UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

									Date: October 17, 2007

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

	(EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0606)

FROM:	Brian Rehn   /s/

		Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Marilyn Powers, Acting Chief

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On June 26, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton nonattainment area (“the Allentown area”
or “the Area”) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS).  The Allentown area is comprised of
Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties.  Also on June 26, 2007, in
conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted as SIP
revisions a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory for the
Allentown area.  On August 9, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a technical
correction amendment to submit previously omitted emission inventory
support documents.  The maintenance plan will ensure continued
attainment in the area for at least ten years after the area is
redesignated.

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

The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (“the Act” or “CAA”)
provides requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to
attainment.  Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation
providing that: (1) the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k); (3) the area has met
all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA; (4)
the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions; and (5) the area has a fully
approved maintenance plan under section 175A of the CAA.

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

As identified above, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”  The
following is a discussion of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
June 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.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.10

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average of the monitored annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration.  The air quality monitoring data
used for Pennsylvania’s redesignation request was the air quality data
for 2004-2006.  There are three monitors located in the Allentown area
that currently measure air quality with respect to ozone.  The three
monitors are located in Allentown (in Lehigh County), and Freemansburg
and Easton (both in Northampton County).  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 Allentown area is attaining the ozone
standard for the most recent three-year period of 2004 through 2006 (see
Table 1 below).  The data collected at these three ozone monitors
satisfies the CAA requirement that the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less
than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).  The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation of the Allentown 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:  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Nonattainment Area Fourth Highest
8-hour Average Values

Lehigh County, Allentown Monitor, AQS ID 42-077-0004

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.083

2005	0.086

2006	0.080

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

Northampton County, Freemansburg Monitor, AQS ID 42-095-0025

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.088

2005	0.086

2006	0.078

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.084 ppm

Northampton County, Easton 2 Monitor, AQS ID 42-095-8000

2004	0.083

2005	0.080

2006	0.078

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

The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the Allentown area has
attained the standard with a design value of 0.084 ppm, which is below
the maximum allowable design value of 0.085 (see Appendix 1 for a
summary of AQS 2004-2006 8-hour monitor data).  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 (as
well as data taken from the AQS) indicate that the Allentown area has
attained and continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2. 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.9

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS has a different form as well as limit.  The
1-hour ozone NAAQS is attained (and maintained) if the average number of
expected exceedances over a three-year period is less than or equal to
1. With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on January 17, 1995 (62 FR
3349), EPA determined pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA that the
Allentown area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1993.
For the period 2004 through 2006, the average number of expected
exceedances at each of the three monitors was 0.0.  In summary, for the
period 2004 through 2006, EPA believes that the Allentown area remains
in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon the data submitted
by Pennsylvania and taken from the AQS (See Appendix 1 for available AQS
1-hour monitoring summary data).  EPA believes this conclusion remains
valid after review of the available 2006 data because no exceedances
were recorded in the Allentown area in 2006.

Table 2:  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Nonattainment Area

Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

Lehigh County, Allentown Monitor, AQS ID 42-077-0004

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

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

Northampton County, Freemansburg Monitor, AQS ID 42-095-0025

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

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

Northampton County, Easton Monitor, AQS ID 42-095-8000

Year	Number of Expected Exceedances

2003	0.0

2004	0.0

2005	0.0

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

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

EPA has determined that the Allentown area has met all SIP requirements
for the purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (i.e.,
general SIP requirements), and that it meets all applicable SIP
requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA (i.e., 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 Allentown area, and determined that the applicable
portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under
section 110(k) of the CAA.  SIPs must be approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.

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

1. General SIP Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

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

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

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

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 were limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.  Elsewhere
in this document EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in South
Coast is not an impediment to redesignating the Allentown Area to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The CAA, title I, Part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1
and subpart 2 –that address planning and control requirements for
nonattainment areas.  Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic”
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a
NAAQS.  Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified”
nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.  In 2004, the Allentown area was classified a basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data
from 2001-2003.  Therefore, the Allentown area is subject to the
requirements of subpart 1 of Part D.

Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the
3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered).  See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information.  Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements.  The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.  The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the Allentown area has a design value of
0.084 ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using complete,
quality-assured data.  Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the
Allentown area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

1.  Section 110 General SIP Requirements

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which includes 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.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2)
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 requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOx SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).  However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area’s designation and classification in that State.  EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications 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 requirements are 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 Allentown 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 applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995).  See also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).  Similarly, with
respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule
to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not
“an” ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1)
because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
As we explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due for
the Allentown area prior to submission of the redesignation request

 2.  Part D Nonattainment Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the Allentown
area was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 1 for the
8-hour ozone standard.  Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of Part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
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.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court’s
ruling 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 of the area cannot now go forward.  This belief is
based upon (1) EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation
requests 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
Allentown 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, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request.  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.  See 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.

In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require 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 (i.e., transportation conformity) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (i.e., general conformity).
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.  EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section
107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have
not been approved.  See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation.  See also, 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995).

In the case of the Allentown area, EPA has also determined that before
being redesignated, the area need not comply with the requirement that a
New Source Review (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.''  Normally, a
state’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will
become effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to
attainment.  See the more detailed explanations in the following
redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI
(61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).  In the case of the Allentown
area, the Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP
(codified at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1)) explicitly apply the requirements for
NSR in section 184 of the CAA to ozone attainment areas within the
CAA-defined Ozone Transport Region (OTR).  The OTR NSR requirements are
more stringent than that required for a marginal or basic ozone
nonattainment area.  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
Allentown area.

EPA has also interpreted the CAA section 184 OTR requirements, including
the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
The rationale for this is based on two considerations.  First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements
continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment.  Therefore, the state remains obligated to have NSR, as well
as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), and vehicle
inspection and maintenance programs even after redesignation.  Second,
the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and their
application is not grounded by the area’s designation and
classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62
FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).

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

In its June 8, 2007 decision, the Court limited its vacatur so as to
uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were
not successfully challenged.  Therefore the area must meet the federal
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900, et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by virtue of the area's classification
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.  As set forth in more detail below, the area
must also address four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified
by the Court in its decisions.

The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe 1-hour
ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.  Section
51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that:

The area remains subject to the obligation to adopt and implement the
applicable requirements as defined in section 51.900(f), except as
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of paragraph (b) of this section. * *
*

Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005),
states that:

Applicable requirements means for an area the following requirements to
the extent such requirements applied to the area for the area's
classification under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1-hour NAAQS
at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS.

(1)  Reasonably available control technology (RACT).

(2)  Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M).

(3)  Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT.

(4)  Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.

(5)  Stage II vapor recovery.

(6)  Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA.

(7)  Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA.

(8)  Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours
as provided section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.

(9)  Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA.

(10)  Transportation control measures under section 182(c)(5) of the
CAA.

(11)  Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of
the CAA.

(12)  NOx requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA.

(13)  Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under section
51.905(a)(1)(ii).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the area is subject to the obligations set
forth in 51.905(a) and 51.900(f).

Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the
Allentown area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the
1-hour standard.  With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable
requirements under the anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) for the Allentown area are limited to RACT and I/M programs
specified in section 182(a) of the CAA and are discussed in the
following paragraphs.

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

Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle
inspection and maintenance programs. It requires marginal areas to adopt
a vehicle I/M program if an I/M program was in effect (or required to
have been in effect) prior to November 15, 1990.  This provision is
applicable to the Allentown area because Northampton and Lehigh Counties
had a SIP-approved I/M program in place prior to November 15, 1990.
Therefore, under this provision, the Allentown area was required to
continue to operate an I/M program, in accordance with I/M requirements,
after 1990.  Additionally, the Act also contains a provision in section
184 that requires adoption of an enhanced I/M program in certain
metropolitan areas of the Ozone Transport Region after November 1990.
This OTR I/M requirement applies to the Allentown area, as described
further below.

In addition the Court held that EPA should have retained four additional
measures in its anti-backsliding provisions: (1) nonattainment area NSR
; (2) Section 185 penalty fees; (3) contingency measures under section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act; and (4) 1-hour motor vehicle emission
budgets that were yet not replaced by 8-hour emissions budgets.  These
requirements are addressed below:

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

The section 185 penalty fee requirement was not applicable in the
Allentown 1-hour marginal nonattainment area.

