Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0453-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-07-11T04:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

				June 21, 2007

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

FROM:	Christopher Cripps   /s/

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

Throughout this document whenever the words “we,” “us,” or
“our” are used, I mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

I.  Background

On April 26, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (the
Pittsburgh Area) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) of 40 CFR 50.10.  The Pittsburgh Area is
comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington,
and Westmoreland counties.  Also, on April 26, 2007, Pennsylvania
submitted a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory for the
Pittsburgh Area, as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.  The
maintenance plan will ensure continued attainment in the area for at
least 10 years after the area is redesignated.

The Pittsburgh 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 on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard
for ozone during the years 2001-2003.  

The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment.  Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E)
allows for redesignation providing that: 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. What is EPA Analysis of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Request
to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to Attainment?

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
April 26, 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.  Was the Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.10 Attained in the Pittsburgh Area?

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 through 2006.  In the Pittsburgh Area, there are thirteen
monitors that measure 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 Pittsburgh Area
is attaining the ozone standard for the most recent three-year period of
2003 through 2005 (see Table 1 below) and continues to attain based upon
2004 through 2006 data.  Table 1 provides a summary of the 8-hour ozone
design values for the four monitors with the highest design values in
the Pittsburgh area.  See Appendix A for the data for all monitors and
years.  

The data collected for the ozone monitors in the Pittsburgh Area
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 Pittsburgh 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: Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values

  Monitor:  California & 11th, Harrison Twp, Allegheny Co., AQS ID
42-003-1005                                     

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.081

2004	0.076

2005	0.087

2006	0.088

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm

Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning, Armstrong Co., AQS ID
42-005-0001

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.086

2004	0.082

2005	0.086

2006	0.080

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.082 ppm

Monitor:  Route 168 & Tomlinson Road, Beaver Co., AQS ID 42-007-0002

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.087

2004	0.081

2005	0.086

2006	0.082

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm

Monitor:  Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID
42-003-0010

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.088

2004	0.072

2005	0.092

2006	0.078

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.080 ppm

The air quality data for 2003 through 2005 shows that the Pittsburgh
Area has attained the standard with a design value of 0.084 ppm and has
continued to attain the standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm for
2004-2006.  In addition, as discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from the AQS indicates
that the Pittsburgh Area has attained and continues to attain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  Further details on this determination are found in
Appendix A of this document.

B.  How has 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 Pittsburgh 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, (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 Pittsburgh 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.  See, section 175A(c) of the CAA and
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 nitrogen oxides (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 Pittsburgh 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 at 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 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).

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
Pittsburgh 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 Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006)
(hereafter “South Coast”).  On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified that the
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule
that had been successfully challenged.  Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of  Title I,  part D of the Act as 8-hour  nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain
effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the Court’s rejection of 
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2.  By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged.  The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had 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) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of 
federal actions.  The June 8 decision clarified that the Court’s
reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.

This section sets forth EPA’s views on the potential effect of the
Court’s rulings on this proposed redesignation action.  For the
reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court’s rulings
alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation.  EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in light of the Court’s decisions
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 resignation.  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
Pittsburgh Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
only subpart 1 requirements.  Under EPA’s longstanding interpretation
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, 1to 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.  See 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; and 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.  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)
of the CAA.

As stated previously in this document, these requirements are not yet
due for purpose of redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area, but
nevertheless, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an emissions
statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the
Pittsburgh 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
Pittsburgh Area and concludes that this inventory can be approved.  See
“Technical Support Document (TSD) For Emissions Inventories for the
Pittsburgh – Beaver Valley Pennsylvania 8 Hour Ozone Redesignation
Request, Maintenance Plan, and, State Implementation Plan (SIP) Base
Year Inventory,” dated May 30, 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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the Pittsburgh Area need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation.  EPA
has 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 12467-68); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61
FR at 20458, 20469-70); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21,
1996).  In the case of Pennsylvania, 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
ozone attainment areas within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).  The OTR
NSR requirements are more stringent than that required for a marginal
area.  Nevertheless, 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
Pittsburgh 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 (I/M), and
Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure.

