Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Ozone
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.Federal Register Document
[Federal Register: December 16, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 241)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70514-70531]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de99-34]
[[Page 70514]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN90-1; FRL-6503-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana; Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration State
Implementation Plan (SIP or plan) for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
severe ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) on April 30, 1998. This proposed
conditional approval is based on the submitted modeling analysis and on
the State's commitments to adopt and submit a final ozone attainment
demonstration SIP and a post-1999 Rate of Progress (ROP) plan,
including the necessary State air pollution control regulations to
complete the attainment demonstration and ROP plans, by December 31,
2000. The EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove this
attainment demonstration plan if, by December 31, 1999, the State does
not select a control strategy associated with its submitted modeling
analysis and submits adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets for
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) for the ozone nonattainment area that comply with
EPA's conformity regulations and that are derived from the selected
emissions control strategy that supports attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard. In addition, the State must, by December 31, 1999, submit an
enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the ozone
attainment plan in 2003.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 14,
2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Jay Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Mark Palermo at (312) 886-
6082 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Regulation Development
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
Telephone Number (312) 886-6057, E-Mail Address
doty.edward@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides background information
on attainment demonstration SIPs for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and an analysis of Indiana's
1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
ozone nonattainment area.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Technical Review of the Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. Background Information
A. Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to establish national ambient
air quality standards for certain widespread pollutants that cause or
contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Clean Air Act sections 108 and 109. In 1979,
EPA promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm) ground-level
ozone standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NOX and
VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
NOX and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air
quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above
0.124 ppm on any day. An area violates the standard if, over a
consecutive 3-year period, more than 3 daily exceedances are expected
to occur at any monitor in the area or in its immediate downwind
environs. The highest of the fourth-highest daily peak ozone
concentrations over the 3 year period at any one monitoring site in the
area is called the design value for the area. The Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area
that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air
quality monitoring data from the 3-year period from 1987 through 1989.
Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). The Clean
Air Act further classified these areas, based on the areas' design
values, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme. Clean Air
Act section 181(a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant
air quality problems while the areas classified as severe and extreme
had the most significant air quality problems.
The control requirements and date by which attainment needs to be
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas are subject
to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest
attainment date. Severe and extreme areas are subject to more stringent
planning requirements but are provided more time to attain the
standard. Serious areas are required to attain the 1-hour standard by
November 15, 1999, and severe areas are required to attain by November
15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending on the areas' ozone design
values. The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area is
classified as severe-17 and its attainment date is November 15, 2007.
The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area is defined (40
CFR 81.314 and 81.315) to contain Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable and
Goose Lake Townships only), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township only), Lake,
McHenry, and Will Counties in Illinois, and Lake and Porter Counties in
Indiana. This proposed rulemaking focuses on the Indiana portion of
this nonattainment area. A separate proposed rulemaking in today's
Federal Register deals with the Illinois portion of this nonattainment
area.
Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, serious and
severe areas were required to submit, by November 15, 1994,
demonstrations of how they would attain the 1-hour standard and how
they would achieve ROP reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for
each 3-year period until the attainment. (In some cases, NOX
emission reductions can be substituted for the required VOC emission
reductions to achieve ROP.) Today, in this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP submitted by
Indiana for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area and
its associated ozone modeling domain and on the State's commitment to
complete the attainment demonstration SIP for this ozone nonattainment
area by December 2000. EPA is also proposing action on the State's
commitment to submit ROP target calculations and the adopted measures
to achieve ROP by December 2000. In addition, elsewhere in this Federal
Register, EPA is today
[[Page 70515]]
proposing to take action on ozone attainment demonstraion SIPs, and, in
some cases ROP SIPs, for other serious or severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. The additional ozone attainment demonstration and
ROP SIPs addressed elsewhere in this Federal Register cover the ozone
nonattainment areas of Greater Connecticut (CT), Springfield (Western
Massachusetts) (MA), New-York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT),
Baltimore (MD), Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD),
Metropolitan Washington D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta (GA), Milwaukee-Racine
(WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN) (Illinois portion of this area),
and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (TX).
In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling
analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by
its attainment date and the emission control measures necessary to
achieve attainment. Another component of the attainment demonstration
SIP is a motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity
purposes. Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that
States consider the effects of emissions associated with new or
improved federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As
described in section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, attainment
demonstrations necessarily include the estimates of motor vehicle
emissions that are consistent with attainment, which then act as a
budget or ceiling for the purposes of determining whether
transportation plans and projects conform to the attainment SIP.
What is the History and Time Frame for the State Attainment
Demonstration SIP and How Is It Related to the NOX SIP Call?
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the States, in 1995 EPA
recognized that many States in the eastern half of the United States
could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an
attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NOX and
VOC in upwind States (and the ozone formed by these emissions) affected
these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect had not
yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by States but
noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration
SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone
transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative
process among the States in the eastern half of the country to evaluate
and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led
to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
2 and provided for the States to submit the attainment
demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to
complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued
March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web
site.
\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations
regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport
of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be
reduced regionally to enable States in the eastern half of the country
to attain the ozone NAAQS.
In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,
1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for
States to submit the following elements of their attainment
demonstration SIPs for serious and severe nonattainment areas: (1)
Evidence that the applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of
title I of the Clean Air Act were adopted and implemented or were on an
expeditious course to being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of
measures needed to meet the remaining ROP emissions reduction
requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a
commitment to adopt and submit the control measures necessary for
attainment and the ROP plans through the attainment year by the end of
2000 3; (4) a commitment to implement the SIP control
programs in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions reductions and
attainment; and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the State
submittal.4 This submission is sometimes referred to as the
Phase II submission. Motor vehicle emission budgets can be established
based on a commitment to adopt the measures needed for attainment and
identification of the measures needed. Thus, State submissions due in
April 1998 under the Wilson policy should have included a motor vehicle
emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In general, a commitment for severe areas to adopt by
December 2000 the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP
plans through the attainment year applies to any additional measures
necessary for attainment that were not otherwise required to be
submitted earlier. (For example, this memorandum was not intended to
allow States to delay submission of measures required under the
Clean Air Act, such as inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or
reasonable available control technology (RACT) regulations, required
at an earlier time.) Thus, this commitment applies to any control
measures or emission reductions on which the State relied for
purposes of the modeled attainment demonstration. To the extent
Indiana has relied on a commitment to submit these measures by
December 2000, EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the
attainment demonstration. Some States with severe nonattainment
areas submitted the actual adopted control measures and are not
relying on a commitment.
The EPA recognizes that motor vehicle emission budgets can be
established from the items listed in the Wilson memorandum.
\4\ Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this
memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/t1pgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in
November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transport
problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that current SIPs in 22 States
and the District of Columbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour standard because
they did not regulate NOX emissions that significantly
contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997). The EPA
finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions
to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions reductions
within each State to a level consistent with a NOX emissions
budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). This
final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX SIP call.
What Is the Time Frame for Taking Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs for the Serious and Severe Nonattainment Areas?
The States generally submitted the SIPs between April and October
1998; some States are still submitting additional revisions. Under the
Clean Air Act, EPA is required to approve or disapprove a State's
submission no later than 18 months following submission. (The statute
provides up to 6 months for a completeness determination and an
additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.) The EPA believes
that it is important to keep the process moving forward in evaluating
these plans and, as appropriate, approving them. Thus, in today's
Federal Register, EPA is proposing to take action on the serious and
severe 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs and intends to take
[[Page 70516]]
final action on these submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader
is referred to individual dates in this document for specific
information on actions leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these
plans.
What Are the Options for Action on the State Attainment Demonstration
SIPs?
Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the SIP
submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing
one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the
alternative. In addition, these proposals may inentify additional
actions that will be necessary from the State.
The Clean Air Act provides for EPA to approve, disapprove,
partially approve or conditionally approve a State's plan submission.
The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment
demonstration requirement of the Clean Air Act. If the submission is
deficient in some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the
alternative, if portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may
partially approve and partially disapprove, or may conditionally
approve based on a State's commitment to correct the deficiency by a
date certain, which can be no later than one year from the date of
EPA's final conditional approval.
The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of
the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the Clean Air Act.
For example, if a State submits a modeled attainment demonstration,
including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate
attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the
modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.
The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a State's
commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that
can be no later than one year following EPA's final conditional
approval. Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable
because, if the State does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional
approval is converted to a disapproval after the deadline for the
correction of the deficiency. For example, if a State commits to submit
additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA determines
the State's submission of the control measures is incomplete, the EPA
will notify the State by letter that the conditional approval has been
converted to a disapproval. If the State submits control measures that
EPA determines are complete or that are deemed complete, EPA will
determine through rulemaking whether the State's attainment
demonstration is fully approvable or whether the conditional approval
of the attainment demonstration should be converted to a disapproval.
Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it
may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that
consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment
for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be
enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of
commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action.
Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is
infeasible for the State to accomplish the necessary action in the
short term.
B. Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration
The EPA provides that States may rely on a modeled attainment
demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate
attainment.5 In order to have a complete modeling
demonstration submission, States should have submitted the required
modeling analysis and identified any additional evidence that EPA
should consider in evaluating whether the area will attain the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is
used to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See U.S.
EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban
Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copy may be found on
EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name:
``UAMREG''). See also U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled
Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-
007, (June 1996). A copy may be found on EPA's web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Are the Modeling Requirements for the Atteinment Demonstration?
For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the Clean Air Act
requires serious and severe areas to use photochemical grid modeling or
an analytical method EPA determines to be as effective. The
photochemical grid model is set up using meteorological conditions
conducive to the formation of ozone. Emissions for a base year are used
to evaluate the model's ability to reproduce actual monitored air
quality values. Following validation of the modeling system for a base
year, emissions are projected to an attainment year to predict air
quality changes in the attainment year due to the emission changes,
which include growth up to and controls implemented by the attainment
year. A modeling domain is chosen that encompasses the nonattainment
area. Attainment is demonstrated when all predicted concentrations
inside the modeling domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an
acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain
conditions by EPA's guidance. When the predicted concentrations are
above the NAAQS, an optional weight of evidence determination which
incorporates, but is not limited to, other analyses, such as air
quality and emissions trends, may be used to address uncertainty
inherent in the application of photochemical grid models.
The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis
that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State must
develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol
describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the
modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical
review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the
attainment demonstration (State and local agencies, EPA Regional
offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second,
for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the
State must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with high
ozone concentrations exceeding the standard, that are representative of
the ozone pollution problem for the nonattainment area. Third, the
State needs to identify the appropriate dimensions of the area to be
modeled, i.e., the modeling domain size. The domain should be larger
than the designated nonattainment area to reduce uncertainty in the
boundary conditions and should include any large upwind sources just
outside the nonattainment area. In general, the domain is considered
the local area where control measures are most beneficial to bring the
area into attainment. Fourth, the State needs to determine the grid
resolution. The horizontal and vertical resolutions in the model affect
the dispersion and transport of emission plumes. Artificially large
grid cells (too few vertical layers and horizontal grids) may dilute
concentrations and may not properly consider impacts of complex
terrain, complex meteorology, and land/water interfaces. Fifth, the
State needs to generate meteorological data and emissions that describe
atmospheric conditions and emissions inputs reflective of the selected
high ozone days. Finally, the State needs to verify that the modeling
system is properly
[[Page 70517]]
simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic
analyses and model performance tests (generally referred to as model
validation). Once these steps are satisfactorily completed, the model
is ready to be used to generate air quality estimates to support an
attainment demonstration.
The modeled attainment test compares model-predicted 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the
level of the NAAQS. A predicted peak ozone concentration above 0.124
ppm indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment year. This type of test is often referred to as an
exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that States use either
of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS: A deterministic test or a statistical test.
The deterministic test requires the State to compare predicted 1-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day
6 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the
predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded
from this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of
the 1-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a 3-year period,
the area has an average of 1 or fewer exceedances per year at any
monitoring site, the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the
State models a very extreme day (considering meteorological conditions
that are very conducive to high ozone levels and that should lead to
fewer than 1 exceedance per year at any location in the nonattainment
area and modeling domain over a 3 year period), the statistical test
provides that a prediction above 0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit
may be consistent with attainment of the standard. (The form of the 1-
hour standard allows for up to 3 days with peak 1-hour ozone
concentrations above the standard over a 3-year period at any
monitoring site before an area is considered to be in violation of the
NAAQS.)
The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by
examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the 1-
hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four highest
1-hour average concentrations over a 3-year period are 0.136 ppm, 0.130
ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the standard. To identify an
acceptable upper limit, the statistical likelihood of observing ozone
air quality exceedances of the standard of various concentrations is
equated to severity of the modeled day. The upper limit generally
represents the maximum ozone concentration observed at a location on a
single day and it would be the only reading above the standard that
would be expected to occur no more than an average of once a year over
a 3-year period. Therefore, if the maximum ozone concentration
predicted by the model is below the acceptable upper limit, in this
case 0.136 ppm, then EPA might conclude that the modeled attainment
test is passed. Generally, exceedances well above 0.124 ppm are very
unusual at monitoring sites meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these upper limits
are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm.
What Are the Additional Analyses That May Be Considered When the
Modeling Fails To Show Attainment?
When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment,
additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area
will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For
example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such
as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and
in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at
individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and
provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether
attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is
called a weight-of-evidence (WOE) determination.
Under a WOE determination, the State can rely on and EPA will
consider factors such as: other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a
rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted
changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;
estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the
responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and,
whether there are additional control measures that are or will be
approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.
This list is not an exhaustive list of factors that may be considered
and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance
contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to
passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is
sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment. However, the further a
modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the
WOE needs to be.
The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform
a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the
modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections,
EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on a WOE
determination needs to contain provisions for periodic review of
monitoring, emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which
refinements to emission control measures are needed. The mid-course
review is discussed below.
C. Framework for Proposing Action on the Attainment Demonstration SIPs
Besides the Modeled Attainment Demonstration, What Other Issues Must be
Addressed in the Attainment Demonstration SIPs?
In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating
attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which
must be present in order for EPA to approve the 1-hour attainment
demonstration SIPs. These elements are listed below and then described
in detail.
Clean Air Act measures, and other measures relied on in the modeled
attainment demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules
for all previously required Clean Air Act mandated measures for the
specific area classification. This also includes measures that may not
be required for the area classification but that the State relied on in
the SIP submission for attainment and ROP plans on which EPA is
proposing to take action today.
NOX Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions.
Motor vehicle emissions budget. This must be a motor vehicle
emissions budget which can be determined by EPA to be adequate for
conformity purposes.
Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-
course review and evaluation based on air quality and emission trends
must be included in the attainment demonstration SIP before it can be
approved by the EPA. The mid-course review would show whether the
adopted control measures are sufficient to reach attainment by the
area's attainment date, or that additional control measures are
necessary.
[[Page 70518]]
1. Clean Air Act Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled
Attainment Demonstration SIP
The States should have adopted the control measures already
required under the Clean Air Act for the area classification. Since
these 10 serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial
reductions from their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA
anticipates that these areas need all of the measures required under
the Clean Air Act to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, the States may have included control measures in its
attainment strategy that are in addition to measures required in the
Clean Air Act. (For serious areas, these should have already been
identified and adopted, whereas severe areas have until December 2000
to submit measures to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to
attain.) For purposes of fully approving the State's SIP, the State
will need to adopt and submit all VOC and NOX controls
within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of
the modeled attainment demonstration.
The following table presents a summary of the Clean Air Act
requirements that need to be met for each severe nonattainment area for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182
of the Clean Air Act. Information on more measures that States may have
adopted or relied on in their current SIP submissions is not shown in
the table.
CAA Requirements for Severe Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--NSR for VOC and NOX, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major
VOC and NOX source cutoff of 25 tons per year (tpy)
--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOx
--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program
--15% VOC plans for ROP through 1996
--Emissions inventory
--Emission statements
--Attainment demonstration
--9% ROP plan through 1999
--Clean fuels program
--Enhanced monitoring (PAMS)
--Stage II vapor recovery
--Reformulated gasoline
--9% ROP plan through attainment year (post-1999)
--Measures to offset Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) growth
--Requirements for fees for major sources for failure to attain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NOX Reductions Consistent With the Modeling
Demonstration
The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP call
on October 27, 1998, which required States to address transport of
NOX and ozone to other States. To address transport, the
NOX SIP call established emissions budgets for
NOX that 22 jurisdictions were required to meet through
enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by September 30, 1999.
The NOX SIP call is intended to reduce emissions in upwind
States that significantly contribute to nonattainment problems. The EPA
did not identify specific sources that the States must regulate nor did
EPA limit the States' choices regarding where to achieve the emission
reductions. Subsequently, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order staying the SIP
submission requirement portion of the NOX SIP call rule
requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.
The NOX SIP call rule establishes budgets for the States
in which 9 of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing action
today are located. The 9 areas are: Greater Connecticut, Springfield,
MA, New York/North New Jersey/Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore, MD,
Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,
DC (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta, GA, Milwaukee-Racine WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake
County (IL-IN).
Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's
NOX SIP call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone
precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For
purposes of developing attainment demonstrations, States define local
modeling domains that include both the nonattainment area and nearby
surrounding areas. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local
modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and
are referred to as boundary conditions. With the exception of Houston,
the 1-hour attainment demonstrations on which EPA is proposing action
have relied, in part, on the NOX SIP call reductions for
purposes of determining the boundary conditions of the modeling domain.