With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures
for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency
measures for marginal areas

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The conformity portion of the Court’s ruling
does not impact the redesignation request for the Allentown area except
to the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for
those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires that those
1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 4.  Transport Region
Requirements

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

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

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  Reading, PA
Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7,
1997).  The rationale for this is based on two considerations.  First,
the requirement to submit SIP revisions to meet requirements under
section 184 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 programs, even after redesignation.  Second, the
section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and apply to
the area not by virtue of the area’s nonattainment designation and
classification.  Section 184 control measures thus are 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).

5.  The Allentown Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of
Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for the Allentown area under section 110(k) of the CAA.
EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request.  Calcagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir.1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR at 25425 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein.  Because the Allentown area was a 1-hour
marginal nonattainment area, the only previous Part D SIP submittal
requirement was the RACT corrections due under section 182(a)(2)(A)
which are fully approved (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994). Also, no Part
D submittal requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the
8-hour maintenance plan for the area.  Therefore, all Part D submittal
requirements have been fulfilled.  Because there are no outstanding SIP
submission requirements applicable for the purposes of redesignation of
the Allentown area, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all
pertinent SIP requirements.  As indicated previously, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements not connected with Part D nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.  EPA also
believes that no 8-hour Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation have yet become due for the Allentown area, and thus need
not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.

C.  The Air Quality Improvement in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 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 Allentown area is due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions from implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other State-adopted measures.  Emission reductions from
these rules for the period between 2002 and 2004 are shown in Table 2.

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point*	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway

Mobile	Total

2002	4.9	28.6	13.6	35.6	82.7

2004	6.4	28.1	13.0	30.5	78.0

Difference (2002-04)	+1.5	-0.5	-0.6	-5.1	 -4.7

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point*	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway Mobile	Total

2002	60.0		2.8	13.4	55.1	131.3

2004	58.8	2.9	12.9	48.3	122.9

Difference (2002-04)	-1.2	+0.1	-0.5	-6.8	 -8.4

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 4.7 tpsd, from 82.7
tpsd to 78.0 tpsd.  Emissions of NOx decreased over the same period by
8.4 tpsd, from 131.3 tpsd to 122.9 tpsd.  Overall VOC emissions
decreased by 5.7 percent between 2002 and 2004, and NOx decreased by 6.4
percent over the same period.

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

These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the
following permanent and enforceable measures:

1. Stationary Point Sources

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

Stationary Area Source Measures

Solvent Cleaning Operations.  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).

Portable Fuel Containers.  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, etc.  These regulations required that portable fuel containers
manufactured after January 1, 2003 for sale in Pennsylvania meet certain
requirements.  (A “sell–through” provision allowed the sale during
2003 of containers manufactured before January 1, 2003).  The PADEP
predicted that the portable fuel container regulation would be fully
phased in over a ten-year period; i.e., approximately ten percent of the
existing containers would be replaced each year.  Emission reduction
estimates for the program reflect this phased-in replacement of the
containers.  EPA approved the regulation on December 8, 2004 (69 FR
70893).

3.  Highway Vehicle Sources

Even with increases in VMT that PADEP expects to occur from 2004 to
2018, highway emissions of both VOC and NOx will continue to decrease.
These decreases can be attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs for new vehicles, including: 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+ and
2002/2004 model year standards), and enhancement of the prior vehicle
emissions inspection program.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.  The emission reductions
resultant from fleet turnover from older, higher polluting old vehicles
to new, cleaner vehicles are permanent reductions.  The effect of fleet
turnover between 2002 and 2004 produced emission reductions between 2002
and 2004.

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAA include NOx and VOC
limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and light-duty gasoline
trucks (LDGTs).  These tailpipe standards began to be phased in starting
in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions standards followed
beginning in model year 1998 for gasoline-powered cars.

In 1999, more stringent standards under the National Low Emission
Vehicle (NLEV) Program became effective.  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 SIP-approved California Low Emission Vehicle (CA LEV)
requirements through model year 2005.  These regulations affected
light-duty vehicles under 6,000 pounds.  Vehicles were manufactured to
this NLEV standard in the baseline inventory year, 2002.

