UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

DATE:	September 10, 2007

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

FROM:	LaKeshia N. Robertson, Environmental Scientist /s/

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Marilyn Powers, Acting Chief /s/

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  Background

On June 14, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the York
(York and Adams Counties) nonattainment area to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  Also on June 14,
2007, in conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a
maintenance plan for the York Area, along with a 2002 base year
inventory, as SIP revisions.  The maintenance plan will ensure continued
attainment in the York Area for at least ten years after the area is
redesignated.

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

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

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

As identified above, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided guidance
on how it would review requests for redesignation in a September 4, 1992
memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, entitled, “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment.”  The following is a discussion of how the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s June 14, 2007 submittal satisfies the
five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA will discuss
its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its analysis of the
redesignation request.

A.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the York Area

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.10

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average of the monitored annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration.  The air quality monitoring data
used for Pennsylvania’s redesignation request was the air quality data
for 2004-2006.  There are two monitors located in   the York Area that
measures air quality with respect to ozone.  The monitors are located in
York and Adams Counties.  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 York Area is attaining the ozone standard for the most
recent three-year period of 2004 through 2006 (see Tables 1 and 2
below).  The data collected at the ozone monitors satisfies the CAA
requirement that the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal
to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
request for redesignation of the York Area indicates that the data was
quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  PADEP uses the Air
Quality System (AQS) as the permanent database to maintain its data and
quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy.

Table 1:  York Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

York County Monitor/AQS ID 42-133-0008

Adams County Monitor/AQS ID 42-001-0002

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.077

2005	0.089

2006	0.077

The average for the 3-year period 2004-2006 is 0.081 ppm

Table 2:  York Area Fourth Highest 8-hour Average Values

Adams County Monitor/AQS ID 42-001-0002

Year	Annual 4th Highest Reading (ppm)

2004	0.072

2005	0.080

2006	0.074

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

The air quality data for 2004-2006 show that the York Area has attained
the standard with a design value of 0.081 ppm.  In addition, as
discussed below, with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has
committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In
summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and
data taken from the AQS indicates that the York Area has attained and
continues to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2.  1-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.9

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS has a different form as well as limit.  The
1-hour ozone NAAQS is attained and maintained if the average number of
expected exceedances over a three-year period is less than or equal to
1.  With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on January 17, 1995 (62 FR
3349), EPA determined pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA that the
York Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1993.  For the
period 2003 through 2005, the average number of exeedances was 0.0 and
for the period 2004-2006, the average number of exceedances expected was
0.0.  In summary, for the period 2003 through 2005, EPA believes that
the York Area is still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based
upon the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from the AQS.  EPA
believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available
2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the York Area in 2006.

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

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

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

1.  General SIP Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

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

Thus, we do not believe that these 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 York 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, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

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

However, o  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 n December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April
30, 2004).  South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter “South Coast”).  On June 8, 2007, in
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in
response to several petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified
that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the
rule that had been successfully challenged.  Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment
areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions
reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain
effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the Court’s rejection of
EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2.  By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged.  The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain
measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area’s 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and
(4) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of
federal actions.  The June 8 decision clarified that the Court’s
reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.  Elsewhere
in this document, mainly in section VI. B. “The York Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has
a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,” EPA discusses
its rationale why the decision in South Coast is not an impediment to
redesignating the York Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

Under 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the
3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered).  See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information.  Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet data completeness
requirements.  The data completeness requirements are met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.  The ozone
monitoring data indicates that the York Area has a design value of 0.081
ppm for the 3-year period of 2004-2006, using complete, quality-assured
data.  Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the York Area indicates no
violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.

1.  Section 110 General SIP Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

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

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

In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation.  The York Area will still be subject to these
requirements after it is redesignated.  The section 110 and Part D
requirements which are linked with a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request.  This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995).  See also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh
redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001).  Similarly, with
respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule
to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules are not
“an” ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1)
because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment or
nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

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

2.  Part D Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard

Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the York Area
was designated a basic nonattainment area under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
ozone standard.  Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part
D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas.  Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part
D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area’s nonattainment classification.  With respect to the 8-hour
standard, the court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons for classifying
areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter
to the Agency.  Consequently, it is possible that this area could,
during a remand to EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2.  Although any
future decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might
trigger additional future requirements for the area, EPA believes that
this does not mean that redesignation of the area cannot now go forward.
 This belief is based upon (1) EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
redesignation requests in accordance with the requirements due at the
time the request is submitted; and (2) consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be
applied.