Emission reductions assumed in the attainment demonstrations are
modeled to occur both within the State and in upwind States. Thus,
intrastate reductions as well as reductions in other States impact the
boundary conditions. Although the court has indefinitely stayed the SIP
submission deadline, the NOX SIP Call rule remains in
effect. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow States to
continue to assume the reductions from the NOX SIP call in
areas outside the local 1-hour modeling domains. If States assume
control levels and emission reductions other than those of the
NOX SIP call within their States but outside of the modeling
domains, the States must also adopt control measures to achieve those
reductions in order to have an approvable plan.
Accordingly, States in which the nonattainment areas are located
will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to
achieve the NOX SIP call budgets prior to the time that all
States are required to comply with the NOX SIP call. If the
reductions from the NOX SIP call do not occur as planned,
States will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures
or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide
sufficient reductions needed for attainment.
As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by State
inside the local modeling domain 7 must be adopted as part
of the State's 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for
NOX emission reductions occurring outside of the local
modeling domain that States may assume implementation of the
NOX SIP call measures and the resulting boundary conditions
without actually being required at this time to adopt regulations to
implement the NOX emission reductions required by the
NOX SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For the purposes of this notice, ``local modeling domain''
is typically an urban scale domain with horizontal dimensions less
than about 300 km on a side, horizontal grid resolution less than or
equal to 5 x 5 km or finer. The domain is large enough to ensure
that emissions occurring at 8 am in the domain's center are still
within the domain at 8 pm the same day. If recirculation of the
nonattainment area's previous day's emissions is believed to
contribute to an observed problem, the domain is large enough to
characterize this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
The EPA believes that an attainment demonstration SIP must
necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced
in the attainment year and must demonstrate that this emissions level,
when considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent
with attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to
determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the
SIP, as described by Clean Air Act section 176(c)(2)(A). For
transportation conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle
emissions is known as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA
believes that an appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions
budget is a necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP
cannot effectively demonstrate
[[Page 70519]]
attainment unless it identifies the level of motor vehicle emissions
that can be produced while still demonstrating attainment.
The EPA has determined that, except for the Western MA
(Springfield) attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission
budgets for the 9 other nonattainment areas covered in today's
proposals are inadequate or missing from the attainment demonstrations.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration
SIPs for those 9 areas if the States do not submit motor vehicle
emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by May 31,
2000.8 In order for EPA to complete the adequacy process by
the end of May, States should submit an emissions budget no later than
December 31, 1999.9 If an area does not have a motor vehicle
emissions budget that EPA can determine adequate for conformity
purposes by May 31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action at that time
disapproving in full or in part the area's attainment demonstration.
The emissions budget should reflect all of the motor vehicle control
measures contained in the attainment demonstration, i.e., measures
already adopted for the nonattainment area as well as those yet to be
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For severe areas, EPA will determine the adequacy of the
emissions budgets associated with the post-1999 ROP plans once the
States submit the target calculations, which are due no later than
December 2000.
\9\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the State public
process is not yet complete, then a draft budget may be submitted.
The adequacy process generally takes at least 90 days. Therefore, in
order for EPA to complete the adequacy process no later than the end
of May, EPA must have by February 15, 2000, the final budget or a
draft that is substantially similar to what the final budget will
be. The State must submit the final budget by April 15, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Mid-Course Review
A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses
and more recent monitoring and emissions data to determine if a
prescribed control strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air
quality improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard
for ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the
statutory attainment dates.
The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical
element of the WOE determination for the attainment demonstration on
which EPA is proposing to take action today. In order to approve the
Indiana attainment demonstration SIP for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
area, EPA believes that Indiana must submit an enforceable commitment
to perform a MCR as described here.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment
that has been subject to a public hearing. If the State has
submitted a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and
that provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for
attainment, the State should submit a letter prior to December 31,
1999, amending the commitment to include the MCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the commitment, the State should commit to work with EPA
in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for
performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate
progress would be judged.
For severe areas, such as the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone
nonattainment area, the States must submit an enforceable commitment to
perform the MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone season and to
submit the results to EPA by December 31, 2003. EPA believes that an
analysis in 2003 would be most robust since some or all of the regional
NOX emission reductions should be achieved by that date. EPA
would then review the results and determine whether any States need to
adopt and submit additional control measures for purposes of
attainment. The EPA is not requesting that States commit now to adopt
new control measures as a result of this process. It would be
impracticable for the States to make a commitment that is specific
enough to be considered enforceable. Moreover, the MCR could indicate
that upwind States may need to adopt some or all of the additional
controls needed to ensure that an area attains the standard. Therefore,
if EPA determines that additional control measures are needed for
attainment, EPA would determine whether additional emission reductions
are needed in the States in which the nonattainment areas are located
or in upwind States, or in both. The EPA would require the affected
State or States to adopt and submit new measures within a period
specified at that time. The EPA anticipates that these findings would
be made as calls for SIP revisions under section 110(k)(5) and,
therefore, the period for submission of the measures would be no longer
than 18 months after the EPA finding. A draft guidance document
regarding the MCR process is located in the docket for this proposal
and may also be found on EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram/.
D. Additional Background Considerations for This Proposed Rulemaking
What Information Does the EPA Expect To Receive From the States To
Allow an Approval of the 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIPs?
The following table shows a summary of information on what EPA
expects from Indiana to allow EPA to approve the severe area 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
nonattainment area.
Summary Schedule of Future State Actions--Severe Nonattainment Areas
That Will Submit All Measures Needed for Attainment by 12/31/00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required no later than: Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/31/99..................... State submits the following to EPA:
--Motor vehicle emissions budget.\1\
--Enforceable commitment to perform a
mid-course review.
4/15/00...................... State submits--
--The final motor vehicle emissions
budget (only if draft submitted
earlier).\2\
--Enforceable commitment (only if draft
submitted earlier) to perform a mid-
course review (only if draft submitted
earlier).
12/31/00..................... --State submits a revised/final modeling
analysis.
--State submits adopted rules that
reflect measures relied on in modeled
attainment demonstration and that
support ROP requirements.
--State revises & submits SIP & motor
vehicle emissions budget if adopted
measures are for motor vehicle category.
[[Page 70520]]
12/31/03..................... State submits to EPA results of mid-
course review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet
complete, then a draft budget may be submitted at this time. Note that
the budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see
memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, ``1-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking.''
\2\ If a final budget is significantly different from the draft
submitted earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/15/00 to
accommodate the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by
which EPA must find the motor vehicle emissions budget adequate.
What Are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The
EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the
rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been
referenced above. The documents and their location on EPA's web site
are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the docket for
this proposal action.
Recent Documents
1. ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality
Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
2. ``Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on
Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available
Control Measures.'' Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and
Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.
3. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 1-
hour Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of
Mobile Sources to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, November 3,
1999. Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
4. Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/
Sulfur/Sulfur Rulemaking,'' from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to
the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, November 8, 1999. Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
5. Draft Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review
Guidance.'' From John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
Previous Documents
1. U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the
Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG'').
2. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to
Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June
1996). Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.
Nichols, issued March 2, 1995.
4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind
Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998.
5. December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard Wilson, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ``Guidance for
Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS.''
II. Technical Review of the Submittal
A. Summary of State Submittals
1. General Information
When Was the Attainment Demonstration Addressed in Public Hearings, and
When was the Attainment Demnstration Submitted by the State of Indiana?
The State held a public hearing on the ozone attainment
demonstration on April 6, 1998 and submitted to it EPA on April 30,
1998.
What Are the Basic Components of the Submittal?
Since Indiana, along with Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin,
participated in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study and the Lake Michigan
Ozone Control Program, and since these ozone modeling studies form the
technical basis for the ozone attainment demonstration, Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconin centered their ozone attainment demonstrations
around a single technical support document (April 1998) produced by the
four States in the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). This
technical support document is entitled ``Modeling Analysis for 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQS in the Lake Michigan Area.'' Each State has also included a
state-specific cover letter and state-specific synopsis of the ozone
attainment demonstration. It should be noted that the specifics of the
emission control strategies considered varied by State. The specific
emission categories or emission controls considered by Indiana are
summarized below.
2. Modeling Procedures and Basic Input Data
What Modeling Approach Was Used in the Analyses?
All three States, as members of LADCO and as participants in the
Lake Michigan Ozone Study and Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program, used
the same ozone modeling approach. The modeling approach is documented
in an April 1998 technical support document, entitled ``Modeling
Analysis For 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS In The Lake Michigan Area.'' Since the
April 1998 technical support document failed to document all of the
modeling approaches and bases for the development and selection of
model input data, this review also relies on an older, December 1995,
technical support document submitted by the LADCO States, which does a
more thorough job of documenting the system and input data.