In 1999, EPA promulgated Federal Tier 2 light-duty standards (65 FR
6698, February 10, 2000), which were more stringent than NLEV.  Tier 2
standards took effect beginning in model year 2004.  Pennsylvania’s
Clean Vehicle Program (25 Pa. Code section 126, Subchapter D) was
adopted in 1998, and incorporated CA LEV standards as a backstop.  The
Commonwealth’s Clean Vehicle Program regulation allowed compliance by
automakers with NLEV standards as an alternative to CA LEV standards,
until model year 2006.  In adopting its Clean Vehicle Program
regulation, Pennsylvania had extended a commitment to NLEV standards
until model year 2006.  However, when EPA promulgated Tier 2 standards,
they usurped NLEV standards, becoming the more stringent regulation for
compliance by manufacturers.  Federal Tier 2 standards governed new
vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the attainment year, 2004.

EPA’s Tier 2 regulation also required a 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 Allentown 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.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program.  Pennsylvania operated an
I/M program in Northampton and Lehigh Counties (enacted prior to the CAA
of 1990), as required under the I/M savings clause of section 182.  That
program ceased operating in December 1999, and was to be replaced with
an enhanced OTR I/M program at that time.  However, Pennsylvania delayed
implementation of that OTR enhanced program until December 2003.

The OTR enhanced I/M program does not apply to Carbon County (see the
following section for a discussion of the safety program visual
inspection that applies in that county).  In Northampton and Lehigh
Counties, the I/M program applies to 1975 and newer gasoline-powered
vehicles weighing up to 9,000 pounds.  For 1996 and newer model year
vehicles subject to the program, testing consists of a test of the
on-board diagnostic system of the vehicle and a gas cap pressure test.
For 1975 to 1995 model year vehicles, testing consists of an annual gas
cap pressure test and visual inspection of pollution control devices to
ensure they are present, connected, and of the proper type.  The I/M
program regulation can be referenced at 67 Pa. Code Chapter 177.
Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program as a SIP revision
on December 1, 2003, and EPA approved the revision on October 6, 2005
(70 FR 58313).

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program.   In November 2003,
Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection program to include a
visual inspection of pollution control components in the 42 counties not
subject to an I/M program – including the Carbon County portion of the
Allentown area. Pennsylvania’s revised safety inspection regulation
can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175.  Pennsylvania submitted that
portion of the amended safety inspection program as a revision to its
State Implementation Plan on December 1, 2003.  EPA approved the SIP
revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

4.  Nonroad Sources

EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel-powered
(“compression ignition”) and gasoline-powered (“spark ignition”)
nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and applications (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).  Information on these federal rules, including
their implementation dates, can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nonroad"  www.epa.gov/nonroad .  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.

Maintenance Plan for the Allentown Area

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

(a)  Attainment Inventory (2004)

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, the
mid-year of the three-year monitoring period for which the NAAQS has
been met.  The attainment year inventory serves as a baseline and
accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA
requirements to date.  The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance and is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of
VOC and NOx during 2004, and consists of a list of sources and their
associated emissions (see Table 3).  The Technical Appendices submitted
with this June 26, 2007 redesignation request (along with technical
amendments made to the SIP on August 9, 2007) contain more detailed
information for each sector on the emissions inventories required for
this redesignation.

Table 3:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpsd)

Pollutant	Point*	Area	Nonroad Mobile	Highway Mobile	Total

VOC	6.4	28.1	13.0	30.5	78.0

NOx	58.8	2.9	12.9	48.3	122.9

(b) Base Year Inventory (2002)

An emissions inventory for the base year, 2002, was developed, per EPA
guidance.

For 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 June 26, 2007 maintenance plan SIP submittal.  On
August 9, 2007, PADEP formally submitted a technical correction SIP
revision to add emission inventory support documents that were omitted
from the June 26, 2007 SIP revision.

1.  Point Source Emissions

The DEP collects individual emissions-related information from sources
for its point source inventory.  Generally, these represent major
sources.  For the 2004 attainment inventory, emissions from stationary
point sources have been compiled from the submissions made by the
facilities for calendar year 2004.

2. Stationary Area Sources

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 Technical
Appendix B.