In the case of the Pittsburgh Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation. 
On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved the 1-hour NSR SIP
revision for the area.  

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  See the
Reading, Pennsylvania redesignation proposed and final rules, 61 FR
53174, (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), respectively. 
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, 53175-6
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).  

c. Conclusion

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 Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard 

a.  Requirements under the 1-Hour Standard

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Pittsburgh Area was 1-hour maintenance area which had been a former
nonattainment area classified under subpart 2 as moderate nonattainment.
 

The Pittsburgh Area had been designated and classified as a moderate
ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard.  See 56 FR 56694 at
56822, November 6, 1991.  On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA
approved a request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone standard and approved a maintenance plan SIP revision. 
In order to redesignate the area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard, EPA determined that Pennsylvania had fulfilled all Part D
requirements applicable to the Pittsburgh Area as a consequence of its
classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment.  See Pittsburgh final
rule (66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001) and proposed rules (66 FR 1925,
January 10, 2001 and 66 FR 29270, May 30, 2001).

Furthermore, with respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard,
the Pittsburgh Area was an attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act
section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard.    SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 The Court’s ruling in South Coast does not impact
redesignation requests for these types of areas.  First, there are no
conformity requirements that are relevant for redesignation requests,
including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP.  As
previously stated in this document, EPA believes that 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 (December
7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation).  

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Second, with respect to the other anti-backsliding
provisions for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not
properly retained, the Pittsburgh Area is an attainment area subject to
a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR and contingency
measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.

Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter any requirements that
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.

c.  Conclusion

Thus, Pennsylvania has met all applicable part D requirements under the
1-hour standard for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.

4.  The Pittsburgh Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of
Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for the Pittsburgh Area under section 110(k) of the CAA. 
EPA may relay on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with
a redesignation action.  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). 

The Pittsburgh Area was 1-hour maintenance area which had been a former
nonattainment area classified as moderate at the time of its designation
as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by the April 30, 2004
designations final rule (69 FR 23858).  Therefore, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.

C.  Was the Air Quality Improvement in the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh 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 2.

Table 2:  Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 tons per day
(tpd)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 **	16.5	100.3	51.5	86.4	254.7

2004 **	15.5	98.1	48.8	73.3	235.7

Diff.(02-04)	  1.0	  2.2	  2.7	13.1	  19.0

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 **	250.4	11.5	86.1	173.9	522.0

2004 **	202.8	11.7	81.5	148.8	444.8

Diff (02-04)	  47.6	-0.2	  4.6	  25.1	  77.2

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

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions the Pittsburgh Area decreased by
7.5 percent from 254.7 tpd to 235.7 tpd; NOx emissions decreased by 14.8
percent from 522.0 tpd to 444.8 tpd.  These reductions and anticipated
future reductions are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures:  

1. 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. 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. 
Pennsylvania’s Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction Regulations
can be found in Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 145 in
section 52.2020(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania SIP (40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)). 
EPA approved these regulations into the Pennsylvania SIP on August 21,
2001 (66 FR 43795) and September 29, 2006, (71 FR 57428).

2.  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 vehicles miles traveled (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 Pittsburgh 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 2004, Pennsylvania revised its Vehicle Emission
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program in the four applicable counties
(Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland) in the Pittsburgh 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 affected vehicles 1995 and older, the program
consists of an annual tailpipe test, 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.  Vehicles newer than
1975 but 25 years or older receive a visual inspection and gas cap test.
 These regulations can be found in Title 67 of the Pennsylvania Code,
Chapter 177 in section 52.2020(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania SIP (40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1)).  EPA approved the SIP revision on June 17, 1999 (64 FR
32411) and 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 .  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 and 1039, 1048 and 1051.  

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

III.  What is EPA’s Evaluation of the Maintenance Plan for the
Pittsburgh Area?

A.  Background and General

1.  General Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA

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.  

