Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-05-15T04:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

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

FROM:	Ellen Wentworth

		Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Linda Miller, Acting Branch Chief    /s/

		Air Quality Planning Branch

DATE:	April 23, 2007

Background

On September 20, 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Lancaster, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania ozone nonattaiment Area (the
Lancaster Area) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS).  The Lancaster Area is comprised of the
County of Lancaster.  Also, on September 20, 2006, Pennsylvania
submitted a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory for the
Lancaster Area, as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.  PADEP
submitted a supplement to the technical support for the maintenance plan
on November 8, 2006.  The maintenance plan will ensure continued
attainment in the Area for at least 10 years after the Area is
redesignated.  

The Lancaster Area was designated a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour
health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003.  In July
2004, Pennsylvania requested that the EPA reclassify the Lancaster Area
to a “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area in accordance with
section 181(a)(4) of the CAA, which allows a state to request
reclassification if the design value in the nonattainment area is five
percent greater or five percent less than the level on which the
classification is based.  The Lancaster Area was reclassified by EPA as
a “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on September 22, 2004
(69 FR 56697).  

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 September
20, 2006 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.

 Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster 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 (2003-2005) of the monitored annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration.  In the Lancaster
Area, there is one ozone monitor located at the Abraham Lincoln Middle
School on Lehigh Avenue in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, that measures air
quality with respect to ozone. 

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 Lancaster Area
is attaining the ozone standard for the most recent three-year period of
2003 through 2005 (see Table 1 below).  The data collected at the ozone
monitor 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 Lancaster 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: Lancaster Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Abraham Lincoln Jr. High Grofftown Road, Site ID: 42-071-007

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.083

2004	0.081

2005	0.085

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.083 ppm

The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Lancaster Area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm.  In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  EPA
believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available
2006 data because review of the 2006 data indicates that the fourth
highest monitored exceedance was 0.085 ppm.  (See Appendix A for the
available 2006 data).  In summary, EPA has determined that the data
submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from the AQS indicates that the
Lancaster 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.  For the period 2003 through 2005, the average number of expected
exceedances was 0.3, which is less than 1.  In summary, for the period
2003 through 2005, EPA believes that the Lancaster Area is still in
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and taken from the AQS.  EPA believes this conclusion
remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because no
exceedances were recorded in the Lancaster Area in 2006.  (See Appendix
B and Table 2 below).

Table 2:  Lancaster Nonattainment Area Number of Expected Exceedances of
the 1-Hour Ozone Standard; Lancaster County Monitor/AQS ID 42-071-0007

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	1.0

2004	0.0

2005

	The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period
2003-2005 is 0.3

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 Lancaster Area has met all applicable 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, 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 Lancaster Area, and determined that
the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully
approved under section 110(k).  SIPs must be approved only with respect
to applicable requirements.

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

1.  General SIP Requirements

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

 

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) 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 Lancaster 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 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable
requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1) because the NOx rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment or nonattainment status for
the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.”  See 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30,
2004).  This statement made in the preamble to the April 30, 2004 final
rule was merely restating EPA’s longstanding interpretation:  The
requirement to submit revisions under the NOx SIP Call continues to
apply to areas after redesignation to attainment and is not a
requirement of section 110 and part D that is linked with an area’s
nonattainment status.  See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37799-37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). 
Similarly, with respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its
Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP
Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of
section 110(l) because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s
attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour)
NAAQS.”  See 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As explained later in this notice, two part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior
to the submission of the redesignation request.

2.  Part D Nonattainment 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 upon the area’s nonattainment
classification under section 181 of subpart 2 to part D of the CAA.  The
Lancaster Area was classified as a subpart 2 marginal 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).  See,
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. 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.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Lancaster Area is classified
under subpart 2.  We do not believe that any part of the court’s
opinion in South Coast would require that this subpart 2 classification
be changed upon remand to EPA.  However, even assuming for present
purposes that the Lancaster Area would become subject to a different
classification under a classification scheme created in a future role in
response to the court’s decision, that would not prevent EPA from
finalizing a redesignation for this area.  For the reasons set forth
below, we believe that any additional requirements that might apply
based on that different classification would not be applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request.

