  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE:	April 26, 2007

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document (TSD) - Pennsylvania; Redesignation
to Attainment of Tioga County Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area and
Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory

			/s/

FROM:	Rose Quinto, Environmental Engineer

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

			/s/

THRU:	Linda Miller, Acting Chief

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On September 28, 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a redesignation request for the
Tioga County ozone nonattainment area (Tioga Area) to attainment of the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  On
September 28, 2006, in conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP
submitted a maintenance plan for the Tioga Area as a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to assure continued attainment for at
least 10 years after redesignation.  PADEP also submitted a 2002 base
year inventory on September 28, 2006 and supplemented on November 14,
2006 as a SIP revision.

The Tioga Area consists of Tioga County, Pennsylvania.  Prior to its
designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, Tioga Area was an
attainment/unclassifiable area for the 1-hour ozone nonattainment NAAQS.
 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

The Tioga County was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area in a Federal Register notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published
on April 30, 2004(69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the
health-based standards for ozone during the years 2002-2003.  On April
30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area (as well as most other areas in the
country) effective June 15, 2005.  See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996
(April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).

However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard, (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).  See,
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (hereafter “South Coast.”).  The Court held that certain
provisions of EPA’s Phase1 Rule were inconsistent with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act.  The Court rejected EPA’s reasons
for implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under
Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act.  The Court
also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required
for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of
the regulations:  (1) nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) the certain conformity
requirements for certain types of federal actions.  The Court upheld
EPA’s authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were
adequate anti-backsliding provisions.  Elsewhere in this document,
mainly in section II.B. “The Tioga Area Has Meet All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has Fully
Approved SIP under Section 110(k) of the CAA,” EPA discusses its
rationale why the decision in South Coast is not an impediment to
redesignating the Tioga Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the following
five criteria must be met for an ozone nonattainment area to be
redesignated to attainment:

A.  The area must meet the ozone NAAQS.

B.  The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k).

C.  The area must show improvement in air quality due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions.

D. The area must meet all requirements applicable under section 110 and
Part D.

E.  The area must have 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.  The Environmental Protection Agency (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
Directors, entitled, “Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”  The following is a discussion of
how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s September 28, 2006 submittal
satisfies the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA
will discuss its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its analysis
of the redesignation request.

A.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average (2003-2005) of the monitored annual fourth-highest
daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration.  There is one
monitor in the Tioga Area which measures air quality with respect to
ozone.  According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, which establishes the procedure for interpreting ozone
monitoring data, the Tioga Area attained the ozone standard for the most
recent three-year period, 2003-2005 (see Table 1 below).  The data
collected at the Tioga Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that
the design value, which is the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum eight-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 Tioga Area indicates
that the data was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
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.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1: Tioga County Nonattainment Area Fourth
Highest 8-hour Average Values; Tioga County Monitor, AQS ID 42-117-4000

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.084

2004	0.079

2005	0.080

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

The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Tioga Area has attained
the standard with a design value of 0.081 ppm.  In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In
summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and
data taken from the AQS indicates that the Tioga Area has attained and
continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B.  The Tioga Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully approved SIP under Section 110(k)
of the CAA

EPA has determined that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has met all SIP
requirements for the Tioga Area applicable for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it
meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D of Title I of the
CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).  In addition, EPA has
determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).  In making these proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained what requirements are applicable to the 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 to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due 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).

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

1.  Section 110 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.
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 requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOx SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).  However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area’s designation and classification in that state.  EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and 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 Tioga
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 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24816, 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 50399, October 19, 2001).  Similarly, with
respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule
to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not
“an ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(l)
because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 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.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain later in this notice, no Part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.

Because Pennsylvania’s SIP satisfies all of the applicable general SIP
elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2), EPA concludes
that Pennsylvania has satisfied the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E)
regarding section 110 of the Act.

2.  Part D Nonattainment Area Requirements Under the 1-Hour and 8-Hour
Standards

The Tioga Area was designated a basic nonattainment area 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 for all nonattainment
areas.  As discussed previously because the Tioga Area was designated
unclassifiable/attainment under the 1-hour standard, and was never
designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, there are no
outstanding 1-hour nonattainment area requirements it would be required
to meet.  Thus, we find that the Court’s ruling does not result in any
additional 1-hour requirements for purposes of redesignation.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA notes that 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 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 requirements in
accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is
submitted; and (2) consideration of the inequity of applying
retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied.