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 York 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 York
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 CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements
that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation
request.  See, September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division).  See
also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465-66 (March 7, 1995)(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra
Club v EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this
interpretation.  See, 68 FR 25418, 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.

In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes that the general conformity and NSR
requirements do not require approval prior to redesignation.

With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of
the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure
that Federally-supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP.  The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”).
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.  EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section
107(d) since State conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have
not been approved.  See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation.  See also, 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995).

In the case of the York Area, EPA has also determined that before being
redesignated, the York Area need not comply with the requirement that a
NSR program be approved prior to redesignation.  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 of Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.”  Normally, State’s Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will become effective in the
area immediately upon redesignation to attainment.  See the more
detailed explanations in the following redesignation rulemakings:
Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain,
OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665,
53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837,
June 21, 1996).  In the case of the York 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 ozone transport region
(OTR).  The OTR NSR requirements are more stringent than that required
for a marginal or basic ozone nonattainment area.  On October 19, 2001
(66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania’s NSR SIP revision
consisting of Pennsylvania’s Chapter 127 Part D NSR regulations that
cover the York Area.

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, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997).  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

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

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

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

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

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

		(1)  RACT.

		(2)  I/M.

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

		(4)  Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions.

		(5)  Stage II vapor recovery.

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

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

		(8)  Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours
as

required by section 182(e)(4) of the CAA.

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

		(10)  Transportation control measures (TCMs) under section

182(c)(5) of the CAA.

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

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

		(13)  Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under
section

51.905(a)(1)(ii).

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

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

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

Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the CAA relates to the savings clause for
certain I/M programs.  It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M
programs.  This provision was not applicable to the York Area because
this area did not have nor was required to have an I/M program before
November 15, 1990.

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

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

The section 185 penalty fee requirement applies only to severe and
extreme nonattainment area, and was never applicable in the York 1-hour
marginal nonattainment area.

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The conformity portion of the Court’s ruling
does not impact the redesignation request for the York Area except to
the extent that the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for
those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires that those
1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets.   There are no applicable 1-hour MVEBs for
the York Area.  (As discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA is
proposing to approve 8-hour MVEBs for the York Area.)  To meet this
requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply with
the applicable requirements of EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR
Part 93.

Transport Region Requirements

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

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

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including
NSR, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation.  Reading, PA
Redesignation, 61 FR 53174, (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7,
1997).  The rationale for this is based on two considerations.  First,
the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements
continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to
attainment.  Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well
as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation.  Second, the section 184
control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the
area by virtue of the area’s nonattainment designation and
classification, and thus are properly considered not relevant to an
action changing an area’s designation.  See 61 FR 53174, 53175-6
(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997).

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

EPA has fully approved the applicable Pennsylvania SIP for purposes of
redesignation for the York Area under section 110(k) of the CAA.  EPA
may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request.
Calcagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir.1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein.  Because the York Area was a 1-hour
marginal area, the only previous Part D SIP submittal requirement was
the RACT corrections due under section 182(a)(2)(A) which are fully
approved (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994).  Also, no Part D submittal
requirements have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour
maintenance plan for the York 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 York 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 York Area, and therefore they
need not be approved into the SIP prior to redesignation.

C.  The Air Quality Improvement in the York 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 York Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.  Emission
reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 3.

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

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002	8.5	27.1	25.3	10.4	71.3

2004	5.3	26.8	21.3	10.1	63.5

Diff.(02-04)	-3.2	-0.3	-4.0	-0.3	-7.8

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

2002	70.2	2.9	36.6	14.3	124.0

2004	75.3	3.0	31.9	13.7	123.9

Diff (02-04)	5.1	0.1	-4.7	-0.6	-0.1

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 7.8 tpsd, and NOx
emissions decreased by 0.1 tpsd.  These reductions, and anticipated
future reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable
measures.

1.  Stationary Point Sources

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.  In response to the Federal
NOx SIP Call rule, Pennsylvania and other covered states adopted NOx
control regulations for large industrial boilers and internal combustion
engines, electric generating units, and cement plants.  The regulation
covering industrial boilers and electric generators required emission
reductions to commence May 1, 2003, while the regulation covering large
internal combustion engines and cement plants required emission
reductions to commence May 1, 2005.  (66 FR 43795, August 1, 2001).

 Stationary Area Source Measures

Solvent Cleaning.  Pennsylvania adopted revisions to the VOC
requirements for solvent cleaning operations in 25 Pa. Code Section
129.63 (relating to degreasing operations) that became effective
beginning on December 22, 2001.  For heated solvent cleaning machines,
in most respects, the provisions of 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
reductions resulting from this requirement would be reflected in the
2004 inventory.  EPA approved the regulation on January 16, 2003 (68 FR
2206).