The heart of the modeling system and approach is the Urban Airshed
Model--Version V (UAM-V) developed originally for application in the
Lake Michigan area. This photochemical model was used to model ozone
and ozone precursors in a multiple, nested grid system. In the
horizontal dimension, three nested grids were used. Grid A, the largest
of the three grids, is a 35 cell by 50 cell grid (560 kilometers east-
west by 800 kilometers north-south) generally centered on the lower
two-thirds of Lake Michigan with a horizontal resolution of 16
kilometers per cell. Grid B is a 34 cell by 60 cell
[[Page 70521]]
grid (272 kilometers east-west by 480 kilometers north-south) centered
on the lower three-quarters of Lake Michigan with a horizontal
resolution of 8 kilometers per cell. Grid B covers all of the 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas of interest in the analysis. Grid C is a 20
cell by 80 cell grid (80 kilometers east-west by 320 kilometers north-
south) approximately centered on the western shoreline of lower Lake
Michigan with a horizontal resolution of 4 kilometers per cell. The
model covered 8 vertical layers over the entire horizontal modeling
domain. Mixing heights used in the modeling system were determined from
regional upper-air monitoring station data.
Besides being able to model ozone and other pollutants in nested
horizontal grids, UAM-V can also model individual elevated source
plumes within the modeling grid (plume-in-grid or PiG). Gaussian
dispersion models are used to grow plumes until the plumes essentially
filled grid cells. At these points, the numerical dispersion and
advection components of UAM take over to address further downwind
dispersion and advection.
The UAM-V modeling system is also used to assess the impacts of
clouds on certain high ozone episode days. Observed cloud data are used
to modify chemical photolysis rates and other meteorological input
data.
The following input data systems and analyses were also used as
part of the combined modeling system for the Lake Michigan area:
a. Emissions. UAM-V requires the input of gridded, hourly estimates
of CO, NOX, and speciated VOC emissions (speciated based on
carbon bond types). The States provided emission inventories, which
were processed through the Emissions Modeling System--1995 version
(EMS-95) to prepare UAM-V input data files. Emission data files were
generated for Grid A and Grid B.
For Grid B, the States supplied point source (individually
identified stationary sources) and area source (sources too small and
numerous to be identified and recorded as individual sources) emissions
for a typical summer weekday. These emissions were based on the States'
1990 base year emissions inventories for the ozone nonattainment areas
and were adjusted to 1991 levels to be compatible with the high ozone
periods modeled. The base emissions were adjusted for some source
categories to reflect typical ``hot summer days.'' Day-specific
emissions data were supplied by over 200 facilities in the modeling
domain. Mobile source emissions were calculated by EMS-95 using
MOBILE5a (a mobile source emissions model supplied by the EPA) emission
factors (using day-specific temperatures) and local vehicle-miles-
traveled data generally supplied by local metropolitan planning
agencies and based on transportation models. Finally, the biogenic
emission rates used in Grid B were calculated based on BIOME, which is
the biogenics emissions model contained within EMS-95.
For Grid A, point and area anthropogenic emissions rates were
derived from EPA's 1990 Interim Regional Inventory, except for
Wisconsin, which supplied state-specific data. Mobile source emissions
were based on MOBILE5a emission factors (derived for a representative
hot summer day) and vehicle miles traveled data derived using the 1990
Highway Performance Monitoring System. Biogenic emission rates were
calculated using the Biogenics Emissions Inventory System (BEIS)
assuming temperatures for a representative, hot summer day. This
version of BEIS includes soil NOX emissions and land use
data from the United States Geological Survey.
Grid B emissions data superceded Grid A data within Grid B. Grid C
emissions data were not specifically derived--Grid B emissions data
were used within Grid C.
All emission estimates were speciated by compound or carbon bond
type and spatially, and temporally resolved into UAM-V input data files
by the use of EMS-95.
b. Meteorology. Meteorological input data by grid cell and hour
were generated by use of a prognostic meteorological model (model
output data derived from equations which describe how meteorological
variables, such as wind speed/direction, temperature, and water vapor
change over time) known as CALRAMS. CALRAMS was run with varying
horizontal resolution depending on location. Over Grids B and C,
CALRAMS was run with 4 kilometer resolution. Over Grid A, a resolution
of 16 kilometers was used. Over the remainder of the continental United
States, a resolution of 80 kilometers was used. The model's vertical
structure used 31 layers in Grid A and over the remainder of the
continental United States outside of the UAM-V modeling domain and 26
layers over Grids B and C.
Four-dimensional data assimilation using observed meteorological
data values was used to ensure that the model estimates did not deviate
significantly from observed meteorological data. Preprocessor programs
were used to map the model's output data into the UAM-V grid system and
to derive other necessary model inputs.
Some adjustments were made to CALRAMS results where the model
produced near-calm wind speeds and where observed wind speeds were
significantly higher than modeled wind speeds during one modeled ozone
episode.
c. Chemistry. Atmospheric chemistry within the modeling grid system
and UAM-V was simulated using the Carbon Bond-Version IV model
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency and used in Version IV
of UAM.
d. Boundary and Initial Conditions. Initial sensitivity analyses of
the modeling system's response to modeling domain boundary conditions
(incoming ozone and ozone precursor levels at the outer edges of the
modeling domain) showed that the system was very sensitive to these
boundary conditions. LADCO used all available upwind data, and
especially those collected during the 1991 intensive field study, to
derive boundary conditions. In addition, the contractor, SAI,
Incorporated, used output data from the use of the Regional Oxidant
Model (ROM) to derive initial concentrations in the modeling domain for
the first day of each modeled ozone episode. Data from this first day,
along with other model input data, were used to model ozone and
precursor concentrations for the next 1 to 2 days, to be used as inputs
into the main part of the modeled ozone episode. The first 1 to 2 days
modeled were treated as ``ramp-up days'' for the main part of each
modeled ozone episode. This process produced more stable input data for
the modeling of high ozone days.
What High Ozone Periods Were Modeled?
Four high ozone episodes in 1991 were considered. These episodes
were:
June 18-21, 1991;
June 24-28, 1991;
July 15-19, 1991; and
August 22-26, 1991.
The 1991 ozone episodes were selected as the focus of the modeling
analyses because the summer of 1991 was a relatively conducive period
for ozone formation, and, most importantly, because LADCO conducted an
intensive field study during that summer to collect data needed to
support the modeling study.
[[Page 70522]]
What Procedures and Sources of Projection Data Were Used To Project the
Emissions to Future Years?
The future year emission inventories used in the Lake Michigan
Ozone Control Program and ozone attainment demonstration were derived
from the Lake Michigan Ozone Study base year regional inventory
(discussed above). Three adjustments were made to the base year
emissions inventory to generate the future year emission inventories.
First, a baseline inventory was prepared by replacing the day-specific
emissions with typical hot summer day emissions for point sources.
Emissions for other source categories were simply carried over to the
baseline inventory. Second, the baseline emissions inventory was
projected to 2007 (the attainment year for severe ozone nonattainment
areas) by applying scalar growth factors. Finally, the projected
baseline emission inventories were reduced to reflect the
implementation of various emission control measures expected or
required to occur by those years.
The growth factors used in the projection of emissions for each
source sector are as follows:
a. Point Sources. i. For electric utilities--company-specific data
were provided by each State;
ii. For certain individual point sources--a growth factor of ``0''
was used to reflect the shutdown of these sources;
iii. For all remaining point source emission categories--growth
factors based on the EPA Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) were
used;
b. Area Sources. i. For baseline emission estimates based on
population--projected populations were used to recalculate emissions;
ii. For gasoline marketing source categories--projected emissions
were based on projected gasoline sales;
iii. For other area source emission categories--projections were
based on EGAS estimates (some EGAS estimates were judged to be
inappropriate and alternative surrogates were used to estimate future
emissions);
c. Mobile Sources. Vehicle miles traveled projections were based on
transportation modeling for northeast Illinois, northwest Indiana, and
southeast Wisconsin, and on State-supplied growth factors for the rest
of the ozone modeling domain; and
d. Biogenic Sources. No growth was assumed.
To account for emission changes resulting from various emission
controls (these emission controls also affect projected emissions), the
States tested several emission control strategies. Emission reduction
scalars were developed to reflect the expected or required emission
reduction levels, rule penetration (accounting for the percentage of
source category emissions affected by the emission reduction
requirements), and rule effectiveness (some source control rules do not
fully achieve the emission reductions expected due to control device
failure, human error, or other factors). The base component of these
control strategies were the emission reductions resulting from the
controls mandated by the Clean Air Act and expected to be in place by
2007. These emission controls are further discussed below.
How Were the Emissions, Air Quality, and Meteorological Input Data
Quality Assured?
Emissions. The Lake Michigan States' quality assurance of the
emissions data focused on the comprehensiveness and reasonableness of
the emissions data rather than on precision and accuracy of the data.