At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Tioga Area was
classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet subpart 1
requirements.  Under EPA’s longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for redesignation, states

requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP
requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request.  September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division).  See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) ( Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor);  Sierra Club v EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004)
(which upheld this interpretation);  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 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 that was past the statutory due
date.  Such a detetmination 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
plan 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 resedignation additional SIP requirements
under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its
redesignation request.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that
Pennsylvania’s SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D
of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request for the Tioga Area.  Because the
Commonwealth submitted a complete redesignation request for the Tioga
Area prior to the deadline for any submissions required under the 8-hour
standard, we have determined that the Part D requirements do not apply
to the Tioga Area for the purposes of redesignation.

In addition to the fact that no Part D requirements applicable under the
8-hour become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and NSR
requirements of Part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation.

With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of
the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure
that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP.  The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”).
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required 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 Tioga Area, EPA has also determined that before being
redesignated, the Tioga Area need not comply with the requirement that a
NSR program be approved prior to redesignation.  The Part D NSR SIP
revision does not come due until June 15, 2007, see,70 FR 71683,
November 29, 2005, and thus is not an applicable requirement with
respect to redesignation.  Additionally, Pennsylvania’s
preconstruction permitting program regulations in Chapter 127.200-217 of
the Pennsylvania Code (approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)),
apply only to ozone nonattainment area sources that are located in areas
classified as marginal or worse, i.e., to subpart 2 nonattainment areas.
 Pennsylvania’s NSR regulations do not apply to sources in
nonattainment areas classified as basic nonattainment under subpart 1.
Consequently, sources in the Tioga Area is subject to Part D NSR
requirements of Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51, pursuant to 40 CFR
52.24(k).  Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 contains the preconstruction
permitting program that applies to major stationary sources in
nonattainment areas lacking an approved Part D NSR program.  Appendix S
applies during the interim period after EPA designates an area as
nonattainment, but before EPA approves revisions to a SIP to implement
the Part D NSR requirements for that pollutant.  See, 70 FR 71618
(November 29, 2005).  The Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations in the
Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply to attainment areas within an Ozone
Transport Region (OTR).  See, Chapter 127 in 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1);
see,66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001.  Therefore, after the Tioga Area is
redesignated to attainment, sources in the Tioga Area will be subject to
Part D NSR applicable under the permitting regulations in Chapter 127,
because the Tioga Area is located in the OTR.

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

In the case of the Tioga Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will continue to be applicable after redesignation.
On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved the 1-hour
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter
127 Part D NSR regulations that cover the Tioga Area.  The Chapter 127
Part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the
requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas
within the OTR

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the
NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.
The rational for this is based on two factors.  First, the requirement
to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to
apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment.  Therefore,
the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, even after
redesignation.  Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide
requirements and do not apply to the Tioga Area by virtue of the
area’s designation and classification.  Rather, section 184 measures
are required in the Tioga Area because it is located in the OTR.  See,
61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32
(May 7, 1997).

3.  The Tioga Area Has a Fully Approved SIP for the Purposes of
Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of
redesignation.  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 also, 68 FR
at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.

The Tioga Area was maintaining attainment of the 1-hour standard at the
time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).  Because the Tioga Area was a 1-hour
attainment/unclassifiable area, there are no previous Part D SIP
submittal requirements.  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 Tioga 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 Tioga Area, and therefore they need not be approved into the
SIP prior to redesignation.

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

EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.  Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 2.

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	0.6	2.7	2.1	3.4	8.8

Year 2004	0.6	2.7	2.2	3.0	8.5

Diff. (02-04)	0.0	0.0	0.1	-0.4	-0.3

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	1.9	0.3	1.5	5.4	9.1

Year 2004	2.0	0.3	1.5	4.8	8.6

Diff. (02-04)	0.1	0.0	0.0	-0.6	-0.5

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 0.3 tpd, and NOx
emissions were reduced by 0.5 tpd.  These reductions and anticipated
future reductions are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures implemented or in the process of being implemented in the Tioga
Area:

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.  While there are no affected units
located in the Tioga Area, upwind NOx reductions affected sources in
Pennsylvania and other states assisted in bringing the area into
attainment. (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001).

