IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

On September 20, 2006, the PADEP requested redesignation of the Lancaster Area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. On September 20, 2006, as supplemented on November 8, 2006, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment at least 11 years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 baseyear inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision, which is an applicable requirement for the Lancaster Area for
[[Page 27268]]
purposes of redesignation. EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8hour ozone standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E).

V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 baseyear inventory and a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area for the next 11 years. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8 hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following table:
Table 1.Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd) Year VOC NOX 2009.......................................... 14.3 22.3 2018.......................................... 7.8 9.0 VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request?

EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's September 20, 2006 and November 8, 2006 submittals satisfy the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

A. The Lancaster Area Has Attained the 8Hour Ozone NAAQS

EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of Part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the design value, which is the 3year average of the fourthhighest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor, within the area, over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

In the Lancaster Area, there is one ozone monitor, located in Lancaster County that measures air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced ozone monitoring data for the years 20032005 for the Lancaster Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. The fourth high 8hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the threeyear average are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.Lancaster Area Fourth Highest 8Hour Average Values Lancaster County Monitor/AQS ID 420710007
Annual 4th Year highest reading (ppm) 2003.................................................. 0.083 2004.................................................. 0.081 2005.................................................. 0.085 The average for the 3year period 20032005 is 0.083 ppm.

The air quality data for 20032005 show that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8hour standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm. The data collected at the Lancaster Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8 hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because the design value for 20042006 would be 0.083 ppm. The PADEP's request for redesignation for the Lancaster Area indicates that the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. 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 AQS indicate that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
B. The Lancaster Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area has met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Lancaster Area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 1246566 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of DetroitAnn Arbor). Requirements of the CAA that are applicable subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also, 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).

This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling in South Coast on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation.
[[Page 27269]]
EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with the redesignation of this Area to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.

1. Section 110 General SIP Requirements

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

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 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 Lancaster 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); ClevelandAkronLorain, 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 8hour 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 8hour (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 explained later in this notice, two part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8hour standard became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request.

2. Part D Requirements Under the 8Hour Standard

Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the Lancaster Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area under subpart 2 for the 8hour ozone standard. Sections 172176 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 8hour standard, we do not believe that any part of the court's opinion in South Coast would require that this subpart 2 classification be changed upon remand to EPA. However, even assuming for present purposes that the Lancaster Area would become subject to a different classification under a classification scheme created in a future role in response to the court's decision, that would not prevent EPA from finalizing a redesignation for this area. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that any additional requirements that might apply based on that different classification would not be applicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request.

This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance only with the requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2) consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might be applied in the future.

First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Lancaster Area was classified under subpart 2 and was required to meet the subpart 2 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 1246566 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of DetroitAnn Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (which upheld this interpretation); 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).

Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted, but which might later become applicable. 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
[[Page 27270]]
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 any additional requirements that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request, but that might apply in the future.

With respect to the 8hour standard, two part D subpart 2 requirements became due for the Lancaster Area under section 182(a) of the CAA prior to redesignationa 2002 baseyear inventory, and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B). Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an emissions statement rule for the 1hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 8hour nonattainment area, and that satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8hour standard. See, 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 baseyear inventory for the Lancaster Area, which was submitted on September 30, 2006, and supplemented on November 8, 2006, concurrently with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. A detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base year inventory for the Lancaster Area can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement requirements for the Lancaster Area have been satisfied.

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and NSR requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. 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, 438440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

In the case of the Lancaster Area, which is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), nonattainment NSR requirements will continue to be applicable after redesignation. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision for the Lancaster Area. This revision imposes the OTR NSR requirements in marginal and incomplete data ozone nonattainment areas and ozone attainment areas within the Commonwealth. The OTR requirements are more stringent than those required in marginal ozone nonattainment areas because a lower threshold for what constitutes a major stationary source of VOC emissions is required and a higher offset ratio is required. Pennsylvania's NSR SIP also imposes the NSR requirements on major sources of NOX emissions as required by section 182(f) of the CAA.

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as reasonably available control technology (RACT), and Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are regionwide requirements and do not apply to Lancaster by virtue of the Area's designation and classification. See, 61 FR 53174, 5317553176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 2483032 (May 7, 1997).