This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance only with the requirements due at
the time the request was submitted; and (2) consideration of the
inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might be
applied in the future.

First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Lancaster Area was classified under subpart 2 and was required to meet
the subpart 2 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); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004),
which upheld this interpretation.  See also, 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).  

Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted, but which might later become applicable.  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 any additional requirements
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation
request, but that might apply in the future.

Subpart 2 Requirements Specified by Section 182

With respect to the 8-hour standard, two part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for
the Lancaster Area prior to submission of the redesignation request. 
They are a 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area, and the
emissions statement rule requirement pursuant to section 182(a).  The
2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area is being proposed for
approval as a SIP revision concurrently with the Lancaster Area
maintenance plan.  Pennsylvania already has in its SIP an emissions
statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the
designated 8-hour nonattainment area, and that satisfies the emissions
statement requirement for the 8-hour standard.  See, 25 Pa. Code
135.21(a)(1) codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995.  
Therefore, EPA concludes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion
of section 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the CAA.

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and
New Source Review (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. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) since State conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules
apply where State rules have not been approved.  See, Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See
also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

In the case of the Lancaster Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR requirements will continue to be applicable after
redesignation.  On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision.  This revision imposes the OTR NSR
requirements in marginal and incomplete data ozone nonattainment areas
and ozone attainment areas within the Commonwealth, and will remain in
effect in the Lancaster Area even after redesignation to attainment. 
The OTR requirements are more stringent than those required in marginal
ozone nonattainment areas because a lower threshold for what constitutes
a major stationary source of VOC emissions is required and a higher
offset ratio is required.  The threshold for what constitutes a major
stationary source of VOC emissions for marginal areas is 100 tons per
year (tpy) under section 182(a) of the CAA whereas the OTR threshold is
50 tpy under section 184.  Under section 182(a) the offset ratio for
marginal areas is 1:1:1, whereas under section 184, the OTR requirement
is 1:15:1.  Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP also imposes the NSR requirements
on major sources of NOx emissions as required by section 182(f) of the
CAA. 

3.  Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard 

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 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.

The conformity portion of the Court’s ruling does not impact the
redesignation request for the Lancaster Area because there are no
conformity requirements that are relevant to a redesignation request for
any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation
conformity SIP.  As we have previously noted, 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.  40 CFRR 51.390.  See, Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See also,
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida redesignation).

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area are discussed in the following paragraphs

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
Lancaster Area.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for
sources in  marginal areas, such as the Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area because this area did not have nor was 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 Lancaster
Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision with
the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area.

Section 182(a)(2)(C) required Pennsylvania to adopt a NSR Permit Program
or to correct its existing program to meet EPA guidance requirements
issued prior to 1990.  As discussed previously, EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the NSR requirements of part D as not requiring
approval prior to redesignation.  However, as noted previously, EPA has
fully approved Pennsylvania’s NSR program for the Lancaster Area.

Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NOx in the
nonattainment area to submit 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
Lancaster 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 Lancaster 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.

As noted previously, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity requirements of part D as not requiring approval
prior to redesignation.  

As stated previously, EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1993, and we further
believe that the Lancaster Area has met all 1-hour ozone requirements
and is still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

4.  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 Lancaster 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 Lancaster 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 the
NSR program, 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
designation and classification. See, 61 FR 53174 at  53175-53176
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at  24830-24832 (May 7, 1997). 

4.  Lancaster Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for the Lancaster Area under section 110(k) of the CAA. 
EPA may relay on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request.  See Calcagni Memo at p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may
approve in conjunction with a redesignation action.  See, 68 FR at 25425
(May 12, 2003) and citations therein. 