Stationary Area Source Measures

Solvent Cleaning.  Pennsylvania adopted revisions to the volatile
organic compound (VOC) requirements for solvent cleaning operations in
25 Pa Code Section 129.63 (relating to degreasing operations) that
became effective beginning on December 22, 2001.  For heated solvent
cleaning machines, in most respects, the provisions of 25 Pa Code
Section 129.63 reflect the technology and operating requirements in the
Federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements for
solvent cleaning machines.  Inasmuch as essentially all of the heated
solvent cleaning machines in the Commonwealth use solvents regulated
under the MACT, only a slight VOC emission reduction achieved by the
requirements for heated 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.  The regulation was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on
February 13, 2002.  EPA approved the regulation 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 and the like.  This regulation requires 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).
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 regulation reflect this phased-in replacement of the
containers.  The regulation was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on
March 26, 2003.  EPA approved the regulation on December 8, 2004 (69 FR
70983).

Highway Vehicle Sources

While vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased approximately one percent
between 2002 and 2004, highway vehicle emissions decreased.  These
decreases can be attributed to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Programs (FMVCP), which is an increased proportion of cleaner (Federal
Tier 1) light-duty vehicles in the fleet and an increased proportion of
cleaner heavy-duty highway vehicles (Federal 1998 + 2002/2004
standards).

The emission reductions from the programs covering fleet turnover are
permanent reductions.  The effects of fleet turnover between 2002 and
2004 (that is, more vehicles subject to tighter tailpipe standards
became part of Pennsylvania’s fleet) produced emission reductions
between 2002 and 2004.

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

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

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

		EPA’s Tier 2 regulation also required the reduction of sulfur in
gasoline beginning in 2004.  In the first year of the program, sulfur
levels were capped at 300 parts per million (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 Tioga Area.

  	EPA has promulgated national regulations for heavy-duty engines and
vehicles (over 14,000 pounds) starting with the MY 2004.  See 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 MY 2002.  Pennsylvania includes these programs, as
provided in the MOBILE model, for the base year 2002 and for 2004.

		In December 2003, Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection
program to include a visual inspection of certain pollution control
components in the 42 counties for which a separate vehicle emissions
inspection program is not required.  These regulations can be found in
67 Pa Code Chapter 175.  Pennsylvania submitted that portion of the
amended safety inspection program as a revision to its SIP 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
39858, June 29, 2004).  Information on these Federal rules, including
their implementation dates, can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nonroad"  www.epa.gov/nonroad .  PADEP used the
Federal control measure assumptions built into the NONROAD model
(NONROAD2005) to estimate emissions for all milestone years.  No control
programs were anticipated to affect aircraft and railroad locomotive
emissions between 2002 and 2004.  These programs are codified at 40 CFR
parts 89 to 91.

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

D.  Maintenance Plan for the Tioga Area Pursuant to Section 175A of the
CAA

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tioga Area to
attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision for the
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area for at least 10
years after redesignation.

1.  Maintenance Plan Requirements

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (a)  Attainment Inventory - An attainment
inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with
the monitoring data showing attainment.  An attainment year of 2004 was
used for the Tioga Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year
block of 2002-2004 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.  The Technical Appendices
submitted with this redesignation request contain more detailed
information of each sector on the emissions inventories required for
this redesignation. Tables 3 and 4 summarize VOC and NOx emissions for
2002 and 2004 in tons per summer day.

Table 3:  VOC Emissions Summary for 2002 and 2004 (tons per summer day)

Major Source Category	2002	2004

Point Sources	0.6	0.6

Stationary Area Sources	2.7	2.7

Highway Vehicles	3.4	3.0

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles	2.1	2.2

Total	8.9	8.4

Table 4:  NOx Emissions Summary for 2002 and 2004 (tons per summer day)

Major Source Category	2002	2004

Point Sources	1.9	2.0

Stationary Area Sources	0.3	0.3

Highway Vehicles	5.4	4.8

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles	1.5	1.5

Total	9.1	8.5

PADEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOx emissions inventories for the
Tioga Area, including point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources for a base year of 2002.