3. Highway Mobile Sources

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. In addition, Pennsylvania uses a MOBILE pre-
and post-processing software package called PPSUITE to process and
compile Pennsylvania’s robust highway network and detailed highway
vehicle data.  Pennsylvania’s methodology is consistent with the
January 2002 guidance published by EPA’s Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (OTAQ) entitled “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE 6
for Emissions Inventory Preparation.”  Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) supplied estimates of vehicles miles traveled
(VMT) by vehicle type and roadway type.  Highway vehicle emissions in
2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of VMT by
vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information specific
to the Allentown area where appropriate.  More information on highway
methods is available in Technical Appendixes C of the June 26, 2007
state submittal.

4. Non-road Mobile Sources

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 nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions
from aircraft or locomotives.  For 2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  Emissions from
commercial aircraft are estimated using EPA-approved Emissions &
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).  Growth was estimated using estimates
of future operations at Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown
from the FAA APO Terminal Areas Forecast Detailed Report.  Small
aircraft emissions were calculated by using small airport operations
statistics, which can be found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"
www.airnav.com  and the Federal Aviation Administration’s APO Terminal
Area Forecast Detailed Report.  See Technical Appendix D of the June 26,
2007 SIP (and the August 9, 2007 technical correction submittal) for
further information.

(b)  Maintenance Demonstration

On June 26, 2007 the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Allentown area maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and
future emissions of VOC and NOx remain at or below the attainment year
2004 emission levels throughout the Allentown 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 4 and 5 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Allentown area
for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an intermediate in the
ten-year maintenance demonstration period year to be used for regional
ozone modeling studies in order to demonstrate that projected VOC and
NOx emissions will not increase to levels above the 2004 attainment
level during the time of the ten-year maintenance period.

Table 4:  Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)

Source Category	2004	2009	2018

Point	6.4	5.5	6.6

Area	28.1	26.7	28.9

Highway Mobile	30.5	24.1	14.7

Nonroad Mobile	13.0	10.3	8.9

Total	78.0	66.6	59.1

	* Totals may vary due to rounding.

Table 5:  Total NOx Emissions for 2004-2018 (tpsd)

Source Category	2004 	2009 	2018

Point	58.8	58.3	66.6

Area	2.9	3.1	3.2

Highway Mobile	48.3	34.8	15.4

Nonroad Mobile	12.9	11.0	6.6

Total	122.9	107.2	91.8

* Totals may vary due to rounding.

1. Permanent, Enforceable Control Measures for Maintenance

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

Stationary Point Sources

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

Interstate Pollution Transport/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.  The regulation covering industrial
boilers and electric generators required emission reductions to commence
by May 1, 2003, while the regulation covering large internal combustion
engines and cement plants required emission reductions to commence by
May 1, 2005.

Stationary Area Sources

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

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

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.  The Pennsylvania
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings rule applies
statewide to any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or
manufacturers, blends or repackages an AIM coating for use within the
Commonwealth, as well as a person who applies or solicits the
application of an AIM coating within the Commonwealth.  The rule does
not apply to the following:  (1) any AIM coating that is sold or
manufactured for use outside the Commonwealth or for shipment to other
manufacturers for reformulation or repackaging; (2) any aerosol coating
product; or (3) any AIM coating that is sold in a container with a
volume of one liter (1.057 quarts) or less.  The rule sets specific VOC
content limits, in grams per liter, for AIM coating categories with a
compliance date of January 1, 2005.  Manufacturers ensure compliance
with the limits by reformulating coatings and substituting coatings with
compliant coatings that are already in the market.  The rule contains
VOC content requirements for a wide variety of field-applied coatings,
including graphic arts coatings, lacquers, primers, and stains.  The
rule also contains provisions for a variance from the VOC content
limits, which can be issued only after public hearing and with
conditions for achieving timely compliance.  In addition, the rule
contains administrative requirements for labeling and reporting.  There
are a number of test methods that would be used to demonstrate
compliance with this rule.  Some of these test methods include those
promulgated by EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management District of
California (SCAQM).  The methods used to test coatings must be the most
current approved method at the time testing is performed.  The AIM
program is codified at 25 PA Code Chapter 130, subpart C.  It was
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 3, 2003, with a
supplement submitted on October 19, 2004.  The program was approved by
EPA on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68080).