During the initial development of the regional emissions inventory,
internal quality control activities included the preparation and
implementation of quality assurance plans for the derivation of
emission estimates by each State and for the development and
application of the EMS-95 emissions software. External quality
assurance activities included: (1) Audits of the point and area source
data inputs; (2) review of the EMS-95 output; and (3) independent
testing of the EMS-95 model source code. The State emission estimates
were compared against each other to assess their completeness,
consistency, and reasonableness.
Several approaches were used to compare the emission estimates
against ambient measurements. These included: (1) Comparisons of
ambient to emissions-based ratios of non-methane organic compounds to
oxides of nitrogen; (2) comparisons of ambient to emissions-based
ratios of carbon monoxide to oxides of nitrogen; (3) receptor modeling
(determining individual source shares of monitored pollutant
concentrations based on source-specific emission profiles and temporal
and spatial statistical analyses of monitored pollutant species); and
(4) comparisons of ambient to model-based ratios of non-methane organic
compounds to oxides of nitrogen. The comparison of the measurement-
based pollutant ratios with the emissions inventory-based pollutant
ratios showed good agreement between the emissions inventory and the
ambient data. The receptor modeling results also generally supported
the validity of the emissions inventory.
Air Quality and Meteorological Data. Validation of the 1991 Lake
Michigan Ozone Study field data (the data used as input to the
meteorological and photochemical dispersion models and used to validate
the models' outputs) was performed by the Lake Michigan Ozone Study
Data Management and Data Analysis Contractors. The data were validated
using a number of statistical analyses. Three levels of validation were
used, depending on the intended use of the data. The three levels of
data validation were:
a. Level 1. This validation was performed by the group collecting
the data. This group: flagged suspect data values; verified the data
contained in computer data files against input data sheets; eliminated
invalid measurements; replaced suspect data with data from back-up data
acquisition systems; and adjusted measurement values to eliminate
quantifiable calibration and interference biases;
b. Level 2. This validation was performed on data assembled in a
master data base. The level of data validation involved various
consistency checks between data values within the data base, including:
comparison of data from closely located sites collected at
approximately the same time; comparison of data from co-located
sampling systems; comparisons based on physical relationships; and
special statistical analyses of the VOC and carbonyl data; and
c. Level 3. This validation was performed by the Lake Michigan
Ozone Study Data Analysis Contractor and was performed as part of the
data interpretation process. This validation included identification of
unusual data values (e.g. extreme values, values which fail to track
the values of other associated data in a time series, or those values
which did not appear to fit the general and spatial or temporal overall
pattern).
As a result of the data validation, several changes were made to
the meteorological and air quality input data. Volume III (December
1995) of the Lake Michigan Ozone Study/Lake Michigan Ozone Control
Program Project Report documents all of the data changes resulting from
the data validation efforts.
3. Modeling Results
How Did the States Validate the Photochemical Modeling Results?
A protocol document outlining the operational and scientific
evaluation of the modeling system was prepared by
[[Page 70523]]
LADCO, and was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency on March
6, 1992. The evaluation of the photochemical model consisted of seven
steps:
a. Evaluation of the scientific formulation of the model by the
Photochemical Modeling Contractor;
b. Assessment of the fidelity of the computer codes to scientific-
formulation, governing equations, and numerical solution procedures
performed by an independent contractor (independent of the
Photochemical Modeling Contractor);
c. Evaluation of the predictive performance of the individual
modeling process modules and preprocessor modules to identify possible
flaws or systematic biases;
d. Evaluation of the full model's predictive performance against
statistical performance tests and performance criteria specified by the
EPA (see discussion of the model's performance for specific days
modeled below);
e. Performance of sensitivity tests to assure conformance of the
model with known or expected model behavior;
f. Performance of comparative modeling analyses, comparing the
results from the use of UAM-V with similar results from the use of UAM-
IV (the photochemical model generally recommended by the Environmental
Protection Agency); and
g. Implementation of quality control and quality assurance
activities, including: (i) Benchmark modeling; (ii) pre-established
file structuring; (iii) duplicative modeling; (iv) modeling procedure
and results documentation; and (v) external review of modeling results.
Numerous modeling runs and overall system evaluations were
conducted to carry out these validation procedures.
What Were the Results of the Model Performance Evaluations for the
Modeling System Used in the Attainment Demonstration?
The following highlights the results of the operational and
scientific evaluation of the modeling system. These results are
discussed in detail in many documents generated by LADCO and supplied
to the Environmental Protection Agency:
a. Many modeling runs and evaluations of output data were made to
derive statistical results indicative of the modeling system's overall
performance. Statistical data, such as: observed peak ozone
concentrations versus peak predicted concentrations; unpaired peak
concentration accuracy; bias in peak concentrations and overall system
bias; and gross system error, were compared to acceptable system
criteria specified by the EPA (Guideline for Regulatory Application of
the Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991). The statistical
accuracy results for the modeling system comply with the EPA
performance criteria;
b. The spatial and temporal representation of the surface ozone
concentrations are reasonable both region-wide and in the areas of high
concentrations. Broad areas of high ozone concentrations were
reproduced successfully and magnitude and times of peak ozone
concentrations reasonably matched those observed;
c. Model performance across the full modeling domain was consistent
with model performance in individual subregions. This further supports
the credibility of the modeling system;
d. Predicted aloft downwind ozone concentrations compare favorably
with airborne/aircraft monitored ozone concentrations. This supports
the three-dimensional validity of the modeling system; and
e. Model performance for ozone precursors, especially for
NOX, was very good. This further supports the validity of
the use of the model to evaluate the impacts on ozone due to changes in
precursor emissions and the testing of the emission control strategy
scenarios.
Based on the model performance evaluation results, the EPA approved
the validity of the modeling system and its use for control strategy
evaluations on December 15, 1994 (letter from John Seitz, Director of
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium).
What Were the Ozone Modeling Results for the Base Period and for the
Future Attainment Period?
Many modeling runs were conducted, producing millions of model
output data. What is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 are the observed and
modeled peak ozone concentrations for the selected ozone episode days
for two considered emission control strategies. Please note that the
ozone control strategy covered by each table is further discussed
below.
The ozone modeling system was run to simulate ozone concentrations
on selected high ozone days for the base year and future year (2007).
The future year simulations covered five boundary condition scenarios,
corresponding to base year boundary conditions, and to the reduction of
peak boundary ozone levels to 85, 80, 70, and 60 parts per billion
(ppb), 1-hour average. The future year simulations also covered two
emission control strategy sets, Strategy 2 and Strategy 4.
The resulting domain-wide modeled peak ozone concentrations for
Strategy 2 are given in Table 1. Similarly, the resulting domain-wide
modeled peak ozone concentrations for Strategy 4 are given in Table 2.
Table 1.--Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program Strategy 2 Ozone Modeling Results
[Domain-wide Peak Ozone Concentrations, ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 85 2007 80 2007 70 2007 60
1991 Date 1991 OBS 1991 MOD 2007 BY BC ppb ppb ppb ppb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26...................................................... 175 165 141 134 133 128 122
June 27...................................................... 118 152 130 123 122 119 114
June 28...................................................... 138 142 123 118 118 116 109
June 20...................................................... 152 137 123 121 121 120 120
June 21...................................................... 134 126 -- -- -- -- 114
July 17...................................................... 145 148 133 126 124 120 113
July 18...................................................... 170 162 146 135 135 128 119
July 19...................................................... 170 161 145 137 137 129 119
Aug 25....................................................... 148 128 126 121 120 116 109
Aug 26....................................................... 189 158 142 135 131 124 115
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBS = Observed Peak Ozone Concentration.
MOD = Modeled Base Year Peak Ozone Concentration.
BY BC = Base Year Boundary Conditions.
85 ppb, 80 ppb, 70 ppb, 60 ppb = Future Year Peak Ozone Boundary Concentrations.
[[Page 70524]]
Table 2.--Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program Strategy 4 Ozone Modeling Results
[Domain-wide Peak Ozone Concentrations, ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 85 2007 80 2007 70 2007 60
1991 Date 1991 OBS 1991 MOD 2007 BY BC ppb ppb ppb ppb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26...................................................... 175 165 137 130 129 124 117
June 27...................................................... 118 152 125 117 117 114 109
June 28...................................................... 138 142 119 114 114 112 104
June 20...................................................... 152 137 117 117 117 117 116
June 21...................................................... 134 126 121 118 117 115 110
July 17...................................................... 145 148 132 123 121 116 110
July 18...................................................... 170 162 141 131 129 123 115
July 19...................................................... 170 161 140 131 129 123 114
Aug 25....................................................... 148 128 125 120 119 115 108
Aug 26....................................................... 189 158 139 133 129 122 113
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBS = Observed Peak Ozone Concentration.
MOD = Modeled Base Year Peak Ozone Concentration.
BY BC = Base Year Boundary Conditions.
85 ppb, 80 ppb, 70 ppb, 60 ppb = Future Year Peak Ozone Boundary Concentrations.