Stationary sources (or point sources) refer to those sources for which
PADEP collects individual emissions-related information.  Generally,
they represent major stationary sources but may be smaller.

Stationary area sources are industrial/commercial/residential sources
too small or too numerous to be inventoried individually such as solvent
use, waste disposal or home heating.  Where there is overlap between
stationary point sources and stationary area sources, the area source
values are adjusted to remove any double counting.

Highway vehicles include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, other
trucks, buses and motorcycles.

Nonroad sources covers a diverse collection of engines including outdoor
power equipment, recreational vehicles, farm and construction machinery,
lawn and garden equipment, industrial equipment, recreational marine,
commercial marine vessels, locomotives, ships, aircraft and many other
applications.

To develop the NOx and VOC base year emissions inventories, PADEP used
the following approaches and sources of data:

(i) Point source emissions – Pennsylvania requires owners and
operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and
emission calculations each year.  Throughput data are multiplied by
emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System
and EPA’s publication series AP-42 and are based on Source
Classification Code (SCC).  Each process has at least one SCC assigned
to it.  If the owners and operators of facilities provide more accurate
emission data based upon other factors, these emission estimates
supersede those calculated using SCC codes.

(ii) Area source emissions – Area source emissions are generally
estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator or
collective activity for each area source category at the county level.
Pennsylvania estimates 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 and 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.

(iii) On-road mobile sources - PADEP employs an emissions estimation
methodology that uses current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission
model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate highway vehicle emissions.  The Tioga
Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2
and PENNDOT estimates of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle type
and roadway type.

(iv) Mobile non-road emissions – The 2002 emissions for the majority
of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA
NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel,
gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural
gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and includes growth factors.  The
NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from aircraft or locomotives.
For 2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions from a 1999
survey using national fuel information and EPA emission and conversion
factors.  There are no commercial aircraft operations in the Tioga Area.
 For 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small
aircraft operation statistics from   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"
www.airnav.com , and emission factors and operational characteristics in
the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).

The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for the Tioga Area are
summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions for this
area in Tables 5 and 6, which cover the demonstration of maintenance for
this area.  EPA has concluded that Pennsylvania has adequately derived
and documented the 2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for this
area.

(b)  Maintenance Demonstration - On September 28, 2006, PADEP submitted
a SIP revision to supplement its September 28, 2006 redesignation
request.  The submittal by PADEP consists of the maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the CAA.  The Tioga Area 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 emissions levels throughout the Tioga Area through the year 2018.
The Tioga Area maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling.
See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.  See also 66 FR at
53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-32.

Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Tioga Area for
2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the
10-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and
NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment
level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period.

Table 5: Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018 (tons per summer day)

Source Category 	2004      	2009 	2018

Stationary Point Sources	0.6	0.5	0.6

Stationary Area Sources	2.7	2.4	2.6

Highway Vehicles*	3.0	2.2	1.3

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles	1.50	1.36	1.00

Total 	8.4	7.1	6.0

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

Table 6: Total NOx Emissions 2004-2018 (tons per summer day)

Source Category 	2004      	2009 	2018

Stationary Point Sources	2.0	2.1	2.6

Stationary Area Sources	0.3	0.3	0.3

Highway Vehicles*	4.8	1.3	1.6

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles	1.5	1.3	0.8

Total 	8.5	7.1	5.3

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

The following Federal and state measures will be in place to ensure
emissions during the maintenance period are equal or less than the
emissions in the attainment year:

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 will not adopt its own CAIR requirements and
obtain approval of the required SIP revision by September 2006, the FIP
will become 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.  Tioga has no sources that are directly regulated by CAIR, and
therefore is not showing an emission reduction from this regulation.
However, the quality of air transported from upwind sources into the
county will be improved.

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.  While there are no affected units
that are located in the Tioga Area, upwind NOx reductions from affected
sources in Pennsylvania and other states assisted in bringing the area
into attainment.

Stationary Area Sources

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 and the like.  This regulation requires 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).
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 regulation reflect this phased-in replacement of the
containers.  The regulation was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on
March 26, 2003.  EPA approved the regulation on December 8, 2004 (69 FR
70983).

Consumer Products.  The Consumer Products Rule, 25 Pa Code Chapter 130,
Subchapter B, 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 regulation 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.  This 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 (AIM) Coatings.  The
Pennsylvania AIM Coatings regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapter 130, Subpart C,
applies statewide to any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or
manufactures, blends or repackages an AIM coating for use within the
Commonwealth.  The regulation 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 AIM coatings regulation sets specific VOC content limits, in
grams per liter, for AIM coatings 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 regulation contains VOC content
requirements for a wide variety of field-applied coatings, including
graphic arts coatings, lacquers, primers and stains.  The regulation
also contains 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 regulation contains administrative
requirements for labeling and reporting.  There are a number of test
methods that would be used to demonstrate compliance with the AIM
coatings regulation.  Some of these test methods include those
promulgated by EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management District of
California.  The methods used to test coatings must be the most current
approved method at the time testing is performed.  This regulation was
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 3, 2003, with a
supplement submittal on October 19, 2004 and approved on November 23,
2004 (69 FR 69080).

Highway Vehicle Sources

Even with increases in VMT that occur from 2004 through 2018, highway
vehicle emissions of both VOC and NOx will continue to decrease.  As
more vehicles subject to cleaner new car standards, replace older
vehicles subject to less stringent new vehicle standards, the fleet as a
whole emits fewer emissions, compensating for the increase in VMT.
These decreases can be attributed to the programs described below.

- Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) for passenger vehicles
and light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline.  In 2009 and 2018, vehicles
manufactured to meet Federal standards through Tier 0, 1, and 2 will
still be in Pennsylvania’s fleet.

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

In 1998, under the authority of section 177 of the CAA, the Commonwealth
adopted the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (28 Pa B 5873, December
5, 1998).  This program incorporates certain California Low Emission
Vehicle (CA LEV) emission standards for passenger cars and light-duty
trucks by reference.  As required under section 177 of the CAA, these
provisions are identical to the low emission standards adopted by
California, except that the regulation does not incorporate by reference
the California zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) or emissions control
warranty systems statement provisions.

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the NLEV program as a
compliance alternative to the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles program.  The
NLEV program became effective in the Ozone Transport Region in 1999.
Pennsylvania’s New Motor Vehicle Control Program regulations (25 Pa
Code Sections 126.401 – 126.441) allow automobile manufacturers to
comply with NLEV instead of CA LEV program through MY 2005.  These
regulations affect vehicles 6,000 pounds or less and were regulations in
effect for new motor vehicles in the base year, 2002.

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

The same EPA regulation requires the reduction of sulfur in gasoline
beginning in 2004.  In the first year of the program, sulfur levels are
capped at 300 parts per million (ppm) and annual refinery corporate
averages must be no more than 120 ppm.  This analysis uses the default
assumptions provided in MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for
conventional fuel sold in the Tioga Area.

- Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program for passenger vehicles and
light-duty trucks.  The New Motor Vehicle Control Program which includes
the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program incorporated the California Low
Emission Vehicle Program (CA LEV II) by reference allows automakers to
comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania
program until MY 2006.  Under the existing program, compliance with the
CA LEV II requirements was required as of MY 2006.  Pennsylvania is
currently undergoing a rulemaking to delay compliance with the
Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program until MY 2008.  Emissions for all
maintenance plan milestone years were estimated based on compliance with
the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program according to  the methodology
described in section 7.4.1 of “Technical Guidance on the Use of
MOBILE6.2 for Emissions Inventory Preparation” published by EPA’s
Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) in January 2002.  In
order to provide conservative estimates of emissions, Pennsylvania is
assuming in its MOBILE modeling that the Federal Tier 2 program applies
to subject vehicles sold in Pennsylvania from MY 2004 through MY 2007
and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program applies to subject vehicles
sold in MY 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 MY 2004.  In addition, a consent decree with the
major heavy-duty engine manufacturers required that diesel engines made
by these companies comply with the 2004 standards two model years early,
in MY 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 MY 2005 and
subsequent new heavy-duty diesel highway engines to those certified by
California.

EPA adopted new emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles
for MY 2007 and subsequent.  For diesel engines, the standards will be
phased-in from 2007 to 2010 for NOx and VOCs.  For gasoline engines, the
standards will be phased-in during MYs 2008 and 2009.  Federal and
California standards are identical for MY 2007 and beyond; the emission
estimates use assumptions of the Federal rule for these years.

EPA will also require 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.

- Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program.  In November 2003,
Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection program to include a
visual inspection of certain pollution control components in the 42
counties for which a separate vehicle emissions inspection program is
not required.  These regulations 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 (SIP) 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
the new diesel-powered (“compression ignition”) and gasoline-powered
(“spark ignition”) nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and
applications.  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 assumptions built into the nonroad model (NONROAD2005) to
estimate emissions for all milestone years.

EPA will also require diesel fuel used in most nonroad applications to
contain less sulfur.  The sulfur will prevent damage to the more
advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engines standards
and also reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines.  In
2007, fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 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 Tioga Area.

(c)  Monitoring Network - There is currently one monitor measuring ozone
in the Tioga Area.  Pennsylvania will continue to operate its current
air quality monitor in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

(d)  Verification of Continued Attainment – The Commonwealth will
track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Tioga Area by
reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period.  The
Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of two key factors, VMT
data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to
the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan.  The
Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years)
emission inventories prepared under EPA’s Consolidated Emission
Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51 Subpart A) to see if the area exceeds
the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent.  Based on
these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further
emission control measures should be implemented.

(e) The Maintenance Plan’s Contingency Measures – The contingency
plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  Section 175A of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure 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 measure(s)
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 Tioga 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 the year 2018.  The Commonwealth’s
maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and
implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions
should a violation occur.

Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the
fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at the Tioga area monitor
are above 84 ppb.  If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will
evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be
implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard.
 PADEP will 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 measure that have been adopted but no
yet implemented at the time of excessive ozone levels occurred.  PADEP
will then begin the process of implementing any selected measures.

Contingency measures will be considered in the event that a violation of
the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Tioga County, Pennsylvania
monitor.  In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard,
contingency measures will be adopted in order to return the area to
attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to be considered for
the Tioga Area will include but not limited to:

Regulatory measures:

Additional controls on consumer products

Additional controls on portable fuel containers

Non-regulatory measures:

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

Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel
use, for public or private local onroad or offroad 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 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 a funding:

Transportation projects, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funds from the Federal Highway Administration, as allocated to the
Northern Tier RPO.

For projects which will also have an energy efficient co-benefit, the
Pennsylvania Energy Harvest program.

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

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

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

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 revised SIP to EPA.

Within 12 – 24 months of the trigger:  Implement strategies and
projects.

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

Within 1 month of  the trigger:  Submit request to begin regulatory
development process.

Within 3 months of the trigger:  Review of regulation by Air Quality
Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council (CAC)
and other advisory committees (could include the Small Business
Compliance Advisory Committee and Agricultural Advisory Committee) as
appropriate.

Within 6 months of the trigger:  Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
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 rules 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 committee review
responses to comments and draft final rulemaking.

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

Within 17 months of the trigger:  IRCC action on final rulemaking.

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

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

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 Tioga Area meets the requirements of
section 175A of the Act.

Requirement for Continued Maintenance

Section 175A(b) of the CAA will also require the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania 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 Tioga Area for total of 20 years following
redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS.

Modeling Analysis

Modeling results for the EPA’s CAIR were examined to determine if the
model results support redesignating the Tioga Area to attainment.
Results for the Tioga Area indicate modeled ozone concentrations will be
below the 8-hour ozone standard.  The Tioga Area’s modeled ozone
concentrations are approximately 72 ppb for the 2010 Base and 69 ppb for
the 2015 CAIR runs.  This result also supports redesignating the Tioga
Area to attainment and that the area will continue to attain the 8-hour
ozone standard.

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the
Maintenance Plan for the Tioga Area

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 ensuring 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 budget 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 consults this guidance and follows this
rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.

The MVEBs for the Tioga Area are listed in Table 7 below for the 2004,
2009, and 2018 years and are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations.

Table 7: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in tons per day (tpd)

Year	NOx	VOC

2004	4.8	3.0

2009	3.4	2.2

2018	1.6	1.3

Safety Margin

A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.  The following example is for the 2018 safety margin:  the
Tioga Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004
time period.  The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for the Tioga Area.

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 7.7 tpd of VOC and 8.0 tpd of NOx.
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of
5.5 tpd of VOC and 4.1 tpd of NOx from all sources in the Tioga Area.
The safety margin for Tioga for 2018 would be the difference between
these amounts, or 2.2 tpd of VOC and 3.9 tpd of NOx.  The emissions up
to the level of the attainment year including the safety margins are
projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra emissions reduction below
the attainment levels that can be allocated for emissions by various
sources as long as the total emission levels are maintained at or below
the attainment levels.  Table 8 shows the safety margins for the 2009
and 2018 years.

Table 8:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for the Tioga Area

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

2004 Attainment	7.7	8.0

2009 Interim	6.7	6.2

2009 Safety Margin	1.0	1.8

2004 Attainment	7.7	8.0

2018Final	5.5	4.1

2018 Safety Margin	2.2	3.9

PADEP allocated 0.2 tpd NOx and 0.1 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim VOC
projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOx projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs.  For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 0.2
tpd NOx and 0.2 tpd VOC from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the
2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions
of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be
allocated to any other source category.  Table 9 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBs for the Tioga Area.

Table 9:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Tioga Area

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

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	2.1	3.2

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.1	0.2

2009 MVEBs	2.2	3.4

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	1.1	1.4

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.2	0.2

2018 MVEBs	1.3	1.6

Why MVEBs are Approvable

The 2004, 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Tioga 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.

Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Tioga Area
Maintenance Plan

The MVEBs for the Tioga 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 Tioga 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 Tioga Area MVEBs will
also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov.otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm"
http://www.epa.gov.otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm  (once there,
click on “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions”).

III.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:

The Tioga Area has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that
satisfies section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment.  The Tioga Area also has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on air quality monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I recommend
that the maintenance plan for the Tioga Area be approved and be
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  I also recommend
approving the 2002 base year inventory and the MVEBS for the Tioga 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 (Act) 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

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 12, 2008

“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 form
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, and William G.
Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, September 29, 1992

“2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5,
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

 PAGE

  PAGE   14

  PAGE   22

  PAGE   23

  PAGE   29


[Federal Register: October 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 58147]
[DOCID:fr12oc07-112]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Request for Public Comment, Clinton County Airport, Plattsburgh,
NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on Clinton County Airport (PLB), Plattsburgh, New York notice
of proposed release from aeronautical use of approximately 624 acres of
airport property, including runways, taxiways, aprons, airside and
landside facilities to allow for non-aeronautical development. It has
been determined through the planning process to close Clinton County
Airport and transfer all operations to Plattsburgh International
Airport (PBG), Plattsburgh, New York, its replacement airport. FAA's
action is to release the land from its deed provision requiring
aeronautical use of the property. A prior study explored the potential
for the public benefit conveyance of Plattsburgh International Airport
as a replacement airport, with Clinton County as the owner and operator
of the new airport. The Plattsburgh International Military Airport
Program application and Airport Master Plan determined that land
constituting Clinton County Airport has no aeronautical use and should
be replaced by the new facility at PGB. Revenue generated from the
disposal of the property will be utilized at the replacement airport,
Plattsburgh International Airport, Plattsburgh, New York for
aeronautical development. Documents reflecting the sponsor's request
are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Airport
Manager's office and the FAA Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, FAA New
York Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden
City, New York 11530. In addition, a coy of any comments submitted to
the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. James R. Langley,
Chairperson, Clinton County Legislature, at the following address:
Clinton County Government Center, 137 Margaret Street, Suite 208,
Plattsburgh, New York 12901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, New York
Airports, District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden
City, New York 11530; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 1st Century (AIR21) requires the FAA
to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment before the
Secretary may waive a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain
airport land for aeronautical use.

Steven Urlass,
Manager, New York Airports District Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 07-5036 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M