Highway Vehicle Sources

Highway motor 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.
Emissions will continue to decrease, even with increases in VMT
projected between 2004 and 2018.  The decreasing levels of emissions are
attributable to the following programs:

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

In 2009 and 2018, vehicles manufactured to meet federal emissions
standards effective for model years 1990 to the present (i.e., Tier 0,
Tier 1, and Tier 2) will continue to comprise a significant portion of
Pennsylvania’s vehicle fleet.

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established under the CAA include NOx and VOC
emissions limits for newly manufactured light-duty gasoline vehicles
(LDGVs) and light-duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards were
phased in beginning in model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were
also reduced in gasoline-powered cars under EPA’s on-board vapor
recovery (OBVR) standards beginning with model year 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) standards or emissions control warranty provisions.

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the National Low
Emission Vehicle program as a compliance alternative to the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles program.  The NLEV program became effective in the OTR in
1999.  Pennsylvania’s Clean Vehicle Program regulations (25 Pa Code
Sections 126.401-441) allowed automobile manufacturers to comply with
NLEV in lieu of the California Low Emission Vehicle program through
model year 2005.  NLEV standards applied to vehicles 6,000 pounds and
less, and were the regulations in effect for new motor vehicles in the
Commonwealth’s maintenance plan baseline (2002) inventory.

In 1999, EPA promulgated its Tier 2 standards regulation that was more
stringent than NLEV (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).  Tier 2 standards
were phased in beginning in model year 2004.  While Pennsylvania was
required to adopt language that extended its “commitment” to NLEV
until MY 2006, in practical terms, the NLEV program was replaced in
model year 2004 by the more stringent Tier 2 standards.  Tier 2
standards governed new vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the maintenance
plan attainment (2004) inventory.  Beginning in model year 2008, the
Clean Vehicle Program established CA LEV standards as the applicable
program.

The federal Tier 2 regulations also required a reduction of sulfur in
gasoline beginning in 2004.  In 2004, gasoline 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
Allentown area.

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

The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program, described above, incorporated
the California Low Emission Vehicle Program by reference, but allowed
automakers to meet federal NLEV standards as a compliance alternative
until MY 2006.  Pennsylvania revised its Clean Vehicle Program
regulation (25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 126) on December 9, 2006 (36 Pa.
B. 7424), delaying implementation of CA LEV standards in Pennsylvania
until model year 2008.  Pennsylvania submitted the revised Clean Vehicle
Program as a SIP revision to EPA on May 31, 2007.

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 assumed in its
maintenance plan MOBILE modeling that the federal Tier 2 program applied
from MY 2004 through MY 2007, and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program (i.e., CA LEV standards) apply in model year 2008 and beyond.

Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs.

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

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

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

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

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program.

Pennsylvania operated an I/M program in Northampton and Lehigh Counties
(enacted prior to the CAA of 1990), as required under the I/M savings
clause of section 182.  That program ceased operating in December 1999,
and was to be replaced with an enhanced OTR I/M program at that time.
However, Pennsylvania delayed implementation of that OTR enhanced
program until December 2003.

The OTR enhanced I/M program does not apply to Carbon County (see the
following section for a discussion of the safety program visual
inspection that applies in that county).  In Northampton and Lehigh
Counties, the I/M program applies to 1975 and newer gasoline-powered
vehicles weighing up to 9,000 pounds.  For 1996 and newer model year
vehicles subject to the program, testing consists of a test of the
on-board diagnostic system of the vehicle and a gas cap pressure test.
For 1975 to 1995 model year vehicles, testing consists of an annual gas
cap pressure test and visual inspection of pollution control devices to
ensure they are present, connected, and of the proper type.  The I/M
program regulation can be referenced at 67 Pa. Code Chapter 177.
Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program as a SIP revision
on December 1, 2003, and EPA approved the revision on October 6, 2005
(70 FR 58313).