Do the Modeling Results Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone Standard?
The modeling of the Strategy 2 and Strategy 4 impacts by themselves
(the 2007 BY BC columns in Tables 1 and 2) does not demonstrate
attainment. The modeling supports the need for significant reductions
in background ozone and ozone precursor concentrations. In addition,
the model indicates the potential for ozone exceedances or ozone
standard violations under the scenarios of smaller reductions in
background ozone levels. Nonetheless, when considered along with a WOE
determination, as discussed below, the EPA believes that the modeling
results do support a conclusion that local VOC emission reductions
combined with possible transported ozone reductions can lead to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
ozone nonattainment area and its downwind environs.
Does the Attainment Demonstration Depend on Future Reductions of
Regional Emissions?
As noted in the tables summarizing the peak modeled ozone
concentrations above and in the discussion elsewhere in this proposed
rulemaking, the States considered emission control strategies which by
themselves would not achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
The States, however, also show that, with a significant reduction in
background ozone concentrations expected to result from the
implementation of regional NOX emission controls under the
NOX state implementation plan call, attainment of the
standard can be achieved using the control strategies considered.
Strategy 2 can lead to attainment of the ozone standard with a future
reduction in peak ozone background concentrations down to 70 ppb.
Strategy 4 can lead to attainment if peak background ozone
concentrations are reduced to 80 ppb. LADCO documents that these future
ozone background concentration levels may be obtained through the
implementation of the NOX SIP call.
It should be noted that LADCO not only considered lowered
background ozone concentrations resulting from regional upwind emission
controls, they also considered reductions in background ozone precursor
concentrations. The States used various analyses to estimate the
reductions in background ozone precursor concentrations associated with
the assumed reductions in background ozone concentrations. This was
primarily accomplished by considering available modeling data from
OTAG.
The following two step process was used to determine which of the
tested boundary conditions correspond best to the boundary conditions
that would be expected under the EPA NOX SIP call:
a. The NOX emissions of the OTAG modeling domain were
compared to the regional NOX emissions expected under the
NOX SIP call. Several emission control strategies considered
in the OTAG process were assessed. It is noted that the attainment
demonstration's NOX emissions fall between OTAG emission
control strategy runs C and H; and
b. The boundary ozone concentration changes resulting from the
selected OTAG strategy runs were then compared to the ozone boundary
changes considered in the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program modeling
runs. The reduction of peak background ozone levels down to 70 ppb in
the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program was found to correspond best
with the expected ozone changes considered under the selected OTAG
emission control strategy runs C through H.
Based on this approach, it is assumed that the NOX SIP
call would reduce peak background ozone levels to 70 ppb.
4. Application of Attainment Test and the Attainment Demonstration
What Approach Was Used To Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone Standard?
To assess attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, LADCO applied 2
approaches to review the results of emission control strategy modeling,
supplementing them with modeling results from the OTAG process. First,
the States considered the modeling results through the use of a
deterministic approach, and second, the States considered a statistical
approach.
a. Deterministic Approach. The deterministic approach to ozone
attainment demonstrations, as defined in the Guidance on the Use of
Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS (June
1996), requires the daily peak 1-hour ozone concentrations modeled for
every grid cell (in the surface level) to be at or below the ozone
standard for all days modeled. If there are modeled ozone standard
exceedances in only a few grid cells on a limited number of days, this
approach can still be used to demonstrate attainment of the ozone
standard through the use of weight of evidence determinations.
The States note that the deterministic test is passed for:
i. Strategy 2 with future (2007) ozone boundary concentrations
capped at 60 ppb; or
ii. Strategy 4 with future ozone boundary concentrations capped at
70 ppb.
Note that Strategy 2 with a future ozone boundary concentration of
70 ppb
[[Page 70525]]
or Strategy 4 with a future ozone boundary concentration of 80 ppb
produces peak ozone concentrations that may demonstrate attainment
given the supporting weight of evidence analysis. The modeling results
for other Strategy 2 and Strategy 4 scenarios with higher ozone
boundary concentrations, however, do not appear to be close enough to
the standard to warrant the consideration of weight of evidence.
b. Statistical Approach. The States note that the statistical
approach permits occasional ozone standard exceedances and reflects an
approach comparable to the form of the 1-hour ozone standard.
Therefore, the States have also given this approach some attention.
Under the statistical approach, there are three benchmarks related
to the frequency and magnitude of allowed exceedances and the minimum
level of air quality improvement after emission controls are applied.
All three benchmarks must be passed in the statistical approach, or if
one or more of the benchmarks are failed, the attainment demonstration
must be supported by a weight of evidence analysis.
i. Limits on the Number of Modeled Exceedance Days
This benchmark is passed when the number of modeled exceedances
days in each subregion is less than or equal to 3 or N-1 (N is the
number of severe days), whichever is less. To determine the number of
severe days, the States concluded that a day is severe if there are at
least two nonattainment areas within the modeling domain with observed
1-hour peak ozone concentrations greater than the corresponding ozone
design value (generally the fourth highest daily peak 1-hour ozone
concentration at a monitor during a three year period) during the 1990
through 1992 period. The States conclude that only two modeled days,
June 26 and August 26, 1991, are severe ozone days. Therefore, N is 2.
Based on a review of the modeled daily peak ozone concentrations,
the States conclude that Strategy 2 with a maximum background ozone
concentration of 60 ppb and Strategy 4 with a maximum background ozone
concentration of 70 ppb would clearly pass this benchmark test. They
also conclude that Strategy 2 with a future maximum background ozone
concentration of 70 ppb and Strategy 4 with a maximum background ozone
concentration of 80 ppb would also pass the benchmark based on an
additional WOE analysis. The WOE analysis is based on the following
evidence:
A. Factors Providing Confidence in Modeled Results
Evaluation of the modeling system's performance shows that:
- Statistical measures for ozone comply with EPA's model
performance criteria;
- Spatial and temporal patterns of monitored surface ozone
concentrations are reproduced well by the modeling system on most days;
- Model performance for ozone across the full domain is
consistent with the model performance in individual subregions;
- Aloft ozone predictions compare favorably with aircraft
ozone data; and
- Model performance for ozone precursors, especially
NOX, is very good.
Confidence in underlying data bases is high. A comprehensive field
program was conducted during the summer of 1991. This field program was
used to collect a large quantity of air quality and meteorological data
to support the photochemical grid modeling.
The modeling results obtained by the LADCO States were corroborated
with the results from other modeling studies. As part of the
Cooperative Regional Model Evaluation (CReME), the photochemical models
UAM-IV, UAM-V, and SAQM were applied in the Lake Michigan region. The
supplemental analyses show that UAM-V produces results directionally
consistent with those produced by UAM-IV and SAQM. All three models
concurred in showing that VOC emission reductions are generally locally
beneficial and that local NOX emission controls are not
beneficial in certain locations, generally within 100 to 200 kilometers
downwind of Chicago.
B. Severity of Modeled Episodes
Three of the four ozone episodes modeled reflect meteorological
conditions which typically favor high ozone in the Lake Michigan area
(when the Lake Michigan area is on the ``back-side'' of a high pressure
system with warm temperatures, high humidity, and south-southwesterly
winds). The fourth episode is representative of warm temperatures with
easterly winds, conditions which generally produce lower peak ozone
concentrations and fewer ozone standard exceedances on a per year
basis.
The magnitudes of the observed peak ozone concentrations at one or
more locations within the modeling domain for the selected ozone
episodes exceed the corresponding ozone design values for many
locations within the region. This implies that the modeled ozone
episodes are conservative and that attaining the ozone standard for
these episodes should lead to attainment of the ozone standard in non-
modeled episodes and during most future ozone conducive periods.
C. Trends Analyses
Several trends analyses have been considered. First, 10-year trends
established by the EPA based on second high daily maximum 1-hour ozone
concentrations for each year show no significant changes in Chicago,
Grand Rapids, Gary, and Kenosha; and a downward trend in Racine and
Milwaukee. Second, 17-year trends based on the number of ozone
exceedance days normalized based on the annual number of hot days show
that the number of exceedance days is significantly decreasing relative
to the number of hot days each year. Third, 15-year trends show
downward trends in ozone at monitoring sites.
Examination of limited morning total non-methane hydrocarbon
concentration levels in Chicago and Milwaukee over the past 10 years
show a significant downward trend. This downward trend is consistent
with the calculated downward trend in VOC emissions.