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.  This TSD will evaluate the maintenance plan
in light of any applicable requirements under section 175A with respect
to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2.  Pennsylvania’s Maintenance Plan Submission

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted for approval under section
175A of the CAA the April 26, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill section
175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour.  Pennsylvania submitted the April
26, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill Section 175A(a) by demonstrating
that the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area meets the applicable requirements
of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone
standards.

B.  What is the Attainment Inventory for the Pittsburgh Area?

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 1-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 5).  The Technical Appendices submitted with this
redesignation request contain more detailed information for each sector
on the emissions inventories required for this redesignation. 

Table 5:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

VOC	  15.5	98.1	48.8	  73.3	235.7

NOx	202.8	11.7	81.5	148.8	444.8

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. 

1.  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.

2.  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.  

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

4.  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.  NONROAD 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.  Commercial
aircraft operations are significant in the Pittsburgh area.  Pittsburgh
International Airport (PIT) accounts for all commercial operations in
the Pittsburgh area.  PADEP quantified the emissions at PIT with the
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) that is an EPA-approved
model.  For other 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions
using small aircraft operation statistics from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airnav.com"  www.airnav.com , and emission factors and
operational characteristics in EDMS.  The 2004 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 non-road equipment types and includes growth factors.  The
NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives.
For 2004 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999
survey using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and
conversion factors.  For 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated
emissions using emission factors and operational characteristics in
EDMS.  For PIT, growth was estimated using estimates of future
operations at PIT from the FAA APO Terminal Area Forecast Detailed
Report.  

For other aircraft operations, growth was calculated using estimates of
small airport activity from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)’s APO terminal area forecast detailed report.  

C.  How is Maintenance Demonstrated?

On April 26, 2007, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Pittsburgh Area’s 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 Pittsburgh 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 6 and 7 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Pittsburgh 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 6: Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category 	2004 VOC Emissions   	2009 VOC Emissions	2018 VOC
Emissions      

Mobile*	  73.3	  54.54	  32.91

Nonroad	  48.8	 39.1	34.6

Area	  98.1	 92.4	96.1

Point 	  15.5	 16.4	20.3

Total 	235.7	202.44	183.91

* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity.

Table 7: Total NOx Emissions 2004-2018 (tpd)

Source Category 	2004 NOx Emissions    	2009 NOx Emissions	2018 NOx
Emissions      

Mobile*	148.8	  101.53	    41.15

Nonroad	  81.5	  70.5	  55.6

Area	  11.7	  12.1	  12.2

Point	202.8	255.2	273.6

Total 	444.8	 439.33	 382.55

* Includes safety margin for 2009 and 2018 identified in the motor
vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity and is rounded to
nearest tenth..

2.  Summary of Control Measures

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

a.  Stationary Point Sources

(i) 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.  These
are codified in the Pennsylvania SIP in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1) under Title
25 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport
Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001; 71 FR 57428, September 29,
2006).  Upwind reductions also continue to assist in maintaining the
standard in the Pittsburgh Area.  

(ii)  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 but may purchase additional allowances under
the cap-and-trade rule in the FIP.  The Pittsburgh 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, CAIR will reduce the quantity of ozone
and ozone precursors transported from upwind areas and sources into the
Pittsburgh Area.

b.  Stationary Area Sources

(i) 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).

(ii) 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).

(iii) 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).

c.  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. 

(i) 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
Pittsburgh Area

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program

In 2004, Pennsylvania revised its Vehicle Emission
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program in the four applicable counties
(Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland) in the Pittsburgh 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 affected vehicles 1995 and older, the program
consists of an annual tailpipe test, 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.  Vehicles newer than
1975 but 25 years or older receive a visual inspection and gas cap test.
 These regulations can be found in Title 67 of the Pennsylvania Code,
Chapter 177 in section 52.2020(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania SIP (40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1)).  EPA approved the SIP revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR
58313).

d. 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.