The Lancaster Area was a 1-hour ozone marginal nonattainment area at the
time of its designation as a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on
September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697).  As stated previously, two part D,
subpart 2 requirements became due for the Lancaster Area prior to
redesignation—the 2002 base-year inventory, and the emissions
statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B).  PADEP has
submitted and EPA is proposing approval of the outstanding SIP
requirements concurrently with this redesignation request.  Therefore,
the applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP
requirements.

C.  The Air Quality Improvement in the Lancaster 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 area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.  EPA approved
Pennsylvania’s SIP control strategy for the Lancaster Area, including
enforceable rules and the emissions reductions achieved as a result of
those rules.  Emission reductions attributable to these rules are shown
in Table 3.

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 *	8.5	24.5	17.4	23.4	73.8

2004 **	8.1	24.4	17.3	19.8	69.6

Diff.(02-04)	0.4	0.1	0.1	  3.6	  4.2

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 *	3.6	2.6	13.7	36.9	56.8

2004 **	3.9	2.6	13.2	32.3	52.0

Diff (02-04)	-0.3	0.0	0.5	4.6	  4.8

*  The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
banked emission credits of 3.7 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX as indicated
in Technical Appendix A-4 to Pennsylvania’s SIP submission.

	**  The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked        emission credits as indicated in Technical
Appendix A-4 to Pennsylvania’s SIP submission.

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 5.7 percent from 73.8
tpd to 69.6 tpd; NOx emissions decreased by 8.4 percent from 56.8 tpd to
52.0 tpd.  These reductions and anticipated future reductions are due to
the following permanent and enforceable measures:  

Stationary Point Sources

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 which became effective between May 1, 2002-2005.  While
there are no affected units located in Lancaster County, upwind
reductions in Pennsylvania and other States assisted in bringing the
area into attainment (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).

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 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. 
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 Lancaster County.

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 February, 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program into Lancaster County.  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).

 Nonroad Sources

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

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

D.  Maintenance Plan for Lancaster

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after redesignation.  A
maintenance plan consists of the following requirements as outlined in
section 175A of the CAA:  (a) an attainment inventory; (b) a maintenance
demonstration; (c) a monitoring network; (d) verification of continued
attainment; and (e) a contingency plan. 

(a)  Attainment Inventory

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 block of
2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions attributable to
implementation of the CAA requirements to date.  The 2004 inventory is
consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer
day” emissions of VOC and NOx during 2004, and consists of a list of
sources and their associated emissions.  (See Table 4).  The Technical
Appendices submitted with this redesignation request contain more
detailed information for each sector on the emissions inventories
required for this redesignation. 

Table 4:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	NonRoad	Mobile	Total

VOC	8.1	24.4	17.3	19.8	69.6

NOx	3.9	2.6	13.2	32.3	52.0

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.

Stationary 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, MOBILE6.2 to estimate
highway vehicle emissions.  Lancaster County highway vehicle emissions
in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of VMT by
vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information specific
to Lancaster County where appropriate.  More information on highway
methods is available in the Technical Appendices (Appendix C) of the
submittal.  The estimates used information specific to Lancaster County
where appropriate. 

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.  There are no
commercial aircraft operations in Lancaster County.  For 2002 aircraft
emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operations
statistics from   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com  and
emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved
model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  The 2004
emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source categories were
estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  For 2004 locomotive
emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national
fuel consumption information and EPA emission and conversion factors. 
There are no commercial aircraft operations in Lancaster County.  For
2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport
operation statistics from   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com" 
www.airnav.com , and emission factors and operational characteristics in
the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
 Growth was calculated using estimates of small airport activity from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s or APO terminal area
forecast detailed report.  

(b)  Maintenance Demonstration

On September 20, 2006, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the CAA.  The Lancaster Area maintenance
plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that
current and future emissions of VOC and NOx remain at or below the
attainment year 2004 emission levels throughout the Lancaster Area
through the year 2018.  A maintenance demonstration need not be based on
modeling.  See, Wall v. EPA, Supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra.  See
also, 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32.

Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Lancaster Area
for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  The 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.

Table 5:  Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category	2004 VOC Emissions	2009 VOC Emissions	2018 VOC Emissions

Point *	8.1	8.7	11.0

Area	24.4	24.2	27.2

Mobile	19.8	14.3	7.8

Non-road	17.3	15.0	11.9

Total	69.6	62.2	57.9

Table 6:  Total NOx Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category	2004 NOx Emission	2009 NOx Emissions	2018 NOx

Emissions

Point *	3.9	4.1	4.6

Area	2.6	2.8	2.9

Mobile	32.3	22.3	9.0

Non-road	13.2	10.8	6.8

Total	52.0	39.9	23.2

	Totals may vary due to rounding.  See Appendices.

	*The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4 to
Pennsylvania’s SIP submission.

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

Stationary Point Sources

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

NOx SIP Call -  In response to the Federal NOx SIP Call rule,
Pennsylvania adopted NOx control regulations for large industrial
boilers and internal combustion engines, electric generating units, and
cement plants which became effective between May 1, 2002-2005.  While
none of the affected units are located in Lancaster County, upwind
reductions continue to assist in maintaining the standard in the County.
 (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).

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 Lancaster County

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 February, 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program into Lancaster County.  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).

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 Lancaster Area.

(c)  Monitoring Network

There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Lancaster Area. 
The Commonwealth has committed to continue to operate its current air
quality monitor (located in Lancaster County) 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 Lancaster 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 the Lancaster monitor 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 of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard at the Lancaster
monitor, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return the
Area to attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to be
considered for Lancaster 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: the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA), as allocated to the Lancaster MPO for
transportation projects; the Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Program for
energy efficiency projects; the Small Business Advantage Grant and Small
Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs for projects undertaken by
small business and pollution prevention projects; the Alternative Fuel
Incentive Grant Program for projects which involve alternative fuel for
vehicles/refueling operations; the Energy Policy Act diesel reduction
funds for projects involving diesel emissions.

Within 6 months of the trigger, work with the Lancaster County 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, enter into agreements with implementing
organizations if State loans or grants are involved.  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 NAAQS in the Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area meets the requirements
of section 175A of the Act

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the Lancaster Plan

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

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

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity.
 After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by State and
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects
“conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA’s substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

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

The MVEBS for the Lancaster Area are listed in Table 7 below for the
years 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations.

Table 7:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Lancaster Area

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

2009 	14.3	22.3

2018	7.8	9.0

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 safety margin is the extra emissions that can be
allocated as long as the total attainment level of emissions is
maintained.  The credit, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any
of the source categories.  (See Table 4)

PADEP is at this time preserving the entire difference between
attainment and projected maintenance year emissions to ensure continued
maintenance of the standard. 

Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Lancaster Area are approvable because
the MVEBs for NOx and VOCs continue to maintain the total emissions at
or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the
transportation conformity regulations.

What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Lancaster
Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Lancaster 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 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 Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area MVEBs
will also be announced on EPA’s conformity Website:    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”).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The Lancaster Area has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that
satisfies section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment.  Also, the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
air quality monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I recommend that the
maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area be approved as fulfilling the
requirements of section 175A(a) of the CAA with respect to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and 

I recommend that the Lancaster Area be redesignated to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  I also recommend approving the 2002 base-year
inventory and the MVEBs for the Lancaster Area.

List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation Guidance Memos and Documents

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

		

		Laxton, June 18, 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

	January 18, 2002.

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

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

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

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

		March 14, 2006.

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

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

		

		April 29, 2002.

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

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

		November 2005.

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

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

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

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

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

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

		Quality Strategies and Standards Division, and Peter Tsirigotis,
Director, Emissions, 

		Monitoring, and Analysis Division, November 18, 2002.

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

 On December 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. E.P.A., 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.
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.

 The 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   2