# 66 FR 36370: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois; Ozone > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-16937 ## Section - **Citation:** 66 FR 36370 - **Heading:** Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois; Ozone - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 66 / 66 FR 36370 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [IL200-1; FRL-7008-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois; Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the following as revisions to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area, i.e., for the Illinois portion of this bi-state ozone nonattainment area: an ozone attainment demonstration; a post-1999 ozone Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) plan; a contingency measures plan for both the ozone attainment demonstration and post-1999 ROP plan; a commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the ozone attainment demonstration; mobile source conformity emission budgets for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen ( NO X ) and the State's commitment to revise these emission budgets using the MOBILE6 emissions factor model; and, a Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) analysis. The EPA is also proposing to revise the existing NO X emissions control waiver for the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area to the extent that the State has relied on NO X emission controls from certain Electrical Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU boilers and turbines, and major cement kilns in the nonattainment area to attain the ozone standard. The existing NO X emissions control waiver remains in place for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), New Source Review (NSR), and certain requirements of vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) and transportation and general conformity. The EPA is proposing to deny a related citizen petition for the termination of the NSR portion of the NO X waiver. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2001. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S and Maintenance (I/M) and transportation and general conformity. The EPA is proposing to deny a related citizen petition for the termination of the NSR portion of the NO X waiver. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2001. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to J. Elmer 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's submittals addressed in this proposed rule and other relevant materials are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (please telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5 office). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number: (312) 886-6057, E-Mail Address: doty.edward@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Whenever “you” or “me” is used, we mean you the reader of this proposed rule or the sources subject to the requirements of the State plan as discussed in the State's submittal or in this proposed rule. This section provides additional information by addressing the following topics and questions: I. What Action Is EPA Proposing Today? II. Background Information A. What is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)? B. What is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP? C. What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me? D. What are the Options for Action on a State SIP Submittal? E. What Ozone Nonattainment Area is Addressed by the State Submittal Reviewed in This Proposed Rule? F stions: I. What Action Is EPA Proposing Today? II. Background Information A. What is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)? B. What is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP? C. What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me? D. What are the Options for Action on a State SIP Submittal? E. What Ozone Nonattainment Area is Addressed by the State Submittal Reviewed in This Proposed Rule? F. What Prior EPA Rulemakings Relate to or Led to the State Submittal Reviewed in this Proposed Rule? G. What is the Time Frame for EPA to Take Action on the State Submittal? H. What are the Basic Components of the State Submittal and What are the Subjects Covered in this Proposed Rule? III. Ozone Attainment Demonstration and Emissions Control Strategy A. Background Information and Requirements Placed on the Ozone Attainment Demonstration 1. What Clean Air Act requirements apply to the State's ozone attainment demonstration? 2. What is the history of the State's ozone attainment demonstration and how is it related to EPA's NO X SIP Call? 3. What are the modeling requirements for the ozone attainment demonstrations? 4. What additional analyses may be considered when the ozone modeling fails to show attainment of the ozone standard? 5. Besides the modeled attainment demonstration and adopted emission control strategy, what other elements must be addressed in an attainment demonstration SIP? 6. What are the relevant EPA policy and guidance documents? B. Technical Review of the State's Submittal 1. When was the attainment demonstration addressed in public hearings, and when was the attainment demonstration submitted to the EPA? 2. What are the basic components of the submittal? 3. What modeling approach was used in the analyses to develop and validate the ozone modeling system? 4. How were the 1996 base year emissions developed? 5. What procedures and sources of projection data were used to project the emissions to the attainment year? 6. How were the 1996 and 2007 emission estimates quality assured? 7 mitted to the EPA? 2. What are the basic components of the submittal? 3. What modeling approach was used in the analyses to develop and validate the ozone modeling system? 4. How were the 1996 base year emissions developed? 5. What procedures and sources of projection data were used to project the emissions to the attainment year? 6. How were the 1996 and 2007 emission estimates quality assured? 7. What is the adopted emissions control strategy? 8. What were the ozone modeling results for the base period and for the future attainment period with the selected emissions control strategy? 9. What additional analyses and emissions were modeled by the State of Illinois? 10. Do the modeling results demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard? 11. Does the attainment demonstration depend on future reductions of regional emissions? 12. Has the State adopted all of the regulations/rules needed to support the ozone attainment strategy and demonstration? C. EPA's Evaluation of the Ozone Attainment Demonstration Portion of the State's Submittal 1. Did the State adequately document the techniques and data used to derive the modeling input data and modeling results of the analyses? 2. Did the modeling procedures and input data used comply with the Clean Air Act requirements and EPA guidelines? 3. Did the State adequately demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard? 4. Has the adopted emissions control strategy been adequately documented? 5. Is the emissions control strategy acceptable? IV. Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Plan A. What is a Post-1999 ROP Plan? B. What is the ROP Contingency Measure Requirement? C. What Illinois Counties are Covered by the Post-1999 ROP Plan? D. Who is Affected by the Illinois Post-1999 ROP Plan? E. What Criteria Must a Post-1999 ROP Plan Meet to be Approved? F. What are the Special Requirements for Claiming NO X Emission Reductions in Post-1996 ROP Plans? G. How Did Illinois Calculate the Needed ROP and Contingency Emission Reduction Requirements? 1 ago-Gary-Lake County Ozone Nonattainment Area? B. What are the Conclusions of the State Regarding the Impact of the Ozone Attainment Demonstration on the NO X Control Waiver? C. What Are the Bases and Conclusions of a Petition Against the NO X Waiver? D. What are the Conclusions That Can Be Drawn Regarding the NO X Control Waiver From Data Contained in the State's Ozone Attainment Demonstration? E. What are the EPA Conclusions Regarding the Existing NO X Waiver Given the Petition and the Available Ozone Modeling Data? IX. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Conformity and Commitment to Re-Model Using Mobile6 A. What are the Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Conformity? B. How Were the Illinois Attainment Demonstration and ROP Emissions Budgets Developed? C. Did Illinois Commit to Revise the Budgets When MOBILE6 Is Released? D. Are the Illinois Emissions Budgets Adequate for Conformity Purposes? X. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis A. What are the Requirements for RACM? B. How Does This Submission Address the RACM Requirement? C. Does the Chicago Attainment Demonstration Meet the RACM Requirement? XI. Responses to Public Comments XII. Administrative Requirements I. What Action Is EPA Proposing Today? Based on a review of all available information, Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, and relevant EPA guidance, we are proposing to approve: (1) Illinois' 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area; (2) Illinois' post-1999 ROP plan (an ROP plan covering the time period of November 15, 1999 through November 15, 2007) for the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area; (3) Illinois' contingency measures plan for both the ozone attainment demonstration and the post-1999 ROP plan; (4) Illinois' commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the ozone attainment demonstration; (5) Illinois' mobile source conformity emission budgets for VOC and NO X in the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County oz ion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area; (3) Illinois' contingency measures plan for both the ozone attainment demonstration and the post-1999 ROP plan; (4) Illinois' commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the ozone attainment demonstration; (5) Illinois' mobile source conformity emission budgets for VOC and NO X in the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area; and (6) Illinois' RACM analysis/demonstration for the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area (the term “Chicago area” is used to refer to the Illinois portion of this ozone nonattainment area). We are proposing to modify an existing NO X emissions control waiver (the NO X emissions control waiver has been in place since January 1996) for the Chicago area. The existing NO X emissions control waiver was based on ozone modeling data showing that NO X emission reductions in the ozone nonattainment area would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in this nonattainment area. Ozone modeling supporting the ozone attainment demonstration addressed in this proposed rule shows that NO X emission controls on EGUs, major non-EGU boilers and turbines, and major cement kilns in the ozone nonattainment area (and statewide) are beneficial and will contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. The attainment demonstration further shows that the ozone standard will be attained by the applicable attainment date without the use of additional NO X emission controls 1 (beyond other NO X emission controls already implemented and/or modeled in the ozone attainment demonstration) in the nonattainment area. Consequently, such additional NO X emission controls are in excess of what is needed to attain the ozone standard. 1 The additional NO X emission controls not considered in the ozone attainment demonstration include NO X RACT, NO X NSR, and additional mobile source NO X controls, including vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) emission cutpoints ttainment demonstration) in the nonattainment area. Consequently, such additional NO X emission controls are in excess of what is needed to attain the ozone standard. 1 The additional NO X emission controls not considered in the ozone attainment demonstration include NO X RACT, NO X NSR, and additional mobile source NO X controls, including vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) emission cutpoints. We are proposing to modify the existing NO X waiver to remove from the emissions control waiver the EGUs, major non-EGU boilers and turbines, and major cement kilns for which the State included emission controls in the ozone attainment demonstration. Based on the “excess emissions” control provisions of section 182(f)(2) of the CAA, however, we are proposing to retain the NO X waiver for RACT, NSR, and certain requirements of transportation and general conformity, and I/M. 2 2 States with NO X waivers are still required to prepare motor vehicle emissions budgets consistent with the ozone attainment demonstrations and to use these emissions budgets in conformity analyses. We are proposing to deny a related citizen petition to terminate the NSR portion of the NO X emissions control waiver for the Chicago area. No data have been submitted or are available showing that the existence of the waiver for NO X NSR in the Chicago area will prevent the attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by the November 15, 2007 deadline or will delay attainment of the ozone standard by an earlier date. II. Background Information A. What Is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution control regulations (rules) and strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA. Each state must submit the rules and emission control strategies to the EPA for approval and promulgation into a Federally enforceable SIP Is a State Implementation Plan (SIP)? Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution control regulations (rules) and strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA. Each state must submit the rules and emission control strategies to the EPA for approval and promulgation into a Federally enforceable SIP. Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its points of origin. The SIPs can be and generally are extensive, containing many state rules or other enforceable documents and supporting information, such as emission inventories, monitoring documentation, and modeled attainment demonstrations. B. What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP? In order for state rules and emission control strategies to be incorporated into the Federally enforceable SIPs, states must formally adopt the rules and emission control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes public notice, public hearings, public comment periods, and formal adoption by state-authorized rulemaking bodies. Once a state rule or emissions control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and must seek additional public comment regarding our proposed action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action (they are All state rules and supporting information approved by the EPA under section 110 of the Act are incorporated into Federally approved SIPs to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and must seek additional public comment regarding our proposed action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action (they are All state rules and supporting information approved by the EPA under section 110 of the Act are incorporated into Federally approved SIPs. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, titled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state rules which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR, but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that EPA has approved the state rules with specific effective dates, has identified the rules in the CFR, and, thereby, has identified the full texts of the rules by reference. C. What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me? Enforcement of a state rule before and after it is incorporated into a Federally approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. After a rule is Federally approved, however, EPA is authorized under section 113 of the CAA to conduct enforcement actions against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. D. What Are the Options for Action on a State SIP Submittal? Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the SIP submissions, we may propose one or more of several types of approval, or disapproval in the alternative (or a combination if our rulemaking process involves separable portions of a SIP submission). In addition, these proposals may identify additional state actions that may be necessary by a state before EPA may fully approve the submissions. The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve, or conditionally approve a state's submission. The EPA must fully approve a submission if it meets the requirements of the Act process involves separable portions of a SIP submission). In addition, these proposals may identify additional state actions that may be necessary by a state before EPA may fully approve the submissions. The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve, or conditionally approve a state's submission. The EPA must fully approve a submission if it meets the requirements of the Act. If a 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 the submission, or may conditionally approve the submission based on a state's commitment to correct the deficiency by a date certain, not later than one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval. The 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 by the state. Unlike the commitment for a submission correction under a 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 final approval action. Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is infeasible for the state to accomplish the necessary action(s) in the short term. E. What Ozone Nonattainment Area Is Addressed by the State Submittal Reviewed in This Proposed Rule? The December 26, 2000 submittal of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) reviewed here primarily deals with the attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Chicago area. The Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area includes the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will, and the townships of Aux Sable and Goose Lake in Grundy County and Oswego in Kendall County ittal of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) reviewed here primarily deals with the attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Chicago area. The Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area includes the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will, and the townships of Aux Sable and Goose Lake in Grundy County and Oswego in Kendall County. The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area also includes Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, an Indiana submittal for which is the subject of a separate review and rulemaking. For purposes of an ozone attainment demonstration, the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area is a sub-portion of a larger ozone modeling domain, referred to as Grid M. This ozone modeling domain is further discussed in a later portion of this proposed rule. The State's submission demonstrates that attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard will occur by November 15, 2007 throughout Grid M, including within the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. F. What Prior EPA Rulemakings Relate to or Led to the State Submittal Reviewed in This Proposed Rule? On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70496), we proposed to conditionally approve the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Chicago area submitted by the IEPA on April 30, 1998. The April 30, 1998 attainment demonstration submittal was based on a range of possible emission control measures (on a number of sets of emission control measures reflecting various emission control alternatives) and did not specify a single set of emission control measures as an adopted emissions control strategy. We based our December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval on the State's commitment to adopt and submit, by December 31, 2000, a final ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and a post-1999 ROP plan, including the necessary State-adopted air pollution control rules needed to support and complete the ozone attainment demonstration and post-1999 ROP plan n adopted emissions control strategy. We based our December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval on the State's commitment to adopt and submit, by December 31, 2000, a final ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and a post-1999 ROP plan, including the necessary State-adopted air pollution control rules needed to support and complete the ozone attainment demonstration and post-1999 ROP plan. In the alternative, we proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstration if, by December 31, 1999, the State did not adopt an emissions control strategy as supported by its modeled ozone attainment demonstration and did not submit adequate motor vehicle emission budgets for VOC and NO X for the Chicago area that comply with EPA's transportation conformity regulations. In addition, we conditioned our approval on the State of Illinois submitting, by December 31, 1999, an enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the ozone attainment plan in 2003. The December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking noted that, if the EPA issued a final conditional approval of the State's April 30, 1998 submission, 3 the conditional approval would revert to a disapproval if the State did not adopt and submit a complete SIP submission with the following elements by December 31, 2000: (1) A final adopted ozone modeling analysis that fully assesses the impacts of regional NO X emissions reductions, models a specific local emissions reduction strategy, and reconsiders the effectiveness of the existing NO X emissions control waiver (see the discussion relating to the NO X emissions control waiver below); (2) adopted emission control measures needed to meet the post-1999 ROP requirements (an ROP plan covering the period of November 15, 1999 through the ozone attainment year); and (3) local VOC and regional NO X emission control measures sufficient to support the final ozone attainment demonstration X emissions control waiver (see the discussion relating to the NO X emissions control waiver below); (2) adopted emission control measures needed to meet the post-1999 ROP requirements (an ROP plan covering the period of November 15, 1999 through the ozone attainment year); and (3) local VOC and regional NO X emission control measures sufficient to support the final ozone attainment demonstration. If the State made this complete submission by December 31, 2000, we noted that we would propose action on the new submission for the purpose of determining whether to issue a final full approval of the ozone attainment demonstration. 3 To date, the EPA has not issued a final rule conditionally approving the State's April 30, 1998 submittal. As noted below, the December 26, 2000 submittal reviewed here, in part, addresses a post-1999 ROP plan for the Chicago area. The post-1999 ROP plan provides required emission reductions in addition to Illinois' 15 percent ROP plan (ROP emission reductions occurring prior to November 15, 1996) and 9 percent post-1996 ROP plan (ROP emission reductions occurring prior to November 15, 1999) for this ozone nonattainment area. On July 14, 1997 X emission targets. The December 18, 2000 final rule also addresses the State's adopted contingency measure plan for the post-1996 ROP plan and approves the 1999 motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the ROP plan for the Chicago area. The December 26, 2000 submittal reviewed in this proposed rule includes, as part of the ozone attainment demonstration and the post-1999 ROP plan, regional NO X emission reductions. These regional NO X emission reductions must be reviewed in light of the fact that a NO X emissions reduction waiver exists for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. On January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428), we published a final rule approving the NO X emissions control waiver based on a showing that NO X reductions would not contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS reductions. These regional NO X emission reductions must be reviewed in light of the fact that a NO X emissions reduction waiver exists for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. On January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428), we published a final rule approving the NO X emissions control waiver based on a showing that NO X reductions would not contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Through the January 26, 1996 rulemaking, the EPA granted exemptions from the RACT and NSR requirements for major stationary sources of NO X and from certain vehicle I/M and general conformity requirements for NO X in the ozone nonattainment areas in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study modeling domain (the Lake Michigan Ozone Study modeling domain is a sub-portion of Grid M centered on lower Lake Michigan). On February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5291), we published a final rule granting exemption from certain transportation conformity 4 requirements for NO X in the Chicago area. Consequently, since the NO X requirements have been waived based on a demonstration that NO X emission controls in the ozone nonattainment area are not beneficial toward attaining the ozone standard, the State may not receive credit for NO X emission controls in the ozone nonattainment area toward ROP requirements unless the State can demonstrate the opposite, i.e., that such emission controls are beneficial for attainment of the ozone standard. The State, in its December 26, 2000 submittal, is now demonstrating that certain regional NO X emission controls (including some controls on EGUs in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area) would contribute toward attainment of the ozone standard 5 . We are proposing, based on the information submitted, to revise the NO X waiver for the Chicago nonattainment area, as further explained below standard. The State, in its December 26, 2000 submittal, is now demonstrating that certain regional NO X emission controls (including some controls on EGUs in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area) would contribute toward attainment of the ozone standard 5 . We are proposing, based on the information submitted, to revise the NO X waiver for the Chicago nonattainment area, as further explained below. 