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program

In November 2003, Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection
program to include a visual inspection of pollution control components
in the 42 counties not subject to an I/M program – including the
Carbon County portion of the Allentown area. Pennsylvania’s revised
safety inspection regulation can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175.
Pennsylvania submitted that portion of the amended safety inspection
program as a revision to its State Implementation Plan on December 1,
2003.  EPA approved the SIP revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

Nonroad Sources

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

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

EPA requires reduced sulfur levels in diesel fuel to prevent damage to
advanced emission control aftertreatment systems needed to reduce fine
particulates to meet stricter exhaust standards.  Beginning Fall 2007,
nonroad diesel fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 parts per
million (ppm) for nonroad applications other than ocean-going marine
vessels. In 2010, fuel sulfur levels will be reduced to the same sulfur
concentration as in highway fuel, 15 ppm.  This requirement applies in
2012 to locomotive and marine diesel fuel.

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard
should be maintained in the Allentown area.

(c)  Monitoring Network

There are three monitors are located in the Allentown area, one in
Allentown in Lehigh County, and one each in Freemansburg and Easton in
Northampton County.  These three ozone monitors were used in support of
the Commonwealth’s ozone maintenance plan for the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area.  The Commonwealth has committed to
continue to operate its monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, with no reduction in the number of sites.

(d)  Verification of Continued Attainment

In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program,
Pennsylvania requires ambient and source emissions data to track
attainment and maintenance.  The Commonwealth will track the attainment
status of the ozone NAAQS in the area by reviewing air quality and
emissions data during the maintenance period.  The Commonwealth will
perform an annual evaluation of two key factors: VMT data and emissions
reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions
about these factors used in the maintenance plan.  PADEP 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, PADEP will consider
whether any further emission control measures should be implemented.

(e)  Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures

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

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

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

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

Regulatory measures:

Additional VOC controls on consumer products.

Additional VOC controls on portable fuel containers.

Non-regulatory measures:

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

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

Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		.

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

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

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

non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following programs may be able to
provide funding:

for transportation projects, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), as
allocated to the Allentown area MPOs.  Discussions will be held with
PENNDOT and the Allentown area MPOs to ensure that emission credits
could be allocated for attainment purposes, rather than for
transportation conformity.

for projects which also have an energy efficiency co-benefit, the
Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Program.

for projects which would be undertaken by small business and are
pollution prevention projects, the Small Business Advantage Grant and
Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs.

for projects which involve alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling
operations, the Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant program.

For projects involving diesel emissions, the Federal Energy Policy Act
diesel reduction funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for which
Pennsylvania or project sponsors may apply under a competitive process.

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

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

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

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

Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires PADEP to submit a revision to the
SIP eight years after the original redesignation request is approved to
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS in the Allentown area for an
additional 10 years following the first 10-year period.  PADEP has
committed to meet the requirements under section 175A(b).

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

A.  Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area Plan

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

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

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity.
 After EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects
“conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA’s substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).  EPA’s process for determining
“adequacy” consists of three basic steps:  public notification of a
SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA’s adequacy finding.
This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was
initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.”  This guidance was finalized in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for
Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments – Response
to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004).  EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.

Transportation agencies in Pennsylvania are responsible for making
timely transportation conformity determinations.  The responsible MPOs
for the Allentown area are: Lehigh Valley Transportation Study for
Lehigh and Northampton Counties, and the Northeastern Pennsylvania
Alliance (NEPA) for Carbon County.   Separate conformity budgets are
being established for each MPO.  EPA’s transportation conformity
regulations (40 CFR Part 93.124(d)) allow a SIP to establish separate
motor vehicle emission budgets for each MPO if a nonattainment area
contains more than one MPO.

The MVEBs for the Allentown area are listed in Tables 6 and 7 below for
the years 2009 and 2018, as are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations.

B.  What is a Safety Margin?

A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.

The following example is for the 2018 safety margin for the entire
Allentown area, although Pennsylvania has allocated its motor vehicle
emission budgets and safety margins between the two MPOs for the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area.  The area first attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS during the 2004 to 2006 time period.  The Commonwealth used
2004 as the year to determine attainment levels of emissions for the
area.