3.  Conclusion

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 both the 8-hour ozone
standard should be maintained in the Pittsburgh Area through 2018.  The
April 26, 2007, Maintenance Plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for 11 years after submission.  

D.  How Will the Monitoring Network Be Maintained?

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

E.  How Will Continued Attainment Be Verified?

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.  

F.  What is the Contingency Plan in the Maintenance Plan? 

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 Pittsburgh 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:  

 

(1)  If for two consecutive years, the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the design monitor in the Pittsburgh 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.

(2)  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 a monitor in the
Pittsburgh Area, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return
the Area to attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to be
considered for the Pittsburgh 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, Environmental Quality Board (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 two municipal planning
organizations in the Pittsburgh Area; 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 area planning commissions
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.

H.  What about the Second Maintenance Plan for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
under Section 175A(b)?

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
Pittsburgh Area for an additional 10 years following the first 10-year
period.  PADEP has committed to meet the requirements under section
175A(b).

I.  What Is the Overall Result of EPA’s Analysis of the Maintenance
Plan?

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 Pittsburgh Area meets the requirements
of section 175A of the Act

IV. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the
Pittsburgh Area Plan and EPA’s Analysis of these Budgets?

A.  Background

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., reasonable further progress (RFP) SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and
establish motor vehicle emissions budget(s) [MVEB(s)] 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, motor
vehicle emission budgets (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.

B.  What Are the MVEBs in the Pittsburgh Area Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area are listed in Table 3 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 (or deemed adequate) by
EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations.

Table 8:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area

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

2009 	54.54	101.53

2018	32.91	  41.15

C.  What is EPA’s Analysis of the MVEBs?

1.  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. 

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 were 235.7 tpd of VOC and 444.8 tpd of NOx. 
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and obtained totals of
183.91 tpd of VOC and 382.55 tpd of NOx from all sources in the
Pittsburgh Area.  The safety margin for the Pittsburgh Area for 2018
would be the difference between these amounts.  This difference is 51.79
tpd of VOC and 62.25 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 9 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 9:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Pittsburgh Area 

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

2004 Attainment	235.7   	444.8

2009 Interim	  202.44	  439.33

2009 Safety Margin	   33.26	     5.47

2004 Attainment	235.7	444.8

2018 Final	 183.91	  382.55

2018 Safety Margin	  51.79	    62.25

PADEP allocated 3.58 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC on-road mobile
source emissions projection and 3.06 tpd NOx to the 2009 interim NOx
on-road mobile source emissions projection to arrive at the 2009 MVEBs. 
For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 4.60 tpd VOC and 3.32 tpd NOx
from the 2018 safety margins to the 2018 on-road mobile source emissions
projections 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 10 shows the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBS for the Pittsburgh Area.

Table 10:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area tons per
day (rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions 	NOx Emissions 

2009 projected on-road mobile source emissions	50.96	  98.47

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  3.58	    3.06

2009 MVEBs	54.54	101.53

2018 projected on-road mobile source emissions	28.31	  37.83

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	  4.60	    3.32

2018 MVEBs	32.91	  41.15

2.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Pittsburgh 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 “  SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 Technical Support Document - Findings for Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets; 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area,” dated May 17, 2007, which is part of this
docket.

3.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Pittsburgh Area’s Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area maintenance plan will be posted to
EPA’s conformity Website concurrently with the publication of the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the maintenance plan.  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 Pittsburgh Area’s 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 Pittsburgh
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”).

IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area be approved as fulfilling the
requirements of section 175A(a) of the CAA with respect to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  

I recommend that the Pittsburgh 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 Pittsburgh Area. 

