7.4.1 of “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 for Emissions
Inventory Preparation,” published by EPA’s Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (OTAQ), in January, 2002.  This methodology is further
explained in Appendix C.  In order to provide conservative estimates of
emissions, Pennsylvania is assuming in its MOBILE modeling that the
Federal Tier 2 program applies to subject vehicles sold in Pennsylvania
from MY 2004 through MY 2007, and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program applies to subject vehicles sold in model year 2008 and beyond.

Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs

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

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

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

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

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program

In late 2003 – early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its Vehicle Emission
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program into the Harrisburg Area.  The
program applies to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under,
model years 1975 and newer.  For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program
consists of an annual on-board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure
test.  For subject vehicles 1995 and older, the program consists of an
annual visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are
present, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap
pressure test.  Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program to
EPA as a SIP revision on December 1, 2003.  EPA approved the SIP
revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

Truck Stop Electrification

In July 2006, 72 electrified parking spaces became available at the
Petro truck stop in the Harrisburg Area, due to state financial
assistance.  IdleAire’s Advanced Truck Stop Electrification (ATE®)
technology provides heating, cooling and electricity to truckers who are
resting.  The system eliminates the need to keep truck engines idling
for hours at a time.  The technology can be connected to the cab of a
tractor-trailer using a simple $10 window adapter.  Emission reductions
from this facility are not being incorporated into the SIP at this time.
 However, it is expected that this facility could reduce NOx emissions
by approximately 0.2 tons per day (70 tons per year) and VOC emissions
by approximately 0.01 tons per day (3 tons per year).

Nonroad Sources

EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel-powered
(“compression ignition”) and gasoline-powered (“spark ignition”)
nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and applications (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).  Information on these federal rules can be found
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/nonroad"  www.epa.gov/nonroad . 
PADEP used the assumptions built into the nonroad model (NONROAD2005) to
estimate emissions for all milestone years.

No new national or international regulations are expected to be
applicable to aircraft during the maintenance period.  While EPA has
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking indicating their
consideration of more stringent standards for locomotives and large
commercial marine diesel engines, they have not finalized any new
standards.

EPA will also require diesel fuel used in most nonroad applications to
contain less sulfur.  The reduced sulfur will prevent damage to the
advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standards,
and will reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines. In 2007,
fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 parts per million (ppm) for
nonroad applications other than ocean-going marine vessels. In 2010,
fuel sulfur levels will be reduced to the same sulfur concentration as
in highway fuel, 15 ppm.  This requirement applies in 2012 to locomotive
and marine diesel fuel.

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEQ has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard
should be maintained in the Harrisburg Area. Through 2018.  The March
27, 2007 Maintenance Plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for 11 years after submission.

(c)  Monitoring Network

There are currently three monitors measuring ozone in the Harrisburg
Area.  The Commonwealth has committed to continue to operate its current
air quality monitoring network located in the Harrisburg Area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for
monitoring.

(d)  Verification of Continued Attainment

In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program,
Pennsylvania requires ambient and source emissions data to track
attainment and maintenance.  The Commonwealth will track the attainment
status of the ozone NAAQS in the area by reviewing air quality and
emissions data during the maintenance period.  The Commonwealth will
perform an annual evaluation of two key factors:  VMT data and emissions
reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions
about these factors used in the maintenance plan.  The Commonwealth will
also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories
prepared under EPA’s Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40
CFR 51 subpart A) to see if they exceed the attainment year inventory
(2004) by more than 10 percent.  Based on these evaluations, the
Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures
should be implemented.  

(e)  Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures

The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  Section 175A of
the Act requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  The
maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the
adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency
measures that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule
indicating the time frame by which the State would adopt and implement
the measure(s).  

The ability of the Harrisburg Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOx emissions in
the area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan projects VOC and NOx emissions to decrease and stay
below 2004 levels through 2018, and lays out situations where the need
to adopt and implement contingency measures to further reduce emissions
would be triggered.  Those situations are as follows:  

(i)  If for two consecutive years, the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at a monitor in the Harrisburg Area are above 84
ppb.—If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate
whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented
in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard.  PADEP will
also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, State, and local
measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the
excessive ozone levels occurred.  PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures.

(ii)  A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs—In the
event a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard at a monitor in the
Harrisburg Area, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return
the Area to attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to be
considered for the Harrisburg Area will include, but not be limited to
the following:

Regulatory measures:

Additional controls on consumer products.

Additional controls on portable fuel containers.

Non-regulatory measures:

Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash” (installation software to
correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines).

Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel
use (for public or private local on-road or off-road fleets).

Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.

Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses,
and other freight handling facilities.

Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial
equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.

Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.

The following schedule applies to the implementation of the regulatory
contingency measures: 

Within 1 month of the trigger, submit a request to begin the regulatory
development process.

Within 3 months of the trigger, review by Air Quality Technical Advisory
Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), and other advisory
committees as appropriate.