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

3.  Highway Vehicle Sources

While VMT increased 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.

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

Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAA Amendments of 1990
include NOx and VOC limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and
light-duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs).  These standards began to be phased
in starting in 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, which were effective starting with the 2004
model year (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).  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 parts per million (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 York Area.

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

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program.  In early 2004,
Pennsylvania expanded its vehicle emission inspection/maintenance (I/M)
program into the York County.  A vehicle emissions inspection is not
required in Adams County. (See the following section on Vehicle Safety
Inspection Program that applies to Adams County.)  The program applies
to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under, model years 1975
and newer.  For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program consists of an
annual on-board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure test.  For
subject vehicles 1995 and older, the program consists of an annual
visual inspection of pollution control devices to ensure they are
present, connected and the proper type for the vehicle and a gas cap
pressure test.  These regulations can be found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter
177.  Pennsylvania submitted the expanded emissions program as a SIP
revision on December 1, 2003, and EPA approved the revision on October
6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program.  In December 2003,
Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection program to include a
visual inspection of certain pollution control components in the
42counties, including Adams County, for which a separate vehicle
emissions inspection program is not required.  These regulations can
found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175.  Pennsylvania submitted that portion
of the amended safety inspection program as a revision to its State
Implementation Plan on December 1, 2003.  EPA approved the SIP revision
on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

4.  Nonroad Sources

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

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

Maintenance Plan for the York Area

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

(a)  Attainment Inventory

An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.  PADEP
determined that the appropriate attainment inventory year was 2004.
That year establishes a reasonable year within the three-year block of
2004-2006 as a baseline and accounts for reductions attributable to
implementation of the CAA requirements to date.  The 2004 inventory is
consistent with EPA guidance and is based on actual “typical summer
day” emissions of VOC and NOx during 2004, and consists of a list of
sources and their associated emissions, shown in Table 4.  The Technical
Appendices submitted with this redesignation request contain more
detailed information for each sector on the emissions inventories
required for this redesignation.

Table 4:  2004 Attainment Year Inventory (tpsd)

Pollutant	Point	Area	Non-road	Mobile	Total

VOC	5.3	26.8	21.3	10.1	63.5

NOx	75.3	3.0	31.9	13.7	123.9

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 the State submittal (June 14, 2007).

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 EPA’s publication series AP-42 and are based on
Source Classification Code (SCC).  Each process has at least one SCC
assigned to it.  If the facilities provide more accurate emission data
based upon other factors, this data supersedes that calculated using SCC
codes.

Stationary Area Sources

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

On-Road Mobile Sources

PADEP employs an emissions estimation methodology that uses the current
EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, MOBILE 6.2, to estimate
highway vehicle emissions. In addition, Pennsylvania uses a MOBILE pre-
and post-processing software package called PPSUITE to process and
compile Pennsylvania’s robust highway network and detailed highway
vehicle data.  Pennsylvania’s methodology is consistent with the
January 2002 guidance published by EPA’s Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (OTAQ) entitled “Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE 6
for Emissions Inventory Preparation.”  Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PENNDOT) supplied estimates of vehicles miles traveled
(VMT) by vehicle type and roadway type. The York/Adams Area highway
vehicle emissions in 2004 were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 and PENNDOT
estimates of VMT by vehicle type and roadway type.  The estimates used
information specific to the York Area where appropriate.  More
information on highway methods is available in the Technical Appendixes
(Appendix C) of the June 14, 2007 submittal.

Non-road  Sources

The 2004 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source
categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model.  The NONROAD
model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum
gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment types and
includes growth factors.  The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions
from aircraft or locomotives.  For 2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP
projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption
information and EPA emission and conversion factors.  There are no
significant air carrier operations (aircraft that can seat over 60
passengers) in the York 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).

 (b)  Maintenance Demonstration

On June 14, 2007, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The York Area maintenance plan shows
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and
future emissions of VOC and NOx remain at or below the attainment year
2004 emission levels throughout the York Area through the year 2018.  A
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See, Wall v.

EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.  See also, 66 FR at 53099-53100;
68 FR at 25430-32.

Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NOx emissions for the York Area for
2004, 2009, and 2018.  PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the
ten-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 ten-year maintenance period.

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

Source Category	2004 VOC Emissions	2009 VOC Emissions

	2018 VOC Emissions

Point*	5.3	8.2	10.1

Area	26.8	26.2	28.9

Mobile**	21.3	15.9	9.0

Nonroad	10.1	8.4	6.9

Total	63.5	58.7	54.9

	* The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4 submitted
with the maintenance plan.