V.  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.

Appendix A To Technical Support Document – Pennsylvania;
Redesignation To Attainment Of The Pittsburgh-Beaver-Valley,
Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area And Approval Of The
Area’s Maintenance Plan And 2002 Base-Year Inventory

Table 1: Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values

  Monitor:  California & 11th, Harrison Twp, Allegheny Co., AQS ID
42-003-1005                           

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.081

2004	0.076

2005	0.087

2006	0.088

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm

Monitor: Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning, Armstrong Co., AQS ID
42-005-0001

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.086

2004	0.082

2005	0.086

2006	0.080

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.082 ppm

Monitor:  Route 168 & Tomlinson Road, Beaver Co., AQS ID 42-007-0002

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.087

2004	0.081

2005	0.086

2006	0.082

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.083 ppm

Monitor:  Carnegie Science Center, Allegheny Rd., Pittsburgh, AQS ID
42-003-0010

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.088

2004	0.072

2005	0.092

2006	0.078

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.084 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.080 ppm

Table 1:  Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values (continued)

  Monitor:  Bapc 301 39th Street Bldg #7, Pittsburgh, Allegheny Co., AQS
ID 42-003-0008                                     

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.090

2004	0.072

2005	0.081

2006	0.078

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.077 ppm

Monitor:  Old Oakdale Road, South Fayette, Allegheny County, AQS ID
42-003-0067

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.089

2004	0.074

2005	0.085

2006	0.080

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.082 ppm

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

Monitor:  1015 Sebring Road, Beaver County, AQS ID 42-007-0005

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.083

2004	0.074

2005	0.086

2006	0.077

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

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



Table 1:  Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values (continued)

Monitor: Eight Street And River Alley, Beaver Falls, Beaver County, AQS 

ID 42-007-0014                                     

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.078

2004	0.069

2005	0.080

2006	0.069

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.075 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.072 ppm

Monitor:  Charler01 Waste Treatment Plant, Charleroi, Washington County,
AQS ID 42-125-0005

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.088

2004	0.072

2005	0.080

2006	0.079

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.080 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.077 ppm

Monitor:  McCarrell And Fayette Sts, Washington, Washington County, 

AQS ID 42-125-0200

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.088

2004	0.071

2005	0.085

2006	0.070

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.081 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.075 ppm



Table 1:  Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone
Values (continued)

  Monitor:  Hillman State Park - Kings Creek Road, Washington County, 

AQS ID 42-125-5001                                     

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.078

2004	0.073

2005	0.085

2006	0.076

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

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.078 ppm

Monitor:  Old William Penn Hwy & Sardis Ave, Westmoreland County, AQS ID
42-129-0006

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.083

2004	0.070

2005	0.087

2006	0.071

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.080 ppm

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

Monitor:  Donohoe Road - Penn Dot Maint. Dist. Bldg, Greensburg,
Westmoreland County, AQS ID 42-129-0008

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.091

2004	0.073

2005	0.083

2006	0.076

The average for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.082 ppm

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.077 ppm

The data for the area in the report (14 pages) titled “US EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) Quick Look report (AMP450)” dated Apr. 18, 2007,
and “US EPA - AirData Monitor Values Report - Criteria Air
Pollutants” dated 5-Apr-2007 are attached.

This page deliberately left blank for printing and copying purposes.*
US EPA - AirData Monitor Values Report - Criteria Air Pollutants

* Thursday, 5-Apr-2007 at 3:24:40 PM (USA Eastern time zone)

* Geographic Area: Allegheny Co, Armstrong Co, Beaver Co, Butler Co,
Fayette Co, Washington Co, Westmoreland Co, PA

* Pollutant: Ozone

* Year: 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003

* 

* 

* File Size  : 52 Rows

* File Format: TSV - Tab Separated Values

* Field   1: 1st Max (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   2: 2nd Max (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   3: 3rd Max (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   4: 4th Max (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   5: # Exceed-Actual (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   6: Est. # Exceed-Estimated (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   7: Required Days (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   8: # Days (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field   9: % Days (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field  10: Missing Days (1-Hour Ozone)

* Field  11: 1st Max (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  12: 2nd Max (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  13: 3rd Max (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  14: 4th Max (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  15: Days &gt; Std (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  16: Required Days (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  17: # Days (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  18: % Days (8-Hour Ozone)