3. Part D Requirements Under the 1Hour Standard

In its December 22, 2006 decision in South Coast, the Court also addressed EPA's revocation of the 1hour ozone standard. The current status of the revocation and associated antibacksliding rules is dependent on whether the Court's decision stands as originally issued or is modified in response to any petition for rehearing or request for clarification that has been filed. As described more fully below, EPA believes that the Area has attained the 1hour standard and has met all of the requirements under the 1hour standard that would apply even if the 1hour standard is deemed to be reinstated and, those requirements are viewed as applying under the statute itself. Thus, the Court's decision, as it currently stands, imposes no impediment to moving forward with the redesignation of this Area to attainment of the 8hour standard. Further, even if the court's decision were modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, such that the ultimate decision requires something less than compliance with all applicable 1hour requirements, since the area meets all such requirements as explained below, it would certainly meet any lesser requirements and thus similarly redesignation could proceed.

The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Lancaster Area because there are no conformity requirements that are relevant to a redesignation request for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP.\1\ As we have previously noted, under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida redesignation). \1\ The Clean Air Act section 176(c )(4)(E) currently requires States to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures for the 1hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency measures for
[[Page 27271]]
marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Lancaster Area.

Prior to its designation as an 8hour ozone nonattainment area, the Lancaster Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1 hour standard. With respect to the 1hour standard, the applicable requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D (section 182) for the Lancaster Area 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 Lancaster 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 1hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a onetime requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8hour NAAQS.

Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the Lancaster Area because this area did not have and was not required to have an I/M program before November 15, 1990.

Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the Lancaster Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision with the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area.

Section 182(a)(2)(C) required Pennsylvania to adopt a NSR Permit Program or to correct its existing program to meet EPA guidance requirements issued prior to 1990. As discussed previously, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the NSR requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. However, as noted previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR program for the Lancaster Area.

Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NOX in the nonattainment area to submit Emissions Statements regarding the quantity of emissions from the previous year. As discussed previously, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP a previously approved emissions statement rule for the 1hour standard which applies to the Lancaster Area.

Section 182(a)(1) provides for the submission of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a 2002 baseyear emissions inventory for the Lancaster Area as meeting the requirement of section 182(a)(1). While EPA generally required that the baseyear inventory for the 1hour standard be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's 2002 inventory fulfills this requirement because it meets EPA's guidance and because it is more up to date than 1990. EPA also proposes to determine that, if the 1hour standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 baseyear inventory for the 8hour standard will provide an acceptable substitute for the base year inventory for the 1hour standard.

As noted previously, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation.

EPA has previously determined that the Lancaster Area has attained the 1hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), and we further believe that the Lancaster Area is still in attainment for the 1hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 20032005. To demonstrate attainment, i.e., compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number of expected exceedances of the 1hour standard over a threeyear period must be less than or equal to 1. Table 3 provides a summary of the number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005 and threeyear annual average.
Table 3.Lancaster Nonattainment Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1Hour Ozone Standard; Lancaster County Monitor/AQS ID 420710007 Number of Year expected exceedances 2003....................................................... 1.0 2004....................................................... 0.0 2005....................................................... 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.3.

In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicates that the Lancaster Area is maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the Lancaster Area in 2006.

4. 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, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure.

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

EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. 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 regionwide requirements and do not apply to the Area by virtue of the Area's designation and classification. See, 61 FR 53174 at 5317553176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at 2483024832 (May 7, 1997). 5. Lancaster Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation

EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, Calcagni Memo, p.3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
[[Page 27272]]
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 98990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See, 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.

The Lancaster Area was a 1hour ozone marginal nonattainment area at the time of its designation as a marginal 8hour ozone nonattainment area on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697). As stated previously, two subpart 2 part D requirements became due for the Lancaster Area prior to redesignationa 2002 baseyear inventory, and the emissions statement requirement. PADEP has submitted concurrently with its maintenance plan, a 2002 baseyear inventory as a SIP revision. In this action, EPA is proposing approval of this inventory. The emissions statement requirement for Lancaster was fulfilled under the 1hour standard. Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable for the purposes of the redesignation of Lancaster, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.
C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Lancaster 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 Lancaster Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 4.
Table 4.Total VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day (tpd) Year Point * Area Nonroad Mobile Total Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2002........................................... 8.5 24.5 17.4 23.4 73.8 2004........................................... 8.1 24.4 17.3 19.8 69.6 Diff. (0204).................................. 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.6 4.2 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 2002........................................... 3.6 2.6 13.7 36.9 56.8 2004........................................... 3.9 2.6 13.2 32.3 52.0 Diff (0204)................................... 03 0.0 0.5 4.6 4.8 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include banked emission credits of 3.7 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX as indicated in Technical Appendix A4 to Pennsylvania's SIP submission.