The LADCO States conclude that the weight of evidence demonstration
provides additional information which verifies the directionality of
the modeling and demonstrates the potential stringency of the modeling
results. The States conclude this information is sufficient to support
minor exceptions to the benchmark, supporting a demonstration of
attainment at the higher background ozone concentrations.
ii. Limits on the Values of Allowed Exceedances
Under this benchmark, the maximum modeled ozone concentration on
severe days shall not exceed 130 ppb. The States, based on the modeled
peak ozone concentrations, conclude this benchmark is passed for
Strategy 2 with a maximum background ozone concentration of 70 ppb and
for Strategy 4 with a maximum background ozone concentration of 80 ppb.
iii. Required Minimum Level of Air Quality Improvement
Under this benchmark, the number of grid cells with modeled peak
ozone concentrations greater than 124 ppb must be reduced by at least
80 percent on each day with allowed modeled ozone standard exceedances.
The States, based on the modeled peak ozone concentrations, conclude
that this
[[Page 70526]]
benchmark is passed for Strategy 2 with a maximum background ozone
concentration of 80 ppb and for Strategy 4 with a maximum background
ozone concentration of 80 ppb.
From the above, it can be seen that benchmark i. is the most
stringent of benchmarks in this case. Based on the statistical
approach, coupled with a WOE analysis, the States conclude that
Strategy 2 with a maximum background ozone concentration of 70 ppb or
Strategy 4 with a maximum background ozone concentration of 80 ppb is
sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2007.
The States further conclude, based on both attainment demonstration
approaches, that either Strategy 2 or Strategy 4 coupled with future
year boundary conditions generally consistent with the impacts of the
NOX SIP call is sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone
standard. The States, however, note that reliance on the impacts of the
NOX SIP call cannot be construed as concurrence on the part
of the States with the substance of the NOX SIP call itself.
Indiana has not committed to comply with the requirements of the
NOX SIP call.
5. Emission Control Strategies
What Emission Control Strategies Were Considered in the Attainment
Demonstrations?
LADCO selected two emission control strategies considered during
the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program for further attainment
demonstration modeling (numerous emission control measures were
initially examined). The two strategies selected are referred to as
Strategy 2 and Strategy 4. These emission control strategies would
apply to the ozone nonattainment areas only and are summarized as the
following:
a. Strategy 2. Strategy 2 includes all national emission control
measures (federal controls) mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, to be in place by 2007 and the State emission controls
mandated to be in place by 1996, including the emission controls needed
to comply with the requirements for 15 percent ROP plans. Additional
ROP plans and State emission controls for the post-1996 period were not
considered, and additional NOX emission controls, such as
NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), were not
considered due to the existence of an approved NOX emission
control waiver under section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act. Existing
NOX emission reduction requirements, such as the acid rain
control requirements under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, were
considered.
b. Strategy 4. Strategy 4 includes all Strategy 2 measures and also
includes some additional point, area, and mobile source control
measures in the severe ozone nonattainment areas. The additional
controls are measures that the State could consider. The State,
however, has not evaluated the technical feasibility or cost-
effectiveness of these measures. The measures have only been considered
regarding their potential to reduce VOC and NOX emissions by
2007. For the additional measures considered, please see Table 4.
Table 3 lists the VOC and NOX emission reductions
expected in Grid B and in the severe ozone nonattainment areas.
Emissions control strategy components for Indiana considered in the
attainment strategy modeling are listed in Table 4. The following
acronyms are used:
RACT--Reasonably Available Control Technology
NESHAP--National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
MACT--Maximum Available Control Technology
I/M--Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance.
Table 3.--Emission Control Levels From Strategies 2 and 4 Grid B and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas
[Lake Michigan Ozone Modeling Domain]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC VOC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Severe
Grid B nonattainment
Strategy percent area
emission NOX NOX percentage
change emissions
change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................... -27 -13 -37 -11
4............................................... -40 -19 -53 -18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Emission Control Measures for Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRATEGY 2--2007 MANDATORY CLEAN AIR ACT MEASURES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT SOURCE VOC CONTROLS
Batch Processes RACT
Industrial Wastewater RACT
Marine Vessel Volatile Organic Liquid Loading Controls
Metal Coil Coating Controls Tightening
Paper Coating Controls Tightening
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Reactor Processes
Wood Parts Coating
Coke Oven NESHAP
Large Gasoline Storage
Metal Can Coating Controls Tightening
Offset Lithography
Plastic Parts Coating Controls Tightening
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage RACT
Plant Shutdowns (Inland Steel Coke Batteries, Gary Incinerator, and
Some Processes at Keil Chemical)
POINT SOURCE NOX CONTROLS
Phase I Acid Rain NOX Limits
AREA SOURCE VOC CONTROLS
[[Page 70527]]
Automobile Refinishing
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings
Marine Vessel Volatile Organic Loading
Municipal Waste Landfills
Open Burning Ban
Gasoline Tank Truck Leak Reductions (due to use of reformulated
gasoline)
Stage I Refueling Reductions (due to use of reformulated gasoline)
Stage II Refueling Vapor Recovery
Underground Storage Tank Breathing Losses and Leaks (due to use of
reformulated gasoline and improved valves)
Commercial/Consumer Solvent Reformulation or Elimination
Off-Road Engine Standards
On-Board Vehicle Controls
MOBILE SOURCE CONTROLS
Tier I Light-Duty Vehicle Standards
Reformulated Gasoline--Phase II (Class C)
Enhanced I/M (no NOX cut-points)
Clean Fuel Fleets
Current Transportation Improvement Program/Build Scenario
Northwest Indiana Regional Transportation Plan, including the
following elements:
* Programs For Improved Public Transit
* Employer-Based Transportation Management Plans
* Traffic Flow Improvement Programs
* Fringe and Transportation Corridor Parking Facilities Serving
Multiple Occupancy Vehicle Programs
* Programs for Secure Bicycle Storage Facilities and Other
Bicycle Programs, including Bicycle Lanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRATEGY 4--2007 MANDATORY MEASURES PLUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Strategy 2 measures plus:
POINT SOURCE VOC CONTROLS
Improved Rule Effectiveness
Phased Emission Reduction Program
AREA SOURCE VOC CONTROLS
Agricultural Pesticides Application Controls
Degreasing Controls
Graphic Arts
Improved Rule Effectiveness
Petroleum Dry Cleaning Regulations
Small Engine Buy-Back Program
POINT SOURCE NOX CONTROLS
Phase II Acid Rain NOX Limits
MOBILE SOURCE CONTROLS
California Low Emission Vehicle Controls
Specific Vehicle I/M (no NOX cut-points)
Reformulated Gasoline--Phase II (Class B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the State Adopted a Selected Emission Control Strategy?
The State has not selected either emissions control strategy as the
official, adopted emissions control strategy of the Phase II ozone
attainment demonstration. The State, however, has adopted and developed
regulations for many of the emission control measures contained in the
two emission control strategies, and particularly for the controls
contained in Strategy 2. Some of the emission control measures in
Strategy 4, however, have not been adopted. For example, Indiana has
not adopted major agricultural pesticide application restrictions and
California low emission vehicle standards.
6. Transportation Conformity
Did the State Address Transportation Conformity in the Submittals?
Indiana has not specifically addressed transportation conformity or
associated mobile source emission budgets in the attainment
demonstration and no such mobile source emission budget has been
adopted as part of the Phase II submittal.
7. State Commitments
Are There any State Commitments for Further Analyses and Air Quality
Plans Addressing a Final Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the 1-hour
Ozone Standard?
Indiana believes that, with the level of NOX emission
reductions consistent with the NOX SIP call (Indiana itself
is not committing at this time to develop a NOX SIP and
implement NOX emission controls consistent with the
NOX SIP call) and considering the VOC emission reductions
from the 15 percent (1996) and 9 percent (post-1996) ROP plans, little
or no additional VOC emission reductions are necessary to provide for
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. Indiana has committed to
submitting a final plan, including additional modeling and adopted
emission control regulations, to achieve attainment of the 1-hour
standard and to meet post-1999 ROP requirements, no later than the end
of 2000. After the impact of the selected regional NOX
controls is assessed, Indiana will reconsider the need for further VOC
emission controls. If additional VOC control measures are needed,
Indiana will revise the SIP to include the necessary regulations.
Indiana commits to implement the emission control programs on a
schedule necessary to meet ROP requirements.
[[Page 70528]]
B. Environmental Protection Agency Review of the Submittals
1. Adequacy of the State's Demonstration of Attainment
Did the State Adequately Document the Techniques and Data Used to
Derive the Modeling Input Data and Modeling Results of the Analyses?
The Phase I submittals from the States thoroughly documented the
techniques and data used to derive the modeling input data. The April
1998 submittal adequately summarized the modeling outputs and the
conclusions drawn from these model outputs.
Did the Modeling Procedures and Input Data Used Comply With the Clean
Air Act and EPA Requirements?
Yes.
Did the States Adequately Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone Standard?
Indiana, in accordance with EPA's December 1997 guidance, has
demonstrated that attainment of the standard is achievable provided
sufficient reductions in background ozone concentrations (and
background ozone precursor concentrations) occur as a result of the
implementation of regional NOX emission controls under the
NOX State implementation plan call. Indiana, however, has
not selected a specific emission control strategy that would achieve
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. This will not be done until
the LADCO States submit a final attainment demonstration in December
2000. By then the States plan to complete an assessment of the ozone
impacts of regional NOX controls and to adopt additional VOC
and NOX emission control measures needed to attain the 1-
hour standard.