* Field  19: Monitor Number (Ozone)

* Field  20: Year

* Field  21: Site ID

* Field  22: Site Address

* Field  23: City

* Field  24: County

* Field  25: State

* Field  26: EPA Region

Field Numbers:	

   1	   2	 3	4	5  6  7	     8    9	   10	11	12	13   14    15   16   17
18 19  20       21	     22

   22 (cont’d)       23		24	    25   26

0.130	0.109	0.104	0.102	1	1.0	214	214	100	0	0.122	0.105	0.092	0.090	5
214	213	100	1	2003	420030008	Bapc 301 39th Street Bldg #7	Pittsburgh
Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.089	0.086	0.083	0.081	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.077	0.074	0.073	0.072	0
214	212	99	1	2004	420030008	Bapc 301 39th Street Bldg #7	Pittsburgh
Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.097	0.094	0.092	0.090	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.085	0.082	0.081	0.081	1
214	213	100	1	2005	420030008	Bapc 301 39th Street Bldg #7	Pittsburgh
Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.096	0.095	0.091	0.090	0	0.0	214	212	99	2	0.086	0.085	0.080	0.078	2	214
212	99	1	2006	420030008	Bapc 301 39th Street Bldg #7	Pittsburgh
Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.135	0.110	0.105	0.101	1	1.0	214	213	100	1	0.122	0.103	0.090	0.088	5
214	213	100	1	2003	420030010	Carnegie Science Center - 1 Allegheny Rd
Pittsburgh	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.095	0.094	0.085	0.080	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.084	0.080	0.073	0.072	0
214	213	100	1	2004	420030010	Carnegie Science Center - 1 Allegheny Rd
Pittsburgh	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.119	0.105	0.103	0.101	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.098	0.096	0.092	0.092	4
214	213	100	1	2005	420030010	Carnegie Science Center - 1 Allegheny Rd
Pittsburgh	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.094	0.092	0.091	0.091	0	0.0	214	203	95	5	0.083	0.081	0.079	0.078	0	214
202	94	1	2006	420030010	Carnegie Science Center - 1 Allegheny Rd
Pittsburgh	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.132	0.112	0.109	0.103	1	1.1	214	200	93	2	0.121	0.105	0.094	0.089	4	214
198	93	1	2003	420030067	Old Oakdale Road, South Fayette		Allegheny Co	PA
03

0.102	0.093	0.082	0.080	0	0.0	214	198	93	6	0.089	0.080	0.075	0.074	1	214
197	92	1	2004	420030067	Old Oakdale Road, South Fayette		Allegheny Co	PA
03

0.107	0.106	0.105	0.095	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.103	0.095	0.094	0.085	4
214	214	100	1	2005	420030067	Old Oakdale Road, South Fayette		Allegheny
Co	PA	03

0.094	0.092	0.088	0.088	0	0.0	214	210	98	2	0.087	0.081	0.081	0.080	1	214
205	96	1	2006	420030067	Old Oakdale Road, South Fayette		Allegheny Co	PA
03

0.122	0.114	0.091	0.089	0	0.0	214	212	99	0	0.111	0.107	0.083	0.081	2	214
212	99	1	2003	420031005	California & 11th, Harrison Twp	Harrison
Township	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.094	0.091	0.088	0.087	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.081	0.079	0.078	0.076	0
214	212	99	1	2004	420031005	California & 11th, Harrison Twp	Harrison
Township	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.121	0.106	0.103	0.101	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.107	0.098	0.088	0.087	6
214	214	100	1	2005	420031005	California & 11th, Harrison Twp	Harrison
Township	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.118	0.103	0.100	0.096	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.093	0.091	0.088	0.088	4
214	214	100	1	2006	420031005	California & 11th, Harrison Twp	Harrison
Township	Allegheny Co	PA	03