Within 6 months of the trigger, Environmental Quality Board
meeting/action..

Within 8 months of the trigger, publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin for
comment     as proposed rulemaking.

Within 10 months of the trigger, public hearing takes place and comment
period on      proposed rule closes.

Within 11 months of the trigger, House and Senate Standing Committees
and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comment on proposed
rule.

Within 13 months of the trigger, AQTAC, CAC, and other committees review
responses to comments and draft final rulemaking.

 Within 16 months of the trigger, EQB meeting/action.

 Within 17 months of the trigger, IRRC action on rulemaking.

 Within 18 months of the trigger, Attorney General’s review/action.

Within 19 months of the trigger, publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin as a final rulemaking and submit to EPA as a SIP revision.  The
regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.

		. 

The following schedule applies to the implementation of non-regulatory
contingency measures:

 Within 2 months of the trigger, identify stakeholders for potential
non-regulatory measures.

 Within 3 months of the trigger, if funding is necessary, identify
potential sources of funding and the timeframe under which funds would
be available.  In addition to 

non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following programs may be able to
provide funding: for transportation projects, Federal Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality funds from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHA), as allocated to the two MPOs in the Harrisburg Area.  Discussions
will be held with PENNDOT and the MPOs to ensure that emission credits
could be allocated for attainment purposes, rather than for
transportation conformity.  For projects which also have an energy
efficiency co-benefit, the Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Program.  For
projects which would be undertaken by small business and are pollution
prevention projects, the Small Business Advantage Grant and Small
Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs. or projects which involve
alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling operations, the Alternative
Fuel Incentive Grant program. For projects involving diesel emissions,
the Federal Energy Policy Act diesel reduction funds allocated to
Pennsylvania or for which Pennsylvania or project sponsors may apply
under a competitive process.

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

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

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

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

Section 175A(b) of the CAA will also require PADEP to submit a revision
to the SIP eight years after the original redesignation request is
approved to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Harrisburg Area for an additional 10 years following the first 10-year
period.  PADEP has committed to meet the requirements under section
175A(b).

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

A.  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the Harrisburg Plan

Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas.  These control
strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and
maintenance plans identify and establish motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from on-road mobile sources.  Pursuant to 40 CFR part
93 and 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. 
A MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.  A MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area’s planned transportation system. 
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).  The preamble
also describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as
the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the State’s air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks.  “Conformity” to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of or
reasonable progress towards the NAAQS.  If a transportation plan does
not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward.  Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity.
 Under 40 CFR 93.118(e), EPA can issue such an affirmative finding of
adequacy in advance of final action on the SIP.  Or, EPA can forgo
issuance of a separate finding by issuing the determination of the
adequacy of the MVEBs in the final action approving the SIP.  This
latter course of action is used when action on the SIP is expected to be
completed in a timeframe comparable to the expeditious process for a
separate adequacy finding.

After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs are adequate or
approves the MVEBs, those MVEBs must be used by State and federal
agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects
“conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA’s substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic
steps:  public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA’s adequacy finding.

This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was
initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.”  This guidance was finalized in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for
Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments – Response
to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004).  EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.

The MVEBS for the Harrisburg Area are listed in Tables 11 and 12 of this
document for 2009 and 2018 and are the projected emissions for the
on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated
to the MVEBs (safety margin allocation for 2009 and 2018 only). These
emission budgets, when approved by EPA must be used for transportation
conformity purposes.  Note that separate conformity budgets are being
established for each MPO.  The transportation conformity regulations (40
CFR § 93.124(d) allow a SIP to establish motor vehicle budgets for each
MPO if a nonattainment are includes more than one MPO.  The Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation has requested separate budgets to allow the
planning organizations to move their transportation conformity
determinations through the approval processes separately.

B.  What is a Safety Margin?

A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.  The following example is for the 2018 safety margin.  The
Harrisburg Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to
2004 time period.  The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for the Harrisburg Area.  The total
emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources
in 2004 equaled 87.2 tpd of VOC and 112.5 tpd of NOx.  PADEP projected
emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of 67.2 tpd of VOC
and 63.9 tpd of NOx from all sources in the Harrisburg Area.  The safety
margin for the Harrisburg Area for 2018 would be the difference between
these amounts.  This difference is 20 tpd of VOC and 48.6 tpd of NOx. 
The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the
safety margins are projected to maintain the Area’s air quality
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels
are maintained at or below the attainment levels.  Table 10 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years for the Harrisburg Area.