Does the Weight of Evidence Test Support the States' Conclusions
Regarding the Attainment Demonstration?
The documented WOE analyses support the conclusions of the
deterministic test and the statistical test. Both the deterministic
test and the statistical test lead to similar conclusions regarding the
ozone 1-hour standard attainment demonstration. Both the deterministic
and the statistical tests, as supplemented by a WOE analysis, show that
attainment can be achieved with local emission controls already
implemented couple with significant reductions in transported ozone and
ozone precursors.
2. Adequacy of the Emissions Control Strategy
Has an Adopted Emissions Control Strategy Been Adequately Documented?
No. The State has not adopted a final emissions control strategy
for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. The State, however, has
demonstrated that significant reductions in transported ozone and
NOX will be necessary to attain the 1-hour standard. These
reductions are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of
regional NOX emission reductions. All three of the LADCO
States, including Indiana, are expected to implement alternative
regional NOX controls within their States.
Is the Emission Control Strategy Acceptable?
No. The State must select an emissions control strategy that is
consistent with attainment in order to establish a motor vehicle
emissions budget. The State must do so in sufficient time for EPA to
find the motor vehicle emissions budget adequate by May 31, 2000. The
State has committed to adopt and submit a final emissions control
strategy associated with a revised modeling analysis by December 2000.
3. State Commitments
Are the State Commitments for Future Analyses and Finalization of the
Attainment Demonstration Acceptable?
Yes. Indiana's commitments to complete the attainment demonstration
and to adopt and submit the post-1999 ROP plan (the post-1996 ROP plan,
covering the period of 1997 through 1999, is currently under review by
the EPA) by December 2000 are adequate.
4. Relationship to Other Requirements
Will the Future Analyses Adequately Address the Impacts of the EPA
NOX State Implementation Plan Call?
Yes. The LADCO States have made it very clear that the 1-hour ozone
standard will be difficult to attain without the regional
NOX emission reductions and that the final demonstration of
attainment will incorporate the States' best estimates of the impacts
of the NOX SIP call or of alternative regional
NOX emission controls.
Has the State Specified and Adopted an Acceptable Transportation
Conformity Mobile Source Emission Budget?
No. The State has not selected a specific emission control
strategy. The State must select a control strategy that is consistent
with attainment of the NAAQS. The will need to establish a motor
vehicle emissions budget based on the selected strategy and will need
to submit the budget in time for EPA to find the budget adequate by May
31, 2000.
C. Summary
Overall, Is Indiana's Ozone Attainment Demonstration Acceptable?
Indiana's commitment to complete the control strategy adoption
process is adequate to warrant a conditional approval of the attainment
demonstration plan. Indiana has accomplished as much as can be expected
at this time and has generally met the requirements of the EPA December
1997 ozone attainment demonstration guidance, with the exception of
adopting a final emission control strategy and associated emission
control regulations.
What Portions of the Attainment Demonstration Need Additional Work and
Consideration in the Final Attainment Demonstration?
The following items need further consideration in the final ozone
attainment demonstration:
1. A final modeled demonstration of attainment that considers the
impacts of the regional NOX emission reductions, local
control measures, and NOX emissions control waiver (if
maintained);
2. Adoption and submission of CAA measures, including VOC and
NOX (within the modeling domain) measures relied on in the
final modeled attainment demonstration;
3. Motor vehicle emissions budget, including both VOC and
NOX emissions.
The EPA has found that the motor vehicle emissions budget in the
attainment demonstration submitted for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
ozone nonattainment area is inadequate for conformity purposes. The EPA
is proposing to conditionally approve the attainment demonstration SIP
if the State corrects the deficiencies that cause the motor vehicle
emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to disapprove it
if Indiana does not correct the deficiencies.
III. Proposed Action
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to issue a conditional
approval of the ozone attainment demonstration. The State already
committed to do the following in the April 1998 ozone attainment
demonstration: (1) perform and submit a final modeled ozone
[[Page 70529]]
attainment demonstration by December 2000; (2) adopt and submit a
specific emissions control strategy, including adopted control
measures, adequate to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the ozone
nonattainment area and throughout the ozone modeling domain by December
2000; (3) adopt and submit control measures necessary to meet ROP from
1999 until the attainment year and the associated target calculations.
For EPA to issue a final conditional approval the State will need to
take the following steps in sufficient time for EPA to determine by May
31, 2000 that the state has an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget
and an adequate commitment for a mid-course review: (1) Select a
control strategy consistent with its current modeling analysis; (2)
adopt and submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent
with the selected strategy; and (3) commit to perform a mid-course
review in 2003.
Because many States may shortly be submitting revised
demonstrations with revised motor vehicle emission budgets, EPA is
providing a 60 day comment period on this proposed rule. If Indiana
submits a revised attainment demonstration during the 60 day comment
period, EPA will place the revisions in the docket for this rulemaking
and will post a notice on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/oms/traq. By
posting notice on the website, EPA will also initiate the adequacy
process.
If the State does not take one or more of the actions listed above
in time for EPA to make the May 31, 2000 determinations, EPA will
disapprove Indiana's attainment demonstration submission for the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County nonattainment area.
If EPA issues a final conditional approval of the State's
submission, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval if
the State does not adopt and submit a complete SIP submission with the
following elements by December 31, 2000: (1) A final revised modeling
analysis that fully assesses the impacts of regional NOX
reductions, models a specific local emissions reduction strategy, and
reconsiders the effectiveness of the NOX waiver; (2) control
measures necessary to meet the ROP requirement from 1999 until the
attainment year, including target calculations; and (3) VOC and
regional (within the modeling domain) NOX emission control
measures sufficient to support the final ozone attainment
demonstration.
If the State makes a complete submission with all of the above
elements by December 31, 2000, EPA will propose action on the new
submissions for the purpose of determining whether to issue a final
full approval of the attainment demonstration.
What Are the Consequences of State Failure?
This section explains the CAA consequences of State failure to meet
the time frames and terms described generally in this notice. The CAA
provides for the imposition of sanctions and the promulgation of a
federal implementation plan if States fail to submit a required plan,
submit a plan that is determined to be incomplete or if EPA disapproves
a plan submitted by the State (We are using the phrase ``failure to
submit'' to cover both the situation where a State makes no submission
and the situation where the State makes a submission that we find is
incomplete in accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V.) For purposes of sanctions, there are no sanctions clocks
in place based on a failure to submit. Thus, the description of the
timing of sanctions, below, is linked to a potential disapproval of the
State's submission.
What Are the CAA's Provisions for Sanctions?
If EPA disapproves a required SIP, such as the attainment
demonstration SIPs, section 179(a) provides for the imposition of two
sanctions. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA
disapproves the SIP if the State fails to make the required submittal
which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve within that time.
Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction
would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review
requirements under section 173 of the CAA. If the State has still
failed to submit a SIP for which EPA proposes full or conditional
approval 6 months after the first sanction is imposed, the second
sanction will apply. The second sanction is a limitation on the receipt
of Federal highway funds. EPA also has authority under section 110(m)
to a broader area, but is not proposing to take such action today.
What Are the CAA's FIP Provisions if a State Fails to Submit a Plan?
In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a State failed to
submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP
revision EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date
of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. The attainment
demonstration SIPs on which EPA is taking action today were originally
due in November 1994. However, through a series of policy memoranda,
EPA recognized that States had not submitted attainment demonstrations
and were constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further
analyzed. As provided in the Background, above, EPA provided for States
to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June
1996, EPA made findings that ten States and the District of Columbia
had failed to submit the phase I SIPs for nine nonattainment areas. 61
FR 36292 (July 10, 1996). In addition on May 19, 1997, EPA made a
similar finding for Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 62 FR
27201.
In July 1998, several environmental groups filed a notice of
citizen suit, alleging that EPA had outstanding sanctions and FIP
obligations for the serious and severe nonattainment areas on which EPA
is proposing action today. These groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia on November 8, 1999.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under Executive Orders 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Orders 13045 because it
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health
and safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Orders 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that
is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely
affects the communities of Indian tribal
[[Page 70530]]
governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Orders 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a State rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect
State-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does
not impose any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that such a
disapproval action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it would not remove
existing requirements nor would it substitute a new Federal
requirement.
The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the State request
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act would not affect
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect
State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the submittal would
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that the
proposed disapproval would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed conditional approval action
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal
action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval
because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and
of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an
enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit
EPA to consider the types of analyses described in section 202 in
determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203
does not apply to the proposed
[[Page 70531]]
disapproval because it would affect only the State of Indiana, which is
not a small government.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 30, 1999.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-31721 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P