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 78.0 tpsd of VOC and 122.9 tpsd of NOx.
 The PADEP projected total emissions out to the year 2018 of 59.1 tpsd
of VOC and 91.8 tpsd of NOx from all sources in the Allentown area.  The
safety margin for 2018 (for the entire Allentown area) would be the
difference between these amounts, or 18.9 tpsd of VOC and 31.1 tpsd 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 6 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 6:  Safety Margins for Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area (2009 &
2018)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpsd)	NOx Emissions (tpsd)

2004 Attainment	78.0	122.9

2009 Interim	66.6	107.2

2009 Safety Margin	11.4	15.7

2004 Attainment	78.0	122.9

2018 Final	59.1	91.8

2018 Safety Margin	18.9	31.1

Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO MVEB (Lehigh and Northampton
Counties)

The PADEP allocated 1.1 tpsd of VOC and 0.8 tpsd of NOx of the 2009
safety margin to the interim VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions and the 2009 interim NOx projected on-road mobile source
emissions to arrive at the 2009 MVEB to be allocated to the Lehigh and
Northampton County portion of the area covered by the Lehigh Valley
Transportation Study MPO.

The PADEP allocated 1.1 tpsd of VOC and 0.8 tpsd of NOx of the 2018
safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs to be allocated to the Lehigh
and Northampton County portion of the area covered by the Lehigh Valley
Transportation Study MPO.

Northeast Area Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) MPO

The PADEP allocated 0.2 tpsd of VOC and 0.1 tpsd of NOx of the 2009
safety margin to the interim VOC projected on-road mobile source
emissions and the 2009 interim NOx projected on-road mobile source
emissions to arrive at the 2009 MVEB to be allocated to the Carbon
County portion of the area covered by the NEPA MPO.

The PADEP allocated 0.3 tpsd of VOC and 0.2 tpsd of NOx of the 2018
safety margins to arrive at the 2018 MVEBs to be allocated to the Carbon
County portion of the area covered by the NEPA MPO.

Once allocated to the budgets these portions of the safety margins are
no longer available, and may no longer be allocated to any other source
category.  Tables 7 and 8 show the final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the
Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO and the NEPA MPO portions of the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area.

Table 7: Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Lehigh and Northampton
Counties Portion of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area (2009 & 2018)*

Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpsd)	NOx Emissions (tpsd)

2009 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	19.6	28.1

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	1.1	0.8

2009 MVEBs	20.6	28.9

2018 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	11.3	11.6

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	1.1	0.8

2018 MVEBs	12.4	12.4

	* PADEP calculates MVEBS using kilograms per summer day, and converts
the values to tons per summer day for informational purposes.  This may
appear to make the totals in the table incorrect, but is merely the
result of the rounded tpsd values

Table 8: Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Carbon County Portion of
the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area (2009 & 2018)*

Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance MPO

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpsd)	NOx Emissions (tpsd)

2009 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	3.2	5.8

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.2	0.1

2009 MVEBs	3.4	5.9

2018 Projected On Road (Highway) Emissions	2.0	2.9

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.3	0.2

2018 MVEBs	2.3	3.0

	* PADEP calculates MVEBS using kilograms per summer day, and converts
the values to tons per summer day for informational purposes.  This may
appear to make the totals in the table incorrect, but is merely the
result of the rounded tpsd values

C.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for each of the MPOs for the Allentown area are
approvable because the MVEBs for NOx and VOC, including the allocated
safety margins, continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the
attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation
conformity regulations.

D.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area Maintenance Plan?

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

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

III. Conclusions and Recommended Agency Action:

The Allentown area has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that
satisfies section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment.  The Allentown area has also attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on air quality monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I recommend
that the maintenance plan for the Allentown area be approved and that
the area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  I
also recommend approval of the 2002 base-year inventory and the MVEBs
for the Allentown area.

IV. List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation Guidance Memos and Documents

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

		Laxton, June 18, 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

	January 18, 2002.

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

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

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

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

		March 14, 2006.

•		“Temporal Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH Temporal
Profiles,” Memorandum from Gregory Stella, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, April 29, 2002.

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

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

		November 2005.

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

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

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

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

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

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

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

 Under the rules set forth in 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I thereto, the
design value is the average of the fourth daily high recorded values for
three consecutive years truncated after the third (3rd) significant
figure.  Thus, the three-year average of the fourth daily high values
for 2004 to 2006 is 0.083 at the Allentown monitor in Lehigh County.

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

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

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

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

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474