Table 10:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margin  for the Harrisburg Area

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (tpd)

2004 Attainment	87.2	112.5

2009 Interim	76.5	96.2

2009 Safety Margin	10.7	16.3

2004 Attainment	87.2	112.5

2018 Final	67.2	63.9

2018 Safety Margin	20.0	48.6

PADEP allocated 1,803 kilograms per day (2.0 tpd) VOC and 1,988
kilograms per day (2.2 tpd) NOx to the 2009 interim VOC projected
on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009 interim NOx
projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to arrive at the
2009 MVEBs for the portion of the planning area covered by the HATS. 
Likewise for the HATS portion, for the 2018 MVEBs, the PADEP allocated
2,497 kilograms per day (2.8 tpd) VOC and 2,035 kilograms (2.2 tpd) of
NOx from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs.  The PADEP
allocated 505 kilograms per day (0.6 tpd) VOC and 489 kilograms per day
(0.5 tpd) NOx to the 2009 interim VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions projections and the 2009 interim NOx projected on-road mobile
source emissions projections to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs for the portion
of the planning area covered by the LEBCO MPO.  Likewise for the LEBCO
MPO portion, for the 2018 MVEBs, the PADEP allocated 565 kilograms per
day (0.6 tpd) VOC and 475 kilograms (0.5 tpd) NOx from the 2018 safety
margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile
source budgets, these portions of the safety margins are no longer
available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source category. 
Table 11 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for Cumberland, Dauphin,
and Perry Counties, and table 12 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for
Lebanon County,

Table 11:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry
Counties (HATS)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions	NOx Emissions

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	21,212 (23.4)
39,929 (44.0)

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  1,803 (2.0)	  1,988 (2.2)

2009 MVEBs	23,014 (25.4)	41,917 (46.2)

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	13,639 (15.0)
16,374 (18.0)

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  2,497 (2.8)	  2,035 (2.2)

2018 MVEBs	16,136 (17.8)	18,409 (20.3)

Table 12:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Lebanon County (LEBCO)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions	NOx Emissions

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	3,796 (4.2)	8,
439 (9.3)

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	   505 (0.6)	   489 (0.5)

2009 MVEBs	4,301 (4.7)	8, 928 (9.8)

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	1,947 (2.1)	3,
209 (3.5)

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  565 (0.6)	    475 (0.5)

2018 MVEBs	2,512 (2.8)	3,684 (4.1)

C.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area are approvable because
the MVEBs for NOx and VOC, emissions continue to maintain the total
emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required
by the transportation conformity regulations.  See “Technical Support
Document for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets:  2009 and 2018 Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budges in the Mainatenance Plan for the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Pennsylvania Ozone Nonattainment Area,”
dated April 10, 2007, which is part of this docket.

D.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Harrisburg Area Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area maintenance plan are being posted to
EPA’s conformity website concurrently with this proposal.  The public
comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period
for this proposed rule.  In this case, EPA is concurrently processing
the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the
MVEBs contained therein.  In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to
find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part
of the maintenance plan.  The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.

If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Harrisburg Area MVEBs, or any other aspect of our
proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to
the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the
adequacy process as a separate action.  Our action on the Harrisburg
Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA’s conformity Web site:   
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq"  http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq ,
(once there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for
“Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”).

III.  Conclusions and Recommended Agency Action:

The Harrisburg Area has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that
satisfies section 175A and for  redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Therefore, I recommend that the
maintenance plan for the Harrisburg Area be approved as fulfilling the
requirements of section 175A(a) of the CAA with respect to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  I also recommend approving the 2002 base-year inventory
and the MVEBs for the Harrisburg Area.  The Area has attained both the
8-hour ozone and 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data
from AQS.

IV.  List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation Guidance Memos and Documents

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

		Laxton, June 18, 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

	January 18, 2002.

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

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

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

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

		March 14, 2006.

•		“Temporal Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
Profiles,” 

		Memorandum from Gregory Stella, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, 

		April 29, 2002.

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

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

		November 2005.

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

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

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

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

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

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

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

		

 Under the rules set foth in 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I thereto, the
design value is the average of the fourth daily high recorded values for
three consecutive years truncated after the third (3rd) significant
figure.  

 On December 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
South Coast Air Quality Management District v EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.D.
Cir. December 22, 2006), held that certain provisions of EPA’s Phase I
Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004)
violated the Clean Air Act. EPA’s interpretation in the final rule
preamble regarding the applicability of the NOx SIP Call under section
107 of the CAA was not one of those provisions deemed in violation.

   As an area classified under subpart 1, a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of all emissions sources is a requirement under
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA but would not be an applicable requirement
for the purposes of redesignation because this submittal is due June 15,
2007 (under 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) which is after the date
Pennsylvania submitted the complete redesignation request and
maintenance plan.  EPA believes that a base year inventory meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) meets the requirements of section
172(c)(3).  Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or
amend reasonably available control techniques (RACT) for sources in
marginal areas, such as the Harrisburg Area, that were subject to
control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued before November 15, 1990
pursuant to CAA section 108.  On December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved
into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under section
182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994).  EPA believes
that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher classified
areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the CAA;
therefore, this is a one-time requirement.  After an area has fulfilled
the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no
requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS.   

 Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States to submit
revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and
procedures for determining transportation conformity.  Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets
that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   37 

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

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474