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

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

Source Category	2004 NOx Emissions	2009 NOx Emissions	2018 NOx
Emissions

Point*	75.3	74.1	79.7

Area	3.0	3.1	3.3

Mobile**	31.9	22.8	10.0

Non-road	13.7	11.2	6.5

Total	123.9	111.2	99.5

* The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include
available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4 submitted
with the maintenance plan.

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

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

Stationary Point Sources

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).   The Federal CAIR regulations (70 FR
25162, May 12, 2005) will transition from the NOx SIP Call 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.  The York Area has six
CAIR-affected facilities.

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.   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, 2003-2005.

Stationary Area Sources

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

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

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

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

Highway Vehicle Sources

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

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

In 2009 and 2018, vehicles manufactured to meet Federal 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 model year (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 model year   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 parts per million (ppm) and annual refinery corporate
averages were limited to no more than 120 ppm.  This analysis uses the
default assumptions provided in MOBILE6 for all gasoline parameters for
conventional fuel sold in the York/Adams Area.

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

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

Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs

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

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

EPA adopted new emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles
for model year 2007 and subsequent models (66 FR 5002, January 18,
2001).  For diesel engines, the standards will be phased in from 2007 to
2010 for NOx and VOCs.  For gasoline engines, the standards will be
phase in during model years 2008 and 2009.  Federal and California
standards are virtually identical for model year 2007 and beyond;
therefore, the emission estimates use assumptions of the Federal rule
for these years.

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

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program

In early 2004, Pennsylvania expanded its Vehicle Emission
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program into the York Area.  The program
applies to gasoline-powered vehicles 9,000 pounds and under, model years
1975 and newer.  For vehicles 1996 and newer, the program consists of an
annual on-board diagnostics test and a gas cap pressure test.  The
program consists of an annual visual inspection of pollution control
devices to ensure they are present, connected and the proper type for
the vehicle and a gas cap pressure test.  Pennsylvania submitted the
expanded emissions program to EPA as a SIP revision on December 1, 2003.
 EPA approved the SIP revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program

In December 2003, Pennsylvania amended its vehicle safety inspection
program to include a visual inspection of certain pollution control
components in the 42 counties, including Adams County, for which
separate vehicle emissions inspection program is not required.  These
regulations can found in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175.  Pennsylvania
submitted that portion of the amended safety inspection program as a
revision to its State Implementation Plan on December 1, 2003.  EPA
approved the SIP revision on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

Nonroad Sources

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

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

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

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

(c)  Monitoring Network

The York/Adams Area has two ozone monitors, one in York County (AQS ID
42-133-0008) and another in Adams County (AQS ID 42-001-0002).  The
Commonwealth has committed to continue to operate its monitors in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for
monitoring.

(d)  Verification of Continued Attainment

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

(e)  Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures

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

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

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

(ii)  A violation (any 3-year average of each annual fourth highest
8-hour average) of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm occurs—In the
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the York
Area monitors, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return
the York Area to attainment with the standard.  Contingency measures to
be considered for the York 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:

For transportation projects, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), as
allocated to the York/Adams Area Metropolitan Planning Office (MPO).
Discussions will be held with PENNDOT and the York/Adams MPOs to ensure
that emission credits could be allocated for attainment purposes, rather
than for transportation conformity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Identified in the York Area Maintenance
Plan

A.  Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

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

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

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

The MVEBs for the York Area are listed in Tables 7 and 8 below for the
years 2009 and 2018, and are the projected emissions for the on-road
mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the
MVEBs.  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for
transportation conformity determinations.

B.  Safety Margin

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

The following example is for the 2018 safety margin for the York Area.
The York Area first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2004 to
2006 time period.  The Commonwealth used 2004 as the year to determine
attainment levels of emissions for the York Area.

The total emissions from point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile
non-road sources in 2004 equaled 63.5 tpsd of VOC and 123.9 tpsd of NOx.
 PADEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and projected a total of
54.9 tpsd of VOC and 99.5 tpsd of NOx from all sources in the York Area.
 The safety margin for York for 2018 would be the difference between
these amounts.  This difference is 8.6 tpsd of VOC and 24.4 tpsd of NOx.
 The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the
safety margins are projected to maintain the Area’s air quality
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as

long as the total emission levels are maintained at or below the
attainment levels.  Table 7 shows the safety margins for the 2009 and
2018 years.