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 5.7 percent from 73.8 tpd to 69.6 tpd; NOX emissions decreased by 8.4 percent from 56.8 tpd to 52.0 tpd. These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures.
1. Stationary Point Sources
Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) 2. Stationary Area Sources
Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003)
Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004)
3. Highway Vehicle Sources
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP)
Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991)
Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)
Heavyduty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000)
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program (64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005)
4. NonRoad Sources
Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004)

EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the longterm improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the area achieving attainment of the 8hour ozone standard. D. The Lancaster Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Lancaster Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area for at least 11 years after redesignation. Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Lancaster Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8hour ozone standard.

What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?

Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10year period following the initial 10year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memo provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following provisions:
[[Page 27273]]
(a) An attainment emissions inventory;
(b) A maintenance demonstration;
(c) A monitoring network;
(d) Verification of continued attainment; and
(e) A contingency plan.
Analysis of the Lancaster Area Maintenance Plan
(a) Attainment inventoryAn attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the Lancaster Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3year block of 20032005 and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date.

The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data Systems and EPA's publication series AP42, and are based on Source Classification Codes (SCC). The 2002 area source data was compiled using countylevel activity data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal allocations provided by the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA).

The onroad mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were compiled using MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data summaries to document the calculations of mobile onroad VOC and NOX emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 4 and 5 below). The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of nonroad emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gasfueled non road equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 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 commercial aircraft operations in Lancaster County. For 2002 and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operations statistics and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPAapproved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).

More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices which are part of this submittal.
(b) Maintenance DemonstrationOn September 20, 2006, and supplemented on November 8, 2006, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as a SIP revision as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Lancaster Area plan shows maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Lancaster 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 5309953100; 68 FR at 2543025432.

Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NOX emissions for the Lancaster Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the 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 maintenance period.
Table 5.Total VOC Emissions for 20042018 (tpd)
2004 VOC 2009 VOC 2018 VOC Source category emissions emissions emissions Point *.......................... 8.1 8.7 11.0 Area............................. 24.4 24.2 27.2 Mobile........................... 19.8 14.3 7.8 Nonroad.......................... 17.3 15.0 11.9

Total........................ 69.6 62.2 57.9 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A4 submitted with the maintenance plan.
Table 6.Total NOX Emissions for 20042018 (tpd)
2004 NOX 2009 NOX 2018 NOX Source category emissions emissions emissions Point *.......................... 3.9 4.1 4.6 Area............................. 2.6 2.8 2.9 Mobile........................... 32.3 22.3 9.0 Nonroad......................... 13.2 10.8 6.8

Total........................ 52.0 39.9 23.2 \*\ The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A4.

The following programs are permanent and enforceable control measures to ensure emissions during the maintenance period are equal to or less than the emissions in the attainment year:

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

Based upon 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 8hour ozone standard should be maintained in the Lancaster Areas. (c) Monitoring NetworkThere is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Lancaster Area. PADEP will continue to operate its current air quality monitor (located in Lancaster County), in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
(d) Verification of Continued AttainmentThe Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area by reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A) to see if the Area exceeds the attainment year inventory (2004) by more than 10 percent. Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented.
(e) The Maintenance Plan's Contingency MeasuresThe contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).

The ability of the Lancaster Area to stay in compliance with the 8 hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOX emissions in the Area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NOX emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur.

Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8hour ozone concentrations at the Lancaster monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate which 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.

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

Regulatory measures:
Additional controls on consumer products.
Additional controls on portable fuel containers

NonRegulatory measures:
Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash''installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavyduty diesel engines. Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use, for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets. Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and other freighthandling 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 plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays out a process to implement the nonregulatory contingency measures within 1224 months of the trigger.
VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Lancaster Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable?

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

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 MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from onroad mobile sources. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed ``onroad mobile source emission budgets.'' Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and Sec. 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 [[Page 27275]]

in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

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

When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB 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 8Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule AmendmentsResponse to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations.

The MVEB for the Lancaster Area are listed in Table 1 of this document for the 2009 and 2018 years, and are the projected emissions for the onroad mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs. These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions that can be allocated as long as the total attainment level of emissions is maintained. The credit, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the source categories. PADEP is at this time preserving the entire difference between attainment and projected maintenance year emissions to ensure continued maintenance of the standard.
C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by email at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.