0.120	0.109	0.103	0.093	0	0.0	214	212	99	2	0.113	0.103	0.087	0.086	5	214
212	99	1	2003	420050001	Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning	Kittanning
Armstrong Co	PA	03

0.096	0.093	0.093	0.091	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.085	0.084	0.083	0.082	1
214	213	100	1	2004	420050001	Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning	Kittanning
Armstrong Co	PA	03

0.123	0.104	0.101	0.097	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.109	0.094	0.088	0.086	4
214	214	100	1	2005	420050001	Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning	Kittanning
Armstrong Co	PA	03

0.118	0.101	0.101	0.096	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.101	0.089	0.084	0.080	2
214	214	100	1	2006	420050001	Glade Dr. & Nolte Rd. Kittanning	Kittanning
Armstrong Co	PA	03

0.125	0.111	0.111	0.096	1	1.0	214	214	100	0	0.121	0.106	0.100	0.087	6
214	213	100	1	2003	420070002	Route 168 & Tomlinson Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.094	0.090	0.089	0.087	0	0.0	214	212	99	2	0.084	0.082	0.081	0.081	0	214
211	99	1	2004	420070002	Route 168 & Tomlinson Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.115	0.106	0.097	0.096	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.100	0.100	0.089	0.086	5
214	212	99	1	2005	420070002	Route 168 & Tomlinson Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.095	0.091	0.088	0.087	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.085	0.082	0.082	0.082	1
214	214	100	1	2006	420070002	Route 168 & Tomlinson Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.126	0.107	0.100	0.094	1	1.0	214	213	100	1	0.120	0.100	0.094	0.083	3
214	213	100	1	2003	420070005	1015 Sebring Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.094	0.085	0.085	0.083	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.081	0.079	0.078	0.074	0
214	213	100	1	2004	420070005	1015 Sebring Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.107	0.095	0.094	0.093	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.097	0.088	0.086	0.086	4
214	212	99	1	2005	420070005	1015 Sebring Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.092	0.090	0.087	0.087	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.088	0.084	0.077	0.077	1
214	214	100	1	2006	420070005	1015 Sebring Road		Beaver Co	PA	03

0.133	0.107	0.100	0.089	1	1.0	214	211	99	1	0.121	0.092	0.092	0.078	3	214
212	99	1	2003	420070014	Eight Street And River Alley	Beaver Falls	Beaver
Co	PA	03

0.086	0.085	0.083	0.079	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.072	0.071	0.069	0.069	0
214	214	100	1	2004	420070014	Eight Street And River Alley	Beaver Falls
Beaver Co	PA	03

0.112	0.099	0.094	0.094	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.103	0.086	0.084	0.080	2
214	214	100	1	2005	420070014	Eight Street And River Alley	Beaver Falls
Beaver Co	PA	03

0.091	0.090	0.084	0.084	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.083	0.081	0.074	0.069	0
214	213	100	1	2006	420070014	Eight Street And River Alley	Beaver Falls
Beaver Co	PA	03

0.135	0.124	0.110	0.101	1	1.0	214	213	100	1	0.107	0.101	0.090	0.088	4
214	212	99	1	2003	421250005	Charler01 Waste Treatment Plant	Charleroi
Washington Co	PA	03

0.089	0.085	0.082	0.081	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.080	0.077	0.075	0.072	0
214	213	100	1	2004	421250005	Charler01 Waste Treatment Plant	Charleroi
Washington Co	PA	03

0.099	0.098	0.095	0.095	0	0.0	214	212	99	1	0.089	0.085	0.083	0.080	2	214
212	99	1	2005	421250005	Charler01 Waste Treatment Plant	Charleroi
Washington Co	PA	03

0.100	0.097	0.092	0.088	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.085	0.080	0.079	0.079	1
214	214	100	1	2006	421250005	Charler01 Waste Treatment Plant	Charleroi
Washington Co	PA	03

0.122	0.118	0.102	0.095	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.114	0.104	0.090	0.088	5
214	214	100	1	2003	421250200	Mccarrell And Fayette Sts	Washington
Washington Co	PA	03