Table 7:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for York Area

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

2004 Attainment	63.5	123.9

2009 Interim	58.7	111.2

2009 Safety Margin	4.8	12.7

2004 Attainment	63.5	123.9

2018 Final	54.9	99.5

2018 Safety Margin	8.6	24.4

PADEP allocated 0.8 tpsd VOC and 1.0 tpsd 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 1.1
tpsd VOC and 1.0 tpsd of 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 8 shows the
final 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for York Area.

Table 8:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for York Area

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

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	15.1	21.8

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.8	1.0

2009 MVEBs	15.9	22.8

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	7.9	9.0

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	1.1	1.0

2018 MVEBs	9.0	10.0

C.  Why MVEBs are Approvable

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

D.  Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the York Area
Maintenance Plan

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

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

III.  Conclusions and Recommended Agency Action:

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

IV.  List of EPA Guidance Memos and Documents

A.  Redesignation Guidance Memos and Documents

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

		Laxton, June 18, 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Conformity Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

	January 18, 2002.

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

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

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

C.  Inventory Guidance Memos and Documents

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

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

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

		March 14, 2006.

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

		April 29, 2002.

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

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

		November 2005.

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

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

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

		Technical Support Division, dated September 29, 1992.

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

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

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

 Under the rules set forth in 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I thereto, the
design value is the average of the fourth daily high recorded values for
three consecutive years truncated after the third (3rd) significant
figure.  Thus, the three-year average of the fourth daily high values
for 2004 to 2006 is 0.081 at York and Adams Counties monitor.

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

 PAGE

 PAGE   33

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

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


Stakeholder Comments Regarding Benefits of Carbaryl

from Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077

Several carbaryl stakeholders submitted comments responding to the
Federal Register Notice announcing the receipt of the NRDC petition to
revoke all tolerances for carbaryl and cancel all uses.  These are
listed below to assist the reader in locating them in the docket (either
this docket or the docket 2005-0077).

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077-0004	Comments from Rutgers University

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077-0055	Comments from Michigan State University

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077-0058	Comments from US Apple

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077-0059	Comments from University of Hawaii

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077-0061	Comments from Virginia Tech

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0077-0063	Comments from Northwest Horticultural Council


Frames/ 3MRA March 3, 2003 The Frames/ Multimedia, Multipathway and Multireceptor Risk Assessment ( 3MRA) Model is a exposure and risk assessment modeling system.

Purpose: The 3MRA model was developed to perform a site based national assessment of human and ecological risks posed by the disposal of industrial wastes in land based units ( surface impoundments) to support the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule ( HWIR). To address multiple exposure simultaneously, the 3MRA Model includes 17 functional modules. The model is undergoing SAB review this Spring. The 3MRA model was developed with the intention of broad application above and beyond HWIR, and is a potentially valuable risk analysis tool for the planning process.

Contact: Gerry Laniak ( 706) 355 8316; Justin Babendreier ( 706) 355 8344; Karl Castleton Short term followup: Meet with 3MRA staff to determine whether this model can be used as a screening level tool for identifying national level concerns or trends in human health and the environment. A better understanding of the tool is needed to answer questions including defining the multireceptors ( ecological, human), needed data inputs, and how to validate the results.

Long term followup: Discuss with 3MRA staff the possibility of using this model system for industry specific exposure and risk assessment to support the more detailed investigation phase of the 304( m) planning process.


Farm ID # _______________

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Enterprise Budget Work Sheets Methyl Bromide Tomatoes  Palm Beach  Double Crop Yield Cartons Per Acre  Tomato Cartons Per Acre  Cucurbits IFAS Average 1,400 600 Farm Information Cost Information IFAS Farm Information Acre Carton Acre Carton Pre Harvest Production Costs:

Fertilizer 551.30 Fumigant 560.00 Crop Protection Materials 847.78 Transplants/ Seeds 406.60 Stakes 105.00 Plastic String 110.00 Plastic Mulch/ Irrigation Tubing 632.43 Frost Protection Machinery: Irrigation 346.77 Non irrigation 380.16 Plastic Mulch/ Drip Tape Disposal 222.41 Scounting 39.00 Labor Costs: Tractor Drivers 191.01 Direct Labor 531.06 Miscellaneous 180.00 Interest 316.20 Fixed Costs: Land Cost 400.00 Supervision 946.17 Overhead 1,465.01 Total Pre Harvest Production Costs: 8,230.90 $ 4.12 $  $ # DIV/ 0!

Harvesting 2,382.00 $ 1.19 $ # DIV/ 0!

Packing, Selling & Related Overhead 5,692.00 $ 2.85 $ # DIV/ 0!

TOTAL COST: 16,304.90 $ 8.15 $  $ # DIV/ 0! Farming Costs:

DCTM_ ARP. xls August 3, 2003