Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana; Ozone

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

[email protected].

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 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

\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 PM 10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this

memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at http://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 http://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 http://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: http://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: http://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:

http://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: http://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: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').

3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.

Nichols, issued March 2, 1995. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html.

4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

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.''

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

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