0.094	0.086	0.081	0.079	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.081	0.076	0.072	0.071	0
214	213	100	1	2004	421250200	Mccarrell And Fayette Sts	Washington
Washington Co	PA	03

0.101	0.096	0.096	0.094	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.088	0.088	0.086	0.085	4
214	214	100	1	2005	421250200	Mccarrell And Fayette Sts	Washington
Washington Co	PA	03

0.091	0.089	0.081	0.080	0	0.0	214	210	98	4	0.076	0.075	0.070	0.070	0	214
210	98	1	2006	421250200	Mccarrell And Fayette Sts	Washington	Washington
Co	PA	03

0.133	0.107	0.098	0.091	1	1.0	214	213	100	1	0.121	0.098	0.091	0.078	3
214	210	98	1	2003	421255001	Hillman State Park - Kings Creek Road	
Washington Co	PA	03

0.087	0.083	0.083	0.082	0	0.0	214	205	96	5	0.076	0.076	0.074	0.073	0	214
202	94	1	2004	421255001	Hillman State Park - Kings Creek Road	
Washington Co	PA	03

0.109	0.101	0.096	0.095	0	0.0	214	211	99	3	0.092	0.091	0.089	0.085	4	214
210	98	1	2005	421255001	Hillman State Park - Kings Creek Road	
Washington Co	PA	03

0.093	0.091	0.087	0.086	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.085	0.078	0.077	0.076	1
214	213	100	1	2006	421255001	Hillman State Park - Kings Creek Road	
Washington Co	PA	03

0.125	0.100	0.099	0.095	1	1.0	214	206	96	1	0.110	0.090	0.084	0.083	2	214
207	97	1	2003	421290006	Old William Penn Hwy & Sardis Ave		Westmoreland
Co	PA	03

0.096	0.092	0.082	0.080	0	0.0	214	212	99	2	0.075	0.071	0.070	0.070	0	214
211	99	1	2004	421290006	Old William Penn Hwy & Sardis Ave		Westmoreland
Co	PA	03

0.107	0.102	0.102	0.100	0	0.0	214	211	99	0	0.097	0.090	0.089	0.087	4	214
208	97	1	2005	421290006	Old William Penn Hwy & Sardis Ave		Westmoreland
Co	PA	03

0.082	0.081	0.081	0.080	0	0.0	214	214	100	0	0.076	0.073	0.072	0.071	0
214	214	100	1	2006	421290006	Old William Penn Hwy & Sardis Ave	
Westmoreland Co	PA	03

0.126	0.115	0.110	0.100	1	1.0	214	214	100	0	0.110	0.102	0.092	0.091	4
214	214	100	1	2003	421290008	Donohoe Road - Penn Dot Maint Dist Bldg
Greensburg	Westmoreland Co	PA	03

0.100	0.094	0.091	0.085	0	0.0	214	211	99	3	0.084	0.080	0.076	0.073	0	214
208	97	1	2004	421290008	Donohoe Road - Penn Dot Maint Dist Bldg
Greensburg	Westmoreland Co	PA	03

0.101	0.098	0.097	0.093	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.089	0.089	0.084	0.083	2
214	213	100	1	2005	421290008	Donohoe Road - Penn Dot Maint Dist Bldg
Greensburg	Westmoreland Co	PA	03

0.095	0.095	0.091	0.091	0	0.0	214	213	100	1	0.086	0.085	0.079	0.076	2
214	213	100	1	2006	421290008	Donohoe Road - Penn Dot Maint Dist Bldg
Greensburg	Westmoreland Co	PA	03

This page deliberately left blank for printing and copying purposes

   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.

   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 technology (RACT) for sources in
marginal areas, such as the Pittsburgh 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.

   The Court’s ruling in South Coast also addressed the section 185
penalty fees provision for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas
but this provision never applied to the Pittsburgh Area which was
formerly classified as moderate under the 1-hour ozone standard.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   38 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   42