4 The NO X waiver does not include an exemption from the need for the States to adopt mobile source NO X emission budgets for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area to support transportation and general confomity reviews. After the State has submitted and EPA has approved a motor vehicle NO X emissions budget to be used for conformity purposes, the NO X waiver is no longer applicable for transportation or general conformity as the State must consider the NO X emissions budget when making conformity determinations. 5 Statewide NO X emission controls on major non-EGU boilers and turbines and major cement kilns were also considered in the ozone attainment demonstration, but specific controls on NO X sources for these source categories were not identified for the Chicago area. G. What Is the Time Frame for EPA To Take Action on the State Submittal? As noted above, the EPA is providing a 30 day public comment period for this proposed rule. This comment period is typical for such proposed rules and is critical in this case given the relatively tight time constraints under which the EPA is operating. To meet the time constraints of an existing consent decree between the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA must complete final rulemaking approving the December 26, 2000 submittal by October 15, 2001 or must publish a proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Chicago area by that date. H ase given the relatively tight time constraints under which the EPA is operating. To meet the time constraints of an existing consent decree between the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA must complete final rulemaking approving the December 26, 2000 submittal by October 15, 2001 or must publish a proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Chicago area by that date. H. What Are the Basic Components of the State Submittal and What Are the Subjects Covered in This Proposed Rule? The December 26, 2000 Illinois submittal reviewed in this proposed rule addresses the following required plan elements: (1) An ozone attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area and the Grid M modeling domain; (2) the post-1999 ROP plan for the Chicago area; (3) contingency measures for the post-1999 ROP plan and for the ozone attainment demonstration; and (4) motor vehicle transportation conformity emission budgets. Besides these plan elements, this proposed rule addresses the following additional issues: (1) Illinois' commitments for a mid-course review of the ozone attainment demonstration; (2) revisions to the existing NO X control waiver for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area and a public petition requesting a removal of the NSR portion of the NO X control waiver; and (3) a RACM analysis for the Chicago area. In this notice we do not respond to the public comments submitted on our December 16, 1999 proposed rule on Illinois' April 30, 1998 ozone attainment demonstration submittal. We will address those comments when we take final action on Illinois' ozone attainment demonstration and other plan elements. III. Ozone Attainment Demonstration and Emissions Control Strategy A. Background Information and Requirements Placed on the Ozone Attainment Demonstration 1 ed on our December 16, 1999 proposed rule on Illinois' April 30, 1998 ozone attainment demonstration submittal. We will address those comments when we take final action on Illinois' ozone attainment demonstration and other plan elements. III. Ozone Attainment Demonstration and Emissions Control Strategy A. Background Information and Requirements Placed on the Ozone Attainment Demonstration 1. What Clean Air Act Requirements Apply to the State's Ozone Attainment Demonstration? The CAA requires the EPA to establish NAAQS for certain widespread air 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 ozone standard at a level of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (120 parts per billion [ppb]). 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone and other secondary pollutants. NO X and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. Control of VOC and NO X emissions is addressed in ozone control strategies to reduce peak ozone levels. An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each day in which an ambient air quality monitor records an 1-hour average ozone concentration above 0.124 ppm. An area violates the ozone standard if, over a consecutive 3-year period, more than 3 daily exceedances are recorded or are expected to occur at any monitor in the area or in its immediate downwind environs. The highest of the fourth-high daily peak ozone concentrations over the 3-year period at any monitoring site in the area is called the ozone design value for the area. The CAA required the EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on the air quality monitoring data for the 3 year period from 1987 through 1989. Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) eak ozone concentrations over the 3-year period at any monitoring site in the area is called the ozone design value for the area. The CAA required the EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on the air quality monitoring data for the 3 year period from 1987 through 1989. Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The CAA further classified these areas, based on the areas' ozone design values, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Clean Air Act section 181(a). Marginal nonattainment areas were suffering the least significant air quality problems and extreme nonattainment areas had the most significant air quality problems. The control requirements and date by which attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard needs to be achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas are subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest ozone attainment date. Moderate, serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas are subject to more stringent planning and control requirements but are provided more time to attain the standard. Serious nonattainment areas were required to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999, and severe ozone nonattainment areas are required to attain the ozone standard 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. Under sections 182(c)(2) and 182(d) of the CAA, states with serious or severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit, by November 15, 1994, demonstrations of how the nonattainment areas would attain the 1-hour ozone standard and how they would achieve ROP reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each 3-year period until the attainment date. In some cases, NO X emission reductions can be substituted for the required VOC emission reductions to achieve ROP. 2 ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit, by November 15, 1994, demonstrations of how the nonattainment areas would attain the 1-hour ozone standard and how they would achieve ROP reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each 3-year period until the attainment date. In some cases, NO X emission reductions can be substituted for the required VOC emission reductions to achieve ROP. 2. What Is the History of the State's Ozone Attainment Demonstration and How Is It Related to EPA's NO X 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 15, 1994 time frame for submitting attainment demonstration SIP revisions because emissions of NO X 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. 6 Recognizing the problems created by ozone transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative process among the states of 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) 7 and provided for the states to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frame for OTAG to complete its evaluation of ozone transport and to take into consideration the OTAG ozone modeling results. 6 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. 7 Letter from Mary A e states to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frame for OTAG to complete its evaluation of ozone transport and to take into consideration the OTAG ozone modeling results. 6 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. 7 Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, to the members of the Environmental Council of States (EOCS), dated April 13, 1995. In June 1997, OTAG completed its process. OTAG submitted to EPA the results of its technical air quality modeling efforts, which quantified the impact of the transport of ozone and its precursors. OTAG recommended consideration of a range of regional NO X emission control measures. 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: (a) Evidence that the applicable emission control measures in subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an expeditious course to being adopted and implemented; (b) lists of measures needed to meet the remaining ROP emissions reduction requirements and to reach attainment; (c) for severe areas only, a commitment to adopt and submit the emission control measures necessary for attainment and the ROP plans through the attainment year by the end of 2000; 8 (d) commitments to implement the SIP control programs in a timely manner to meet ROP emission reduction milestone targets and to achieve attainment of the ozone standard; and (e) evidence of a public hearing on each state's submittal. 9 This submission is sometimes referred to as the Phase II submission es necessary for attainment and the ROP plans through the attainment year by the end of 2000; 8 (d) commitments to implement the SIP control programs in a timely manner to meet ROP emission reduction milestone targets and to achieve attainment of the ozone standard; and (e) evidence of a public hearing on each state's submittal. 9 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 also included motor vehicle emissions budgets. 8 In general, a commitment for severe areas to adopt by December 2000 the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP through the attainment year applies to any additional measures necessary for attainment that were not otherwise required to be submitted earlier. This memorandum was not intended to allow states to delay submission of measures required under the Clean Air Act. 9 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) did not meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA because they did not adequately regulate statewide NO X emissions that significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in downwind states. 62 FR 60318 (November 7, 1997). The EPA finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions to revise their SIPs to require NO X emission reductions within each jurisdiction to a level consistent with a NO X emission budget identified in the final rule ey did not adequately regulate statewide NO X emissions that significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in downwind states. 62 FR 60318 (November 7, 1997). The EPA finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions to revise their SIPs to require NO X emission reductions within each jurisdiction to a level consistent with a NO X emission budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). The final rule is commonly referred to as the NO X SIP Call. 3. What Are the Modeling Requirements for the Ozone Attainment Demonstrations? The EPA provides that states may rely on a modeled attainment demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard. 10 In order to have complete ozone modeling attainment demonstration submissions, states should have submitted the required modeling analyses and identified any additional evidence that EPA should consider in evaluating whether areas will attain the ozone standard. 10 The EPA issued guidance on air quality modeling that is used to demonstrate attainment of 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: “03TEST”). For the purposes of demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard, the CAA (section 182(c)(2)(A)) requires states with serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas to use photochemical dispersion modeling or an analysis method EPA determines to be as effective to assess the adequacy of emission control strategies and to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard /scram/ (file name: “03TEST”). For the purposes of demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard, the CAA (section 182(c)(2)(A)) requires states with serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas to use photochemical dispersion modeling or an analysis method EPA determines to be as effective to assess the adequacy of emission control strategies and to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard. The photochemical dispersion modeling system is set up using A modeling domain is chosen that encompasses the ozone nonattainment area and surrounding upwind and downwind areas. Attainment of the ozone standard is demonstrated when all predicted ozone concentrations in the attainment year in the modeling domain are at or below the ozone NAAQS or at an acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions as explained in EPA's guidance. An optional Weight-Of-Evidence (WOE) determination may be used to address uncertainty inherent in the application of photochemical grid models. See the discussion of possible WOE determination tests and analyses below. 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 historical high ozone days (days with ozone concentrations exceeding the ozone 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 est groups). Second, for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the state must select historical high ozone days (days with ozone concentrations exceeding the ozone 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 modeling domain should be larger than the designated ozone nonattainment area to reduce uncertainty in the nonattainment area boundary conditions and should include any large upwind sources just outside of the ozone nonattainment area. In general, the modeling domain is considered to be the area where control measures are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Fourth, the state needs to determine the modeling grid resolution (the modeling domain is divided into a three-dimensional grid). The horizontal and vertical resolutions in the modeling domain affect the modeled dispersion and transport of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical layers and horizontal grids) may artificially dilute pollutant concentrations and may not properly consider impacts of complex terrain, meteorology, and land/water interfaces. Fifth, the state needs to generate meteorological data and emissions that describe atmospheric conditions and inputs reflective of the selected high ozone days. Finally, the state needs to verify that the modeling system is properly 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 evaluate emission control strategies, and to support an ozone attainment demonstration o verify that the modeling system is properly 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 evaluate emission control strategies, and to support an ozone attainment demonstration. The modeled attainment test compares model-predicted 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year (2007 for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area), with all selected emission control measures in place, to the level of the ozone NAAQS. A predicted peak ozone concentration above 0.124 ppm (124 ppb) indicates that the area may exceed the ozone standard in the attainment year under the tested base year conditions and that the tested emissions control strategy may be inadequate to attain the ozone standard. This type of test is referred to as an exceedance test. EPA's guidance recommends that states use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the ozone attainment demonstration, a deterministic test or a statistical test. The deterministic test requires a state to compare predicted 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day 11 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed. 11 The initial, “ramp-up” day for each modeled high ozone episode is excluded from this determination. The statistical test takes into account the fact that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS allows exceedances. If, over a 3-year period, an area has an average of 1 or fewer daily exceedances per year at any monitoring site, the area is not violating the ozone standard exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed. 11 The initial, “ramp-up” day for each modeled high ozone episode is excluded from this determination. The statistical test takes into account the fact that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS allows exceedances. If, over a 3-year period, an area has an average of 1 or fewer daily exceedances per year at any monitoring site, the area is not violating the ozone standard. Thus, if the state models an extreme day, considering meteorological conditions that are very conducive to high ozone levels, the statistical test provides that a prediction of an 1-hour ozone concentration above 0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment of the standard. The acceptable upper limit for modeled peak ozone concentrations in the statistical test is determined by examining the levels of ozone standard exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four highest 1-hour average ozone 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 the relative severity of the modeled day. The upper limit generally represents the maximum ozone concentration observed at a location on a single day, and would be the only ozone 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 ozone NAAQS. Thus, these upper limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. 4 efore, 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 ozone NAAQS. Thus, these upper limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. 4. What Additional Analyses May Be Considered When the Ozone Modeling Fails To Show Attainment of the Ozone Standard? When the ozone modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard through either a deterministic test or a statistical test, additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area nevertheless will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are inherent uncertainties in some of the photochemical 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. EPA's guidance recognizes these 12 12 States may choose to submit WOE determinations even when the ozone modeling results pass either the deterministic test or the statistical test. This may be done to support the attainment demonstration, recognizing that the ozone modeling results possess a certain degree of uncertainty. Nonetheless, the submittal of WOE determinations is only needed if the ozone modeling fails to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard through either a deterministics test or a statistical test ass either the deterministic test or the statistical test. This may be done to support the attainment demonstration, recognizing that the ozone modeling results possess a certain degree of uncertainty. Nonetheless, the submittal of WOE determinations is only needed if the ozone modeling fails to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard through either a deterministics test or a statistical test. Under a WOE determination, a 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 ozone standard exceedances and predicted changes in an area's ozone design value; actual observed air quality trends; estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitoring data; the responsiveness of the model predictions to further emission controls; and, whether there are additional emission control—measures that are or will be approved into the SIP but that were not included in the ozone modeling analysis. This list is not an exhaustive list of factors that may be considered, and the factors considered could vary from case to case. EPA's guidance contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test (a deterministic test or a statistical test) must be to passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment. The further a modeled attainment test is from being passed, however, the more compelling the WOE determination needs to be. 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, particularly if a WOE determination is needed to support an ozone attainment demonstration tly compelling to suggest attainment. The further a modeled attainment test is from being passed, however, the more compelling the WOE determination needs to be. 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, particularly if a WOE determination is needed to support an ozone attainment demonstration. 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 further discussed below. 5. Besides the Modeled Attainment Demonstration and Adopted Emission Control Strategy, What Other Elements Must Be Addressed in the Attainment Demonstration SIP? In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE determination supporting the attainment demonstration, the EPA has identified the following key elements which must also be adopted by the state and approved by the EPA in order for EPA to approve the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs. a. Clean Air Act Measures, and Other Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment Demonstration. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all Clean Air Act required measures for the specific area classification. This also includes measures that may not be required given the area's ozone classification but that the state relied on in its attainment demonstration or in its ROP plan. The state should have adopted the emission control measures required under the CAA for the area's ozone nonattainment classification. In addition, states with severe ozone nonattainment areas had until December 2000 to adopt and submit additional emission control measures needed to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to attain the ozone standard tainment demonstration or in its ROP plan. The state should have adopted the emission control measures required under the CAA for the area's ozone nonattainment classification. In addition, states with severe ozone nonattainment areas had until December 2000 to adopt and submit additional emission control measures needed to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to attain the ozone standard. For purposes of fully approving a state's SIP, the state needs to adopt and submit rules for all VOC and NO X controls within the ozone modeling domain and within the state that are relied on to support the modeled ozone attainment demonstration. Table I presents a summary of the CAA requirements that need to be met for each severe ozone nonattainment area. These requirements are specified in section 182 of the CAA. Information on more measures that states may have adopted or relied on in their current SIP submissions is not shown in the table. Table I.—CAA Requirements for Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas • NSR Requirements for VOC and NO X , Including an Offset Ratio of 1.3:1 and a Major Source VOC and NO X Emissions Threshold of 25 Tons Per Year 13 . • RACT for VOC and NO X 14 . • Enhanced Vehicle I/M. • 15 percent VOC control plan for ROP through 1996. • 3 percent VOC/ NO X Reduction Per Year Through the Ozone Standard Attainment Year for ROP 15 • RACM. • Contingency Measures. • Base Year Emissions Inventory. • Emission Statement Rules Requiring Sources to Periodically Submit Summaries of Their VOC and NO X Emissions. • Ozone Attainment Demonstration. • Clean Fuels Fleet Program. • Enhanced Ambient Monitoring (Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System [PAMS]). • Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery At Retail Service Stations. • Reformulated Gasoline. • Measures to Offset Growth in Vehicle Miles Tranvelled (VMT). b. NO X Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions. EPA completed final rulemaking on the NO X SIP Call on October 27, 1998, requiring states to address transport of NO X and ozone to other states g (Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System [PAMS]). • Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery At Retail Service Stations. • Reformulated Gasoline. • Measures to Offset Growth in Vehicle Miles Tranvelled (VMT). b. NO X Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions. EPA completed final rulemaking on the NO X SIP Call on October 27, 1998, requiring states to address transport of NO X and ozone to other states. To address transport, the NO X SIP Call established state-specific emission budgets for NO X that 23 jurisdictions were required to meet through enforceable SIP emission control measures adopted and submitted by September 30, 1999. The NO X SIP Call is intended to reduce emissions in upwind states that significantly contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific NO X sources that the states must regulate nor did the EPA limit the states' choices regarding where within the states to achieve the emission reductions. 13 The NO X NSR requirements do not currently apply in the Chicago area based on a NO X waiver granted to Illinois on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428). 14 The NO X RACT requirements do not currently apply in the Chicago area based on a NO X waiver granted to Illinois on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428). 15 To provide interim progress, EPA accepted 9 percent VOC/ NO X emission reduction plans to cover ROP requirements between 1996 and 1999. The States with severe nonattainment areas were required to meet the remainder (post-1999) of the ROP requirements through the submittal of a final ROP plan with adopted emission control regulations by December 2000. The Illinois post-1999 ROP plan is reviewed later in this proposed rule. On May 25, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order staying the SIP submission requirement of the NO X SIP Call. On March 3, 2000, the Court issued its decision, which largely upheld EPA's final NO X SIP Call rule, with certain exceptions that do not affect this proposed rule cember 2000. The Illinois post-1999 ROP plan is reviewed later in this proposed rule. On May 25, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order staying the SIP submission requirement of the NO X SIP Call. On March 3, 2000, the Court issued its decision, which largely upheld EPA's final NO X SIP Call rule, with certain exceptions that do not affect this proposed rule. On June 23, 2000, the Court lifted the stay. On August 30, 2000, the Court issued an order providing that EPA could not require SIPs to include a source control implementation date earlier than May 31, 2004. Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's NO X SIP Call X emissions generated within the ozone modeling domains. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and are, along with the concentrations of pollutants entering the modeling domain, referred to as boundary conditions. The boundary conditions and the ozone generated and transported within the modeling domain will be impacted by the NO X emission reductions resulting from the NO X SIP Call in many areas. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to continue to assume the NO X emission reductions resulting from the NO X SIP Call in areas outside of the local ozone modeling domains. If states assume emission reductions other than those of the NO X SIP Call within their states but outside of the ozone modeling domains, the states must also adopt emission control regulations to achieve those additional emission reductions in order to have an approvable ozone attainment demonstration. States subject to the NO X SIP Call, particularly those relying on the NO X SIP Call-based emission reductions as part of their ozone attainment demonstrations, are expected to have adopted the NO X emission control regulations needed to comply with the NO X SIP Call n control regulations to achieve those additional emission reductions in order to have an approvable ozone attainment demonstration. States subject to the NO X SIP Call, particularly those relying on the NO X SIP Call-based emission reductions as part of their ozone attainment demonstrations, are expected to have adopted the NO X emission control regulations needed to comply with the NO X SIP Call. In these areas, approval of the ozone attainment demonstration is dependent on the approval of the NO X emission control regulations. As provided above, any emission controls assumed by a state within a local ozone modeling domain must be adopted by the state and approved by us to achieve our final approval of the state's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. c. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget. The EPA believes that attainment demonstration and ROP SIPs must necessarily estimate the motor vehicle VOC and NO X emissions that will be produced in the attainment and milestone years and must demonstrate that these emissions, when considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with attainment of the ozone standard and ROP. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the SIP, as described by section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For transportation conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known as the motor vehicle emissions budget. EPA believes that appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a necessary part of attainment demonstration and ROP SIPs, and that EPA must find these budgets to be adequate before we can give final approval to the attainment demonstration and ROP SIPs. d. Mid-Course Review onformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known as the motor vehicle emissions budget. EPA believes that appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a necessary part of attainment demonstration and ROP SIPs, and that EPA must find these budgets to be adequate before we can give final approval to the attainment demonstration and ROP SIPs. d. Mid-Course Review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course review (MCR) and evaluation of the attainment demonstration based on air quality and emissions trends at some time prior to the attainment year must be included in the attainment demonstration SIP before it can be approved by the EPA, particularly if the SIP depends on a WOE determination to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard. The MCR shows whether the adopted emission control measures and emissions control strategy (all measures combined into a single plan) are sufficient in timing and extent to reach attainment of the ozone standard by the area's attainment deadline, or whether additional emission control measures may be necessary. A MCR is a reassessment of the modeling analyses and more recent monitoring and emissions data to determine if a prescribed emissions control strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality improvements needed to attain the ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory attainment date. The EPA believes that an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR is a critical element of a WOE determination. For severe areas, such as the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area, the state(s) must submit an enforceable commitment (Illinois has submitted such a commitment as discussed below). The commitment must provide the date by which the MCR will be completed ory attainment date. The EPA believes that an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR is a critical element of a WOE determination. For severe areas, such as the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area, the state(s) must submit an enforceable commitment (Illinois has submitted such a commitment as discussed below). The commitment must provide the date by which the MCR will be completed. The EPA believes that the MCR process should be done immediately following the ozone season (April through October in Illinois) in which the states have implemented the NO X regulations resulting from the NO X SIP Call and that the states should submit the results to us by the end of that calendar year. Because the Court of Appeals ordered that EPA cannot require states to establish a NO X source compliance date prior to May 31, 2004, EPA believes that the MCR should be performed following the 2004 ozone season and that the results should be submitted by the end of 2004. Following submittal of MCR analysis results, we would review the results and determine whether the state(s) needs to adopt and submit additional emission control measures for purposes of attainment. We are not requesting that states commit now to adopt new emission control measures as a result of this process. It would be impractical for the states to make a commitment for such control measures 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 emission controls needed to ensure that a downwind state/area attains the ozone standard. We would determine whether additional emission controls are needed in the state in which a nonattainment area is located or in upwind states, or in both. We would require the appropriate state(s) to adopt and submit new emission control measures within a period specified at that time or all of the additional emission controls needed to ensure that a downwind state/area attains the ozone standard. We would determine whether additional emission controls are needed in the state in which a nonattainment area is located or in upwind states, or in both. We would require the appropriate state(s) to adopt and submit new emission control measures within a period specified at that time. We anticipate that these findings would be made as SIP Calls under section 110(k)(5) of the Act and, therefore, the period for the submission of the measures would be no longer than 18 months after we make a finding. A guidance document regarding the MCR process is located on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram. The EPA is working on additional guidance that it expects to issue and put on its website shortly. 6. What Are the Relevant EPA Policy and Guidance Documents? The relevant policy documents for ozone attainment demonstrations and their locations on EPA's web site are listed below: a. U.S. EPA, 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”). b. U.S. EPA, 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”). c. Memorandum, “Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,” from Mary D. Nichols, issued March 2, 1995, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. d. Memorandum, “Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas,” issued July 16, 1998, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. e. Memorandum, “Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,” from Richard Wilson, issued December 29, 1997, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. f. “Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: “ADDWOE1H”). g as,” issued July 16, 1998, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. e. Memorandum, “Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,” from Richard Wilson, issued December 29, 1997, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. f. “Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: “ADDWOE1H”). g. “Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available Control Measures,” Draft Report, U.S. EPA, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, November 3, 1999. h. Memorandum, “Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 1-hour Attainment Demonstrations,” from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, November 3, 1999, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm. i. Memorandum, “1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking,” from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Mobile Sources, November 8, 1999, Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm. j. 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/. B. Technical Review of the State's Submittal 1. When Was the Attainment Demonstration Addressed in Public Hearings, and When Was the Attainment Demonstration Submitted to the EPA? The State of Illinois held a public hearing on the ozone attainment demonstration on November 8, 2000. The attainment demonstration was submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on December 26, 2000. 2 al Review of the State's Submittal 1. When Was the Attainment Demonstration Addressed in Public Hearings, and When Was the Attainment Demonstration Submitted to the EPA? The State of Illinois held a public hearing on the ozone attainment demonstration on November 8, 2000. The attainment demonstration was submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on December 26, 2000. 2. What Are the Basic Components of the Submittal? Since Illinois, along with Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, jointly participates in the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) and since LADCO has conducted the ozone analyses used to develop the ozone attainment demonstration, technical support documents developed by LADCO form the main bases for Illinois' ozone attainment demonstration. Three documents from LADCO provide much of the technical support for the attainment demonstration. These documents are: a. “Midwest Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area—Summary,” LADCO, September 18, 2000; b. “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area,” LADCO, September 18, 2000; and c. “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: Emissions Inventory,” LADCO, September 27, 2000. Illinois, like Indiana and Wisconsin, has included a state-specific cover letter and a state-specific synopsis of the ozone attainment demonstration. Illinois has also included additional modeling analysis results to address emissions changes not addressed in the earlier LADCO analyses c. “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: Emissions Inventory,” LADCO, September 27, 2000. Illinois, like Indiana and Wisconsin, has included a state-specific cover letter and a state-specific synopsis of the ozone attainment demonstration. Illinois has also included additional modeling analysis results to address emissions changes not addressed in the earlier LADCO analyses. These emission changes include increased state-wide NO X and VOC emissions due to the permitting and implementation of new combustion turbine generators (peakers or peaker plants and combined cycle facilities) designed to supplement electrical power generation on high demand days (many high electricity demand days are potentially high ozone days due to high ambient temperatures) and to replace the electrical generating capacity of electrical—generating facilities taken off-line. Additional VOC and NO X emissions due to higher-than-planned vehicle miles of travel in the planning area are also considered. A number of other related submittal components are discussed in later sections of this proposed rule. This section deals exclusively with the technical aspects of Illinois' 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, focusing on the ozone modeling results and supporting air quality and emissions analyses. 3. What Modeling Approach Was Used in the Analyses To Develop and Validate the Ozone Modeling System? The LADCO States, as participants in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (designed to establish the modeling system and its base input data and to validate the modeling system) and in the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program (designed to select and test possible emission control strategies), used the same modeling approach to develop the basis for each State's ozone attainment demonstration although each State selected a different emissions control strategy for their respective ozone attainment demonstration tem and its base input data and to validate the modeling system) and in the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program (designed to select and test possible emission control strategies), used the same modeling approach to develop the basis for each State's ozone attainment demonstration although each State selected a different emissions control strategy for their respective ozone attainment demonstration. The modeling approach is documented in LADCO's September 18, 2000 Technical Support Document (TSD) and is summarized in LADCO's September 18, 2000 modeling summary (see above). The heart of the modeling system is the Urban Airshed Model-Version V (UAM-V) photochemical dispersion model developed originally for specific application in the Lake Michigan area. This is the same version of the model that was used during the OTAG analysis of ozone transport and ozone transport control measures. For purposes of the local ozone attainment demonstration, UAM-V was applied to a local modeling domain and grid configuration that was established based on consideration of areas of high ozone concentrations (generally the ozone nonattainment areas) in the Lake Michigan States and of possible upwind source areas impacting these high concentration areas. The primary modeling domain is referred to as Grid M. This grid extends east to the most eastern portion of Michigan (and to central Ohio, eastern Kentucky, and eastern Tennessee); north to the northern end of Michigan's Lower Penninsula (and to the north of Green Bay, Wisconsin); west to include the eastern thirds of Iowa and Missouri; and south to the southern border of Tennessee. The horizontal grid is rectangular in shape (see Figure 1 of the September 18, 2000 LADCO TSD). The modeling has the following horizontal and vertical resolutions: Horizontal Resolutions Approximately 12 kilometers x 12 kilometers—all modeling runs. Approximately 4 kilometers x 4 kilometers—for selected runs to give better resolution in the area along the western shore of Lake Michigan ssee. The horizontal grid is rectangular in shape (see Figure 1 of the September 18, 2000 LADCO TSD). The modeling has the following horizontal and vertical resolutions: Horizontal Resolutions Approximately 12 kilometers x 12 kilometers—all modeling runs. Approximately 4 kilometers x 4 kilometers—for selected runs to give better resolution in the area along the western shore of Lake Michigan. Vertical Resolution 7 vertical layers with the following height ranges (above terrain) in meters: 0-50; 50-100; 100-250; 250-500; 500-1500; 1500-2500; and 2500-4000. A subregional portion of the grid, centered (east to west) on the lower portion of Lake Michigan, was also considered to allow a more detailed analysis of the high ozone areas of Grid M. The use of Grid M and the subregional portion of Grid M allowed the consideration of both urban scale analyses and ozone transport. It should be noted that the modeling results from the modeling runs with the tighter 4 kilometer resolution were generally consistent with the results for the 12 kilometer resolution. Four high ozone episodes in the Lake Michigan area were modeled. These episodes were: June 22-28, 1991; July 14-21, 1991; June 13-25, 1995; and July 7-18, 1995. These episodes were selected because: (1) They were judged to be representative of typical high ozone episodes in the Lake Michigan area and because they respresent a variety of meteorological conditions that have been found to be conducive to high The following input data systems and analyses were used to develop input data for the ozone model: a. Emissions. UAM-V requires a regional inventory of gridded, hourly estimates of speciated VOC, NO X , and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The States provided emission inventories which were processed through the Emissions Modeling System-1995 version (EMS-95) been found to be conducive to high The following input data systems and analyses were used to develop input data for the ozone model: a. Emissions. UAM-V requires a regional inventory of gridded, hourly estimates of speciated VOC, NO X , and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The States provided emission inventories which were processed through the Emissions Modeling System-1995 version (EMS-95). Emissions were prepared for a 1996 base year (used to test model performance), a 2007 base year (considering growth and previously adopted emission control measures), and several 2007 emission control strategy/sensitivity scenarios. The emission inventories include 1996 state periodic inventory data for stationary point and area sources, updated state transportation data, excess NO X emissions produced by heavy-duty vehicles as a result of built-in “defeat” devices, updated growth and emissions control data, and EPA's latest emission reduction estimates for the mobile source Tier II/Low Sulfur program. Ambient temperature data affecting mobile source and evaporative emissions and biogenic emissions were generated using the RAMS3a meteorological model. Biogenic emissions were based on EPA's BEIS2 model, with an adjustment of the isoprene emissions in the Ozarks. 16 Point source emissions for some sources were addressed through the use of Plume-in-Grid (PiG) 17 techniques incorporated within UAM-V. An additional discussion of the development of the modeled emission inventories is presented below. 16 Analyses of initial ozone modeling results indicated that initial isoprene emission estimates for the Ozarks had unrealistic impacts on the ozone concentrations modeled for the Lake Michigan area. Background ozone monitoring data did not support the high background/transported ozone levels modeled to result from this upwind source area. A study, known as OZIE, was conducted to reanalyse the isoprene emissions for the Ozarks odeling results indicated that initial isoprene emission estimates for the Ozarks had unrealistic impacts on the ozone concentrations modeled for the Lake Michigan area. Background ozone monitoring data did not support the high background/transported ozone levels modeled to result from this upwind source area. A study, known as OZIE, was conducted to reanalyse the isoprene emissions for the Ozarks. Based on the preliminary results of the OZIE study, LADCO concluded that the isoprene emissions for the Ozarks should be reduced by a factor of 2 (halved). 17 sources to be addressed through PiG techniques were selected based on their magnitudes of NO X emissions (the top 100 ranked stacks) and locations (the next 34 topped ranked stacks in the Lake Michigan and St. Louis areas). b. Meteorology. UAM-V requires gridded 3-dimensional hourly values of wind speed, wind direction, temperatures, air pressure, water vapor content, vertical diffusivity, and, if applicable, clouds and precipitation. Most meteorological inputs were derived through prognostic modeling with the RAMS3a model. Cloud and precipitation data were developed based on observed National Weather Service data. Preliminary analyses of the modeled meteorological data results showed adequate representation of the observed airflow features and good agreement between modeled and measured wind speeds, temperatures, and water vapor levels. LADCO, has concluded, however, that errors or uncertainties in the meteorological data may have affected the UAM-V results (albeit not significantly enough to invalidate the modeling results based on EPA recommended validation criteria). The errors have been minimized to the extent possible and suppressed through “nudging” using observed National Weather Service data at 12-hour intervals. c. Boundary Conditions uded, however, that errors or uncertainties in the meteorological data may have affected the UAM-V results (albeit not significantly enough to invalidate the modeling results based on EPA recommended validation criteria). The errors have been minimized to the extent possible and suppressed through “nudging” using observed National Weather Service data at 12-hour intervals. c. Boundary Conditions. Boundary conditions were developed by applying UAM-V over the OTAG modeling domain (this modeling domain covered most of the eastern half of the United States) for the selected high ozone episodes at a 36 kilometer grid resolution. The modeling was conducted to be consistent with the modeling used in the OTAG analyses. Basecase modeling was conducted to evaluate model performance by comparing observed and modeled ozone concentrations. The model performance evaluation consisted of comparisons of the spatial patterns, temporal profiles, and magnitudes of modeled and measured 1-hour (and 8-hour) ozone concentrations. In making the comparison of modeled and observed ozone concentrations, 1996 emissions were assumed to be reasonably similar to 1995 emissions, but significantly lower than 1991 emissions. To account for the 1991-1996 differences, a set of simple “backcast” emission factors were derived by comparing the county-level emissions in the 1991 Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program emissions inventory with the 1996 base year emissions inventory. Peak daily 1-hour modeled ozone concentrations for each episode were analyzed and compared to the observed peak ozone levels in the modeling domain. For each type of comparison, the following conclusions were developed. • Spatial Patterns . This analysis showed that areas of high modeled ozone concentrations correspond acceptably with areas of high measured ozone concentrations in the Lake Michigan area. Rural (generally upwind of the Lake Michigan ozone nonattainment areas) measured and modeled ozone concentrations were found to compare favorably ch type of comparison, the following conclusions were developed. • Spatial Patterns . This analysis showed that areas of high modeled ozone concentrations correspond acceptably with areas of high measured ozone concentrations in the Lake Michigan area. Rural (generally upwind of the Lake Michigan ozone nonattainment areas) measured and modeled ozone concentrations were found to compare favorably. Peak modeled ozone concentrations over Lake Michigan, however, appear to be underestimated on some days. • Temporal Patterns . Time series plots of 1-hour modeled and measured ozone concentrations by monitoring site were compared. The hour-to-hour and day-to-day variations of modeled and measured ozone concentrations were found to compare favorably. The modeling system seems to over-predict nighttime ozone concentrations and to under-predict peak daytime ozone concentrations, but performs within acceptable limits (see a discussion of the modeling validation below). At the monitoring sites with high measured ozone concentrations, the mid-afternoon modeled ozone concentrations are low. • Magnitude Comparisons . Ozone statistics, unpaired peak accuracy, average accuracy of peak ozone concentrations, normalized bias results, and normalized gross error results are provided in the modeling system documentation. The model performance statistics for the Lake Michigan modeling domain subregion comply with EPA's recommended acceptance ranges. The statistics of the modeling system performance, however, demonstrate the tendency of the modeling system to underestimate measured peak ozone concentrations (although the modeling system overestimated some of the peak ozone concentrations). • Other Factors . The modeling system's response to changes in ozone precursor emissions has been assessed by conducting sensitivity analyses and by comparing the differences in modeled and measured ozone concentrations and changes in emissions between 1991 and 1996 nderestimate measured peak ozone concentrations (although the modeling system overestimated some of the peak ozone concentrations). • Other Factors . The modeling system's response to changes in ozone precursor emissions has been assessed by conducting sensitivity analyses and by comparing the differences in modeled and measured ozone concentrations and changes in emissions between 1991 and 1996. This assessment indicates that the model is responsive to changes in ozone precursor emissions and is consistent with observed air quality data and emissions data. To assess the effects of grid resolution, analyses were conducted comparing modeling results for resolutions of 4 kilometers and 12 kilometers. Plots of predicted peak concentrations were analyzed for these two grid resolutions. In general, it appears that model performance at a resolution of 4 kilometers is comparable to that at a resolution of 12 kilometers. The LADCO States have concluded that the modeling system performance is acceptable for air quality planning purposes (for the purposes of assessing To test ozone attainment strategies, the LADCO States have projected emissions from the base year to 2007, the attainment year. The future emissions have been modified to reflect the various tested emission control strategies. 18 All other inputs to the ozone modeling system have been fixed at the levels used in the validated base year modeling analyses. 18 For a listing of the emission control measures modeled in the various emission control strategies, see Table 6, “Control Measures,” in LADCO's September 27, 2000 “Technical Support Document: Midwest Subregional Modeling: Emissions Inventory” or Section 5, “Strategy Modeling,” and Table 4, “Control Measures,” of LADCO's September 18, 2000 “Technical Support Document: Midwest Subregional Modeling; 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area,” both of which were included in Illinois' December 26, 2000 attainment demonstration submittal ber 27, 2000 “Technical Support Document: Midwest Subregional Modeling: Emissions Inventory” or Section 5, “Strategy Modeling,” and Table 4, “Control Measures,” of LADCO's September 18, 2000 “Technical Support Document: Midwest Subregional Modeling; 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area,” both of which were included in Illinois' December 26, 2000 attainment demonstration submittal. The remainder of the questions in this section of this proposed rule address the States' efforts to demonstrate attainment using the validated ozone modeling system and focuses on evaluating the attainment strategy. For additional discussions of the efforts to validate the modeling system, you are referred to the discussions of these efforts in the December 16, 1999 proposed rule (64 FR 70496). 4. How Were the 1996 Base Year Emissions Developed? Besides being used to develop and validate the ozone modeling system, base year emissions were also used to project the attainment year emissions and, through comparisons with the attainment year emissions and analyses of monitored and modeled ozone concentrations, to support the adequacy of the selected emissions control strategy. For the purposes of the attainment demonstration used here, 1996 was selected to be the base year of the analyses. The September 27, 2000 LADCO emissions inventory TSD documents the development of the base year emissions as well as the projection and development of the attainment year emissions used in the attainment strategy modeling and attainment demonstration. The following summarizes the development of base year emissions as documented in LADCO's September 27, 2000 TSD. For the 1996 base year, emission rates for point and area sources were either provided by the EPA (from the NO X SIP Call documentation) or by the States based on 1996 periodic emission inventories. Where appropriate, EPA's NO X data were supplemented or corrected using state-specific data, as noted in LADCO's September 27, 2000 TSD year emissions as documented in LADCO's September 27, 2000 TSD. For the 1996 base year, emission rates for point and area sources were either provided by the EPA (from the NO X SIP Call documentation) or by the States based on 1996 periodic emission inventories. Where appropriate, EPA's NO X data were supplemented or corrected using state-specific data, as noted in LADCO's September 27, 2000 TSD. Emission rates for on-road mobile sources were calculated through the use of EMS-95 based on a mobile source activity level, e.g., vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and the MOBILE5b emission factor model. The sources of the VMT, vehicle speed, and vehicle mix data are summarized in LADCO's September 27, 2000 TSD. Relative to previous emissions modeling, vehicle speeds were increased and vehicle mix distributions were shifted to heavier vehicles based on more recent data (the increased use of sports utility vehicles has increased the relative vehicle mixes of light duty gasoline trucks, increasing per VMT emissions rates). Mobile source emissions of NO X were also increased for heavy-duty diesel vehicles as the result of the use of built-in “defeat” devices. These increased NO X emissions were estimated by applying a processor supplied by the EPA. Day-specific biogenic emissions were calculated using EPA's BEIS2 model. As noted above, comparisons of emission estimates and measured isoprene concentrations in the Ozarks indicated that the BEIS 2 isoprene emission estimates for the Ozarks are overestimated by a factor of 2. As noted above, a number of refinements of the emissions estimates must be made to support the ozone modeling system. These refinements include spatial, temporal, and species processing and resolution. This was accomplished through the use of EMS-95. County-level point source emissions were spatially distributed based on facility or stack coordinates. County-level area source emissions were spatially resolved based on surrogates, such as population distributions and land use data upport the ozone modeling system. These refinements include spatial, temporal, and species processing and resolution. This was accomplished through the use of EMS-95. County-level point source emissions were spatially distributed based on facility or stack coordinates. County-level area source emissions were spatially resolved based on surrogates, such as population distributions and land use data. Mobile source emissions were calculated for each modeling grid cell by EMS-95, not requiring further resolution. Daily average point source emissions were temporally allocated based on using facility-specific reported operating schedule information. Daily average area source emissions were temporally allocated using category-specific hourly distribution profiles. Mobile source and biogenic source emissions are temporally resolved through the use of EMS-95, which includes temporal emission profiles for these source categories. The speciation profiles in EMS-95 were obtained from the latest version of EPA's SPECIATE data base. To quality assure the base year emissions data, a top-down evaluation of the emissions inventory was performed using ambient ozone precursor data collected from the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) in the Lake Michigan area. The evaluation included comparisons of monitored and calculated VOC to NO X emissions ratios, the relative amounts of individual VOC species, and the measured and calculated reactivity of VOC compounds. 5. What Procedures and Sources of Projection Data Were Used To Project the Emissions to the Attainment Year? The future year emission inventories used in the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program and in the ozone attainment demonstration were derived from the base year emissions inventory. The base year emissions inventory was projected to 2007 by applying scalar growth factors for most source categories. Each LADCO State provided estimates of source growth and control factors by source sector ment Year? The future year emission inventories used in the Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program and in the ozone attainment demonstration were derived from the base year emissions inventory. The base year emissions inventory was projected to 2007 by applying scalar growth factors for most source categories. Each LADCO State provided estimates of source growth and control factors by source sector. Source growth and emission control factors used in EPA's NO X SIP Call were also considered, particularly for EGUs. Table 1 of the LADCO September 27, 2000 TSD documents in detail the sources of 2007 emission estimates by source category along with the sources of 1996 emissions and emission control factors and is included by reference here. 6. How Were the 1996 and 2007 Emission Estimates Quality Assured? To improve the reliability of the modeling source emission inventories, several quality assurance activities were performed by the State emission inventory personnel, the emission modelers (those people responsible for speciating and temporally and spatially resolving the emissions data for use in the ozone modeling system), and the photochemical modelers. These activities included: Development and Implementation of an Emissions Quality Assurance Plan . A standardized set of data and file checks were documented in a LADCO draft emissions quality assurance (QA) plan. This plan identifies the emissions quality assurance procedures to be followed by the State emission inventory personnel. Each State was responsible for quality assurance of its own emissions inventory data before providing these data to the LADCO emission modelers. The quality assurance of the data by the States included reviewing many EMS-95 emissions reports for consistency with other State-specific emissions data. Emission Reports . EMS-95 itself performs a number of emission checks and generates reports flagging possible emission errors and summarizing data Review by Photochemical Modelers before providing these data to the LADCO emission modelers. The quality assurance of the data by the States included reviewing many EMS-95 emissions reports for consistency with other State-specific emissions data. Emission Reports . EMS-95 itself performs a number of emission checks and generates reports flagging possible emission errors and summarizing data Review by Photochemical Modelers . The photochemical modelers quality assured the emissions inventories by generating and reviewing spatial plots of emissions by source sector/type. The reviews were designed to detect spatial anomalies (misplaced or missing sources). The modelers also conducted emission total checks against EMS-95 summary reports. Stack Parameter Checks . A contractor, Alpine Geophysics, was employed, in part, to QA the point source emissions data. Alpine Geophysics discovered errors in the stack parameters and other point source data, including potential errors in gas exit velocities, emission rates, and physical stack parameters, for many point sources in the previous versions of the modeling system emission inventories. This review was distributed to the LADCO States to get the States to correct their respective point source emissions data. Some stack data were shifted from the elevated point source data files to the ground-level data files based on adopted screening parameters. This resulted in a spatial shift in emissions from previous modeling emission inventory versions. 7. What Is the Adopted Emissions Control Strategy? To select possible emission control strategies, the LADCO States have modeled the ozone impacts of a number of emission control strategies for VOC and NO X nt source data files to the ground-level data files based on adopted screening parameters. This resulted in a spatial shift in emissions from previous modeling emission inventory versions. 7. What Is the Adopted Emissions Control Strategy? To select possible emission control strategies, the LADCO States have modeled the ozone impacts of a number of emission control strategies for VOC and NO X . After modeling and reviewing the ozone impacts of various strategies and considering CAA and EPA emission control requirements, Illinois has adopted the emission control strategy known as SR 16 (LADCO Strategy Run 16) as the emission control strategy that will be pursued to attain the 1-hour ozone standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. Table II lists the emission controls included in SR 16. Table II.—SR 16—Emission Control Strategy • Clean Air Act Title IV Acid Rain Controls for NO X —Phase I • Rate-Of-Progress Plans (15 Percent ROP Plan and 9 Percent Post-1996 ROP Plan) • National Low Emission Vehicle Standards • Reformulated Gasoline—Phase II (where required) • Federal Phase II Small Engine Standards • Federal Marine Engine Standards • Federal Heavy Duty Vehicle (≥ 50 horsepower) Standards—Phase I • Federal Locomotive Standards—Including Rebuilds • Federal High Compression Engine Standards • Federal Tier I Light Duty Vehicle and Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Standards • Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) (where required) • Basic Vehicle I/M (where required) • Federal Clean Fuel Fleets Requirements (where required) • Federal Tier II and Low Sulfur Gasoline Standards • Utility 0.15 Pounds NO X Per Million Btu of Heat Input Emission Limits (20 affected States, including Illinois) • 60 Percent Reduction of NO X Emissions From Large Non-Electric Generating Unit (Non-EGU) Boilers and Turbines (20 affected States, including Illinois) • 30 Percent Reduction of NO X Emissions From Large Cement Kilns (20 affected States, including Illinois) • Wisconsin—0.28 Pounds NO X Per Million Btu unds NO X Per Million Btu of Heat Input Emission Limits (20 affected States, including Illinois) • 60 Percent Reduction of NO X Emissions From Large Non-Electric Generating Unit (Non-EGU) Boilers and Turbines (20 affected States, including Illinois) • 30 Percent Reduction of NO X Emissions From Large Cement Kilns (20 affected States, including Illinois) • Wisconsin—0.28 Pounds NO X Per Million Btu of Heat Input for Utilities (EGUs) in 8 Counties • Missouri—0.25 Pounds NO X Per Million Btu of Heat Input for EGUs in the Eastern One-Third of the State • Missouri—0.35 Pounds NO X Per Million Btu of Heat Input for EGUs in the Western Two-Thirds of the State With regard to the NO X emission controls listed in Table II, several aspects of the assumed NO X emission reductions should be noted. First, the NO X emission controls for utilities (EGUs), large non-EGU boilers and turbines, and large cement kilns in Grid M were assumed for all States (other than Wisconsin and Missouri) that are subject to EPA's NO X SIP Call. In reality, the assumed NO X emission reductions only reflect the expected NO X emissions budgets for these States and not the actual NO X emission controls that may actually occur in these States. Under the NO X SIP Call, states are not restricted to specific NO X emission controls, but are required to achieve assigned NO X emission budgets. The UAM modeling system is designed to test emission reductions for specific source categories. Therefore, LADCO chose a specific emission control scenario expected to produce NO X emissions that are compliant with the NO X SIP Call. Illinois has developed NO X emission control regulations to control emissions from EGUs, non-EGU boilers and turbines, and cement kilns at or below the emission levels assumed for Illinois in control strategy SR 16 on reductions for specific source categories. Therefore, LADCO chose a specific emission control scenario expected to produce NO X emissions that are compliant with the NO X SIP Call. Illinois has developed NO X emission control regulations to control emissions from EGUs, non-EGU boilers and turbines, and cement kilns at or below the emission levels assumed for Illinois in control strategy SR 16. (The NO X rules for EGUs, non-EGU boilers and turbines and cement kilns are undergoing separate review (see an EPA proposed rule addressing this State rule published on August 31, 2000, 65 FR 52967) and are expected to be approved before EPA completes final rulemaking on Illinois' ozone attainment demonstration.) Other states in Grid M have also submitted adopted or draft NO X rules to comply with the NO X SIP Call. Second, with regard to the NO X emission reductions assumed for Wisconsin and Missouri, these States have adopted and submitted NO X rules to achieve the NO X emission controls assumed in SR 16. The EPA has approved Missouri's NO X rule (December 28, 2000, 65 FR 82285) and expects to take final action on Wisconsin's NO X rule in the future and prior to final action on Illinois' ozone attainment demonstration. In addition to the emission controls included in the above table, the following emission changes were also reflected in the modeling results for the control strategy: (a) Use of NO X vehicle I/M cut-points in the Wisconsin ozone nonattainment areas; (b) revised traffic network vehicle miles traveled data provided by the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS); (c) updated MOBILE5b input data for Illinois and Wisconsin; and (d) corrected MOBILE5b input data for Ohio. In the ozone modeling, the CAA-required emission controls were assumed for all states within Grid M and were assumed for all areas outside of Grid M in modeling used to determine the initial and boundary ozone and ozone precursor concentrations for Grid M Area Transportation Study (CATS); (c) updated MOBILE5b input data for Illinois and Wisconsin; and (d) corrected MOBILE5b input data for Ohio. In the ozone modeling, the CAA-required emission controls were assumed for all states within Grid M and were assumed for all areas outside of Grid M in modeling used to determine the initial and boundary ozone and ozone precursor concentrations for Grid M. In the Chicago area, the CAA-required controls modeled include: Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) on stationary sources of VOC; enhanced vehicle I/M; Transportation Control Measures (TCM); and other emission controls included in the State's 15 percent ROP plan (for a discussion of the emission controls included in this plan see 62 FR 37494, July 14, 1997) and 9 percent post-1996 ROP plan (for a discussion of the emission controls included in this plan see 65 FR 78961, December 18, 2000). Table III compares the VOC and NO X emission rates for major source sectors in Grid M for the 1996 base year and for the adopted emission control strategy in 2007. Table III.—Comparison of 1996 and SR 16 (2007) Emissions in Grid M [Emissions in tons/day] Pollutant Point—EGU Point—Non-EGU Area—Offroad mobile Area—Other Onroad—Mobile Biogenic sources Total VOC: 1996 Base Year 32 2,335 1,716 4,780 3,633 30,816 43,312 SR 16 37 1,771 1,167 4,410 2,687 30,816 40,888 NO X : 1996 Base Year 5,844 1,876 2,138 602 5,681 2,000 18,141 SR 16 2,092 1,822 1,748 734 3,230 2,000 11,626 Source: Table 3, “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: Emissions Inventory,” September 27, 2000. 8. What Were the Ozone Modeling Results for the Base Period and for the Future Attainment Period With the Selected Emissions Control Strategy? Table IV presents the Grid M peak observed and modeled ozone concentrations for the high episode days selected for the modeling analysis and attainment demonstration Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: Emissions Inventory,” September 27, 2000. 8. What Were the Ozone Modeling Results for the Base Period and for the Future Attainment Period With the Selected Emissions Control Strategy? Table IV presents the Grid M peak observed and modeled ozone concentrations for the high episode days selected for the modeling analysis and attainment demonstration. The following modeled peak concentrations are presented: (a) The modeled validation peak ozone concentrations for Grid M; (b) the modeled Grid M peak ozone concentrations using the 1996 base year emissions; and (c) the 2007 predicted ozone concentrations for ozone control strategy SR 16. All modeled and monitored ozone concentrations are 1-hour averages and represent peak ozone concentrations anywhere within Grid M. Table IV.—Peak Monitored and Modeled Ozone Concentrations for Grid M [Ozone Concentrations in ppb] Date Peak ozone observed Peak ozone modeled validation Peak ozone modeled 1996 base year emissions Peak ozone modeled SR 16 6-25-91 104 123 123 110 6-26-91 175 136 138 117 6-27-91 118 139 127 111 6-28-91 138 124 102 95 7-16-91 130 129 108 103 7-17-91 137 119 89 89 7-18-91 170 137 108 109 7-19-91 170 137 112 111 7-20-91 138 168 150 128 6-21-95 112 123 122 118 6-22-95 119 131 131 119 6-23-95 123 128 128 113 6-24-95 166 136 136 126 6-25-95 108 125 124 120 7-12-95 146 118 118 105 7-13-95 178 147 146 124 7-14-95 150 140 140 127 7-15-95 154 156 156 128 Sources: Table 1, “Midwest Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area—Summary,” September 18, 2000. Table 6, “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area,” September 18, 2000. From the above, you can see that the ozone modeling results for the selected emissions control strategy do show four peak ozone concentrations above the 1-hour ozone standard on the following dates: July 20, 1991; June 24, 1995; July 14, 1995; and July 15, 1995 6, “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area,” September 18, 2000. From the above, you can see that the ozone modeling results for the selected emissions control strategy do show four peak ozone concentrations above the 1-hour ozone standard on the following dates: July 20, 1991; June 24, 1995; July 14, 1995; and July 15, 1995. As noted in LADCO's September 18, 2000 summary of the attainment demonstration, simple modeling and assessment of the potential future peak ozone concentrations (a deterministic test) does not demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard because of these modeled ozone standard exceedances. Additional analyses were conducted to support the attainment demonstration for this and other emission control strategies. EPA's most relevant current ozone modeling/attainment demonstration guidance ( Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, [June 1996]) provides for a statistical test as an alternate to a deterministic test to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard (passing a statistical test can be used to support an ozone attainment demonstration even if a deterministic test is not passed). Under a statistical test, three benchmarks must be passed. Benchmark 1 of the statistical test requires that the number of days with modeled ozone standard exceedances in each modeling domain grid cell must be less than 3 and that any modeled ozone standard exceedances occur on a “severe” day (severe days are determined by ranking high ozone days over many years and considering the ranking of the days covered in the modeled ozone attainment demonstration). Ten of the days Benchmark 2 of the statistical test requires that the maximum modeled ozone concentration on severe days shall not exceed 130 ppb to 160 ppb, depending on the “severity” of the meteorological conditions on the modeled days days are determined by ranking high ozone days over many years and considering the ranking of the days covered in the modeled ozone attainment demonstration). Ten of the days Benchmark 2 of the statistical test requires that the maximum modeled ozone concentration on severe days shall not exceed 130 ppb to 160 ppb, depending on the “severity” of the meteorological conditions on the modeled days. For the ozone attainment demonstration addressed in this proposed rule, LADCO's analysis of the severity of the modeled days led LADCO to conclude that the peak ozone concentration limit should be 130 ppb. Finally, benchmark 3 of the statistical test requires that the number of modeling domain grid cells with peak ozone concentrations above or equal to 125 ppb must be reduced (from the number in the modeled base period) by 80 percent on each “severe” day. LADCO has determined that the SR 16 emissions control strategy (and other modeled emission control strategies not adopted by Illinