UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

						May 1, 2007

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

			S/S

FROM:	Christopher Cripps

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Linda Miller, Acting Chief S/S

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On December 14, 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the
Franklin County, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area (the Franklin
County Area) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) of 40 CFR 50.10.  The Franklin County Area is
comprised of the County of Berks.  Also, on December 14, 2006,
Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory
for the Franklin County Area, as State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions.  The maintenance plan will ensure continued attainment in the
area for at least 10 years after the area is redesignated.

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

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

II. What is EPA Analysis of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Request
to redesignate the Franklin County Area to Attainment?

As identified above, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.”  The
following is a discussion of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
December 14, 2006 submittal satisfies the five requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  The EPA will discuss its evaluation of the
maintenance plan under its analysis of the redesignation request.

A.  Was the Ozone NAAQS Attained in the Franklin County Area?

1.  8-hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.10

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average of the monitored annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration.  The air quality monitoring data
used for Pennsylvania’s redesignation request was the air quality data
for 2003 through 2005.  This monitor was located at on the premises of
the UGI Company at Morgantown Road and Prospect Avenue.  In 2006 the
monitoring location was changed to the Reading Department of Public
Safety, North 6th Street in Reading.  The PADEP concludes that the new
monitoring location continues monitoring of air quality data that is
representative of ozone levels in the Franklin County Area.

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 Franklin County
Area is attaining the ozone standard for the most recent three-year
period of 2003 through 2005 (see Table 1 below).  The data collected at
the ozone monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that the three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation of the
Franklin County 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: Franklin County Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Values

Forest Road, Methodist Hill, Franklin County, Pennsylvania (AQS ID
42-055-0001)

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2003	0.080

2004	0.071

2005	0.074

2006	0.066

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

The average for the 3-year period 2004 through 2006 is 0.070 ppm

The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Franklin County Area
has attained the standard with a design value of 0.075 ppm and continues
to maintain the standard through the period 2004-2006 with a design
value of 0.0.70 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.  (See Appendix A for the air quality
data.)  In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and data taken from the AQS indicates that the Franklin
County Area has attained and continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2.  1-hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.9

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS has a different form as well as limit.  The
1-hour ozone NAAQS is attained and maintained if the average number of
expected exceedances over a three year period is less than or equal to
1.  For any three-year period after 1996, the average number of expected
exceedances was 0.0, which is less than 1.  In summary, any three-year
period after 1996, EPA believes that the Franklin County Area is in
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the data submitted by
Pennsylvania and taken from the AQS.  Further details on this
determination are found in Appendix A of this document.

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

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

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

1.  General SIP Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the 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 Franklin County Area
will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated.
The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a
particular area’s designation and classification, are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.  This policy
is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on the applicability of
conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement.
See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995).  See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at
53099, October 19, 2001).  Similarly, with respect to the NOx SIP Call
rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable
requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1) because the NOx rules
apply regardless of an area’s attainment or nonattainment status for
the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.”  69 FR 23951 at 23983 (April 30,
2004).  This statement made in the preamble to the April 30, 2004, final
rule was merely restating EPA’s longstanding interpretation:  The
requirement to submit revisions under the NOx SIP call continues to
apply to areas after redesignation to attainment and is not a
requirement of section 110 and part D that is linked with an area's
nonattainment status.  See the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37799-37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).

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

2.  Part D Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

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

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

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

a. Subpart 1 Nonattainment Requirements Specified by Section 172

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

b. Subpart 2 Requirements Specified by Section 182

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although any future decision by EPA to classify the Franklin County Area
under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for this
area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of this
area cannot now go forward.  This belief is based upon (1) consideration
of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements, such as the
emissions statement rule and 2002 base year inventory, that might be
applicable in the future; and, (2) EPA’s longstanding policy of
evaluating redesignation requests in accordance with only  the
requirements due at the time the request was submitted.  With respect to
the emissions statements and 2002 base year inventory requirements, EPA
believes that the emissions statement requirement is satisfied by the
current rule in the approved Pennsylvania SIP.  This rule is codified at
Section 135.21 “Emission statements” in Chapter 135 of 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1); see also 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995.  With respect to
the 2002 base year inventory requirement, EPA can propose to approve the
base year inventory SIP as fulfilling the requirement of CAA section
172(c)(3) and if necessary CAA section 182(a) concurrently with the
maintenance plan.

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

c. Other Subpart 1 and 2 Requirements under Part D

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

In the case of the Franklin County Area, EPA has also determined that
before being redesignated, the Franklin County Area need not comply with
the requirement that a NSR program (under subpart 1 or 2) be approved
prior to redesignation.  First, EPA has also determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without Part D NSR in effect.  The rationale
for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.''   See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR at
12467-68); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio (61 FR at 20458, 20469-70);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 53669 October 23, 2001); Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR at 31831, 31834-37, June 21, 1996).

In the case of the Franklin County 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 OTR.  Therefore, upon redesignation to
attainment, the Franklin County Area will become subject to
Pennsylvania’s Part D NSR applicable to attainment areas in the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR).  The OTR requirements are more stringent than
those required in marginal, moderate or subpart 1 “basic” ozone
nonattainment areas: the OTR requirements are more stringent because a
lower threshold for what constitutes a major stationary source of VOC
emissions is required than that required in marginal, moderate or
subpart 1 “basic” ozone nonattainment areas and a higher offset
ratio is required than that required in marginal, or subpart 1
“basic” ozone nonattainment areas.  The Chapter 127 Part D NSR
regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the requirements
for NSR in section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR.
Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP also imposes the NSR requirements on major
sources of NOx emissions as required by section 182(f) of the CAA.

On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania’s
NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 Part D NSR
regulations that cover the Franklin County Area.

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

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

d. Conclusion

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

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

a. Part D Requirements under the 1-Hour Standard

1.  Generally

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

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

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

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

2.  Specific Part D Requirements under the 1-hour Standard

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 With respect to other requirements under the
1-hour standard, in our April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR
13498 at 13524-13527) EPA concluded that the Clean Air Act provides no
specific guidance concerning applicable requirements for certain
unclassifiable nonattainment areas including incomplete data areas.  We
observed that subpart 1 contains general SIP planning requirements, and,
we concluded that subpart 2 is not applicable to incomplete data areas.

Under the approach laid out in our April 16, 1992 General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(57 FR 13498 at 13524-13527) EPA concluded that because incomplete areas
are designated nonattainment some aspects of Subpart 1 necessarily
apply.  See 57 FR 13498 at 13525, April 16, 1992.  With regards to
RACT/Reasonably available control measures (RACM), EPA’s position is
that requiring all RACT corrections for incomplete data areas is
unreasonable, but we required that incomplete data areas must correct
any RACT deficiencies regarding enforceability of existing rules in
order to be redesignated to attainment.  See 57 FR at 13525, April 16,
1992.  With regards to the emission inventory requirement, EPA believes
that because an emissions inventory is specifically required under
section 172(c)(3) and is not tied to an area's proximity to attainment
an incomplete data area was required to develop such an inventory even
if only to develop an approvable maintenance plan under section 175A.
See 57 FR 13498 at 13525, April 16, 1992.

3.  Suspension and Waiver of Attainment and Progress Related
Requirements

Furthermore, with respect to the attainment demonstration and RACM, RFP,
and contingency measure requirements of part D,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
under EPA’s Clean Data Policy, as embodied in  40 CFR 51.918, upon a
finding that the area is attaining the standard,  requirements for SIP
submissions linked to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further
progress (RFP) and contingency measures are suspended  for so long as
the area is attaining the standard and after until it is redesignated to
attainment.  EPA described its interpretation in a May 10, 1995
memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, entitled “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard.”  See also the
discussion and rulemakings cited in EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS–Phase 2, 70 FR 71612, 71644-71646 (November 29,
2005).  The Tenth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have upheld EPA
rulemakings applying the Clean Data Policy.  See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v.  EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004) and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th
Cir. June 28, 2005) memorandum opinion.

Because EPA can conclude that the Franklin County Area has met the
1-hour ozone standard, EPA can propose to determine under the Clean Data
Policy that the requirements of section 172(c)(1) concerning the
submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and reasonably
available control measure requirements, the requirements of section
172(c)(2) concerning RFP, and section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9)
contingency measures under the 1-hour standard are not applicable for
purposes of redesignation.

If, while any such Clean Data determination is pending, the 1-hour ozone
standard is reinstated and a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is
monitored (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 58
and recorded in AQS) in this nonattainment area the EPA would not issue
a final determination of attainment for the affected area.  If the area
remains in attainment and EPA issues a final determination of
attainment, a subsequent monitored violation prior to redesignation to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would also mean that the area may
thereafter have to address the requirements of sections 172(c)(1),
172(c)(2) and 172(c)(9), since the basis for the determination that they
do not apply would no longer exist.  Such a proposal should not include
a revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone in the Franklin County Area.

4.  NSR

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

5.  Section 184 Requirements

All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and
nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under
section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of
emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment.  The
section 184 requirements include 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 Franklin County Area, which is located in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation.  As discussed
previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision
which applies the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to
attainment areas within the OTR.

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

6.  How the Applicable Part D Requirements Have Been Fulfilled

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

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

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

c. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

The Franklin County Area was a 1-hour incomplete data area at the time
of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).  Because the Franklin County Area was a 1-hour
incomplete data area, the only,  previous part D SIP submittal
requirement was the RACT corrections due under section 182(a)(2)(A) and
the comprehensive emissions inventory due under section 172(c)(3) for
the 1-hour standard.  The RACT corrections are fully approved (59 FR
65971, December 22, 1994), and, EPA is proposing to approve a
comprehensive inventory for the area in this notice of proposed
rulemaking.  No other Part D submittal requirements have come due prior
to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for the area.
Therefore, all Part D submittal requirements have been fulfilled.
Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable
for the purposes of redesignation of the Franklin County 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 Franklin County Area, and therefore they need not be
approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.

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

EPA believes that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.  EPA approved
Pennsylvania’s SIP control strategy for the Franklin County Area,
including enforceable rules and the emissions reductions achieved as a
result of those rules.  Emission reductions attributable to these rules
are shown in Table 2.

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002	  0.7	7.8	2.6	9.7	20.8

2004	   0.8	7.8	2.6	8.6	19.8

Diff.(02-04)	- 0.1	0.0	0.0	1.1	1.0

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002 	    0.4	0.7	4.2	18.3	23.6

2004 	    0.6	0.7	4.0	16.5	21.8

Diff (02-04)	- 0.2	0.0	0.2	  1.8	  1.8

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions the Franklin County Area decreased
by 4.8 percent from 20.8 tpd to 19.8 tpd; NOx emissions decreased by 7.6
percent from 23.6 tpd to 21.8 tpd.  These reductions and anticipated
future reductions are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures:

1.  Stationary Area Source Measures

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

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

2.  Highway Vehicle Sources

While VMT increased approximately four percent between 2002 and 2004,
highway vehicle emissions decreased.  These decreases can be
attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (an increased
proportion of cleaner (Federal Tier 1) light-duty vehicles in the fleet,
an increased proportion of cleaner heavy-duty highway vehicles (Federal
1998 + 2002/2004 standards) and implementation of the vehicle emissions
inspection program.

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

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

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

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

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

3.  Nonroad Sources

EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel-powered
(“compression ignition”) and gasoline-powered (“spark ignition”)
nonroad engines of various sizes (horsepower) and applications (69 FR
38958, June 29, 2004).  Information on these federal rules, including
their implementation dates, can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nonroad"  www.epa.gov/nonroad .  PADEP used the
Federal control measure assumptions built into the NONROAD model
(NONROAD2005) to estimate emissions for all milestone years.  No control
programs were anticipated to affect aircraft and railroad locomotive
emissions between 2002 and 2004.  These programs are codified at 40 CFR
parts 89 to 91 and 1039, 1048 and 1051.

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

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

A.  Background and General

1.  General Requirements of Section 175A of the CAA

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

Under section 175A(a) of the CAA, a maintenance plan must provide for
maintenance of the standard for at least ten years after the area is
redesignated to attainment.  Under section 175A(b), the SIP must revised
to provide for maintenance for a further ten-year period beyond the
initial 10-year period.  Under section 175A, the SIP must provide for
maintenance for a minimum of twenty (2) years after redesignation.  This
TSD will evaluate the maintenance plan in light of any applicable
requirements under section 175A with respect to both the 1-hour and
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2.  Pennsylvania’s Maintenance Plan Submission

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Franklin County Area
to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted for approval under section
175A of the CAA the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill
section 175A(a) requirement for the 8-hour standard. Pennsylvania
submitted the January 25, 2007, maintenance plan to fulfill Section
175A(a) by demonstrating that the Franklin County Area will maintain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation as required
by section 175A(a).  Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Franklin County Area meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the
applicable 8-hour ozone standard.

B.  What is the Attainment Inventory for the Franklin County Area?

An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.  The PADEP
determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year was 2004.
That year establishes a reasonable year within the three-year attainment
period of 2003-2005 as a baseline and accounts for reductions
attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.  These
2004 levels of emissions are representative of attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.  The 2004 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance and is
based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NOx during
2004, and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions.
(See Table 5).  The Technical Appendices submitted with this
redesignation request contain more detailed information for each sector
on the emissions inventories required for this redesignation.

Table 5:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	NonRoad	Mobile	Total

VOC	0.8	7.8	2.6	8.6	19.8

NOx	0.6	0.7	4.0	16.5	21.8

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

1.  Point Source Emissions

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

2.  Stationary Area Source Emissions

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

3.  On-Road Mobile Sources

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE6.2 to estimate
highway vehicle emissions.  The Franklin County Area’s highway vehicle
emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates
of VMT by vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used information
specific to the Franklin County Area where appropriate.  The Franklin
County Area highway vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using
MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of VMT by vehicle type, and roadway
type.  More information on highway methods is available in the Technical
Appendices (Appendix C) of the submittal.  The estimates used
information specific to the Franklin County Area where appropriate.

4.  Non-road  Sources

The 2002 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD
model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors.  NONROAD does not estimate emissions from
aircraft or locomotives.  For 2002 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  There are no
commercial aircraft operations in the Franklin County Area.  For 2002
aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport
operations statistics from   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"
www.airnav.com  and emission factors and operational characteristics in
the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
 The 2004 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD
model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types and
includes growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions
from aircraft or locomotives. For 2004 locomotive emissions, PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  There are no
commercial aircraft operations in the Franklin County Area.  For 2004
aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport
operation statistics from   HYPERLINK "http://www.airnav.com"
www.airnav.com , and emission factors and operational characteristics in
the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
 Growth was calculated using estimates of small airport activity from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s or APO terminal area
forecast detailed report.

C.  How is Maintenance Demonstrated?

On January 25, 2007, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required
by section 175A of the CAA.  The Franklin County Area’s maintenance
plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and continued
maintenance of the 1-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 Franklin County Area through the
year 2018.  A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling.
See Wall v. EPA, Supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, Supra.  See also 66 FR at
53099-53100;  68 FR at 25430-32.

Tables 6 and 7 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the Franklin County
Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018.  The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year
in the 10-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the
VOC and NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004
attainment level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period.

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

Source Category	2004 VOC Emissions	2009 VOC Emissions	2018 VOC Emissions

Point 	  0.8	  0.6	  0.8

Area	  7.8	  7.8	  8.0

Mobile*	  8.6	  7.3	  5.1

Non-road	  2.6	  2.2	  1.8

Total	19.8	17.9	15.7

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

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

Source Category	2004 NOx Emission	2009 NOx Emissions	   2018 NOx

Emissions**

Point 	  0.6	  0.3	  0.3

Area	  0.7	  0.7	  0.8

Mobile*	16.5	12.7	  6.7

Non-road	  4.0	  3.4	  2.2

Total	21.8	17.0	10.0

	Totals may vary due to rounding.  See Appendices.

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

**  Mobile source NOx emissions for 2018 reflect the budgets set in
Table 2-3 of section E on Page 17 of the Plan versus the 6.6 tpd used in
Table 2-2 on page 10 of the Plan.  Section E is where the plan clearly
identifies and precisely quantifies the motor vehicle emissions budgets
after allocation of a portion of the safety margin.  The motor vehicle
emissions budgets are the future year projections for mobile sources
that must be used in the maintenance demonstration.

2.  Summary of Control Measures

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

a. Stationary Point Sources

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

(ii) NOx SIP Call -- In response to the Federal NOx SIP Call rule,
Pennsylvania adopted NOx control regulations for large industrial
boilers and internal combustion engines, electric generating units, and
cement plants which became effective between May 1, 2002-2005 (66 FR
43795, August 21, 2001).   There are no affected sources in the Franklin
County Area.  Upwind reductions continue to assist in maintaining the
standard in the Franklin County Area.

b.  Stationary Area Sources

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

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

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

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

c.  Highway Vehicle Sources

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

(i) Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs for Passenger Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks

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

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

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

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

In 1999, EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV (Tier 2)
(65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), starting with the 2004 MY.  In order to
participate in NLEV, Pennsylvania was required to adopt language that
extended its “commitment” to NLEV until MY 2006.  In practical
terms, the NLEV program was replaced for model year 2004 and later by
the more stringent Federal Tier 2 vehicle emissions regulations and
vehicle manufacturers operating the NLEV program became subject to the
Tier 2 requirements.  Therefore, this plan assumes that the Federal Tier
2 program governs new vehicles sold in Pennsylvania in the attainment
year, 2004.  The incorporated CA LEV requirements are applicable in the
Commonwealth for MY 2006 and each model year thereafter.  The same
regulation required the reduction of sulfur in gasoline beginning in
2004.  In the first year of the program, sulfur levels were capped at
300 ppm and annual refinery corporate averages were limited to no more
than 120 ppm.  This analysis uses the default assumptions provided in
MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for conventional fuel sold in the
Franklin County Area

(ii) Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program for Passenger Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks

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

(iii) Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs

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

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

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

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

(iv) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program

In 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.  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).  These regulations can be found in the
Pennsylvania SIP in Title 67  Pa. Code, Chapter 175 of 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1).

d. Nonroad Sources

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

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

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

3.  Conclusion

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEQ has successfully demonstrated that the both the 8-hour ozone
standard should be maintained in the Franklin County Area through 2018.
The January 25, 2007, Maintenance Plan demonstrates maintenance of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS for 11 years after submission and maintenance for a
total of 21 years after the area was redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS.

D.  How Will the Monitoring Network Be Maintained?

There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Franklin County
Area.  The Commonwealth has committed to continue to operate its current
air quality monitoring network located in the Franklin County Area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for
monitoring.

E.  How Will Continued Attainment Be Verified?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory measures:

Additional controls on consumer products.

Additional controls on portable fuel containers.

Non-regulatory measures:

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

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

Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Within 3 months of the trigger, if funding is necessary, identify
potential sources of funding and the timeframe under which funds would
be available.  In addition to non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following
programs may be able to provide funding: the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA), as allocated to the applicable planning
organization for transportation projects; the Pennsylvania Energy
Harvest Program for energy efficiency projects; the Small Business
Advantage Grant and Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs
for projects undertaken by small business and pollution prevention
projects; the Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant Program for projects
which involve alternative fuel for vehicles/refueling operations; the
Energy Policy Act diesel reduction funds for projects involving diesel
emissions.

Within 9 months of the trigger, enter into agreements with implementing
organizations if State loans or grants are involved.  Quantify projected
emission benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.  Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  What Are the MVEBs in the Reading Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Franklin County Area are listed in Table 3 below for
the years 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved (or deemed adequate) by
EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations.

Table 7:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Franklin County Area

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

2009 	  7.3	5.1

2018	12.7	6.7

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

1.  What is a Safety Margin?

A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra emissions that can be
allocated as long as the total attainment level of emissions is
maintained.  The credit, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any
of the source categories.  (See Table 4)

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

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 were 19.8 tpd of VOC and 21.8 tpd of NOx.
PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and obtained totals of
15.7 tpd of VOC and 10.0 tpd of NOx from all sources in the Franklin
County Area.  The safety margin for the Franklin County Area for 2018
would be the difference between these amounts.  This difference is 4.1
tpd of VOC and 11.8 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 Franklin County Area

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

2004 Attainment	19.8	21.8

2009 Interim	17.9	17.0

2009 Safety Margin	 1.9	 4.8

2004 Attainment	19.8	21.8

2018 Final	15.7	10.0

2018 Safety Margin	  4.1	11.8

PADEP allocated 0.7 tpd) VOC and 0.4 tpd NOx to the 2009 interim VOC
projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOx projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs.  For the 2018 MVEBs the PADEP allocated 1.0
tpd VOC and 0.7 tpd NOx from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the
2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions
of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be
allocated to any other source category.  Table 9 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for the Franklin County Area.

Table 9:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for the Franklin County Area tons
per day (rounded to nearest 0.1 tpd)

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions 	NOx Emissions

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	 6.6	12.3

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.7	 0.4

2009 MVEBs	 7.3	12.7

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	 4.1	 6.0

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	 1.0	 0.7

2018 MVEBs	 5.1	 6.7

2.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Franklin County Area are approvable
because the MVEBs for NOx and VOC emissions continue to maintain the
total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as
required by the transportation conformity regulations.  See “Technical
Support Document for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; 2009 and 2018
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the maintenance Plan for the Berks
County, Pennsylvania Ozone Nonattainment Area,” dated February 5,
2007, which is part of this docket.

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

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

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

IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The Franklin County Area has met the criteria for a maintenance plan
that satisfies section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment.  Therefore, I recommend that the maintenance plan for the
Franklin County Area be approved as fulfilling the requirements of
section 175A(a) of the CAA with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and of
section 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

I also recommend approving the 2002 base-year inventory and the MVEBs
for the Franklin County Area.

The area has attained both the 8-hour ozone and 1-hour NAAQS based on
air quality monitoring data from AQS.

Therefore, I recommend that EPA propose to issue a determination
pursuant to section 181(b)(2) that the area has attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and to   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 find that the requirements of
section 172(c)(1) concerning the submission of the ozone attainment
demonstration and reasonably available control measure requirements, the
requirements of section 172(c)(2) concerning reasonable further progress
(RFP), and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency
measures for RFP or attainment do not apply to the area for so long as
it continues to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone NAAQS.

I further recommend that the Franklin County Area be redesignated to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

V.  List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation Guidance Memos and Documents

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

		Laxton, June 18, 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

	January 18, 2002.

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

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

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

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

		March 14, 2006.

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

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

		April 29, 2002.

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

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

		November 2005.

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

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

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

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

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

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

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

		Monitoring, and Analysis Division, November 18, 2002.

   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 2003 to 2005 is 0.0803333… which truncates to a design value of
0.080.

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

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

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

 We note, however, that the maintenance plan contains contingency
measures required under section 175A of the Clean Air Act.

   The Court’s ruling in South Coast also addressed the section 185
penalty fees provision for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas
but this provision never applied to the Franklin County Area which was
not formerly classified as either severe or extreme under the 1-hour
ozone standard.

 PAGE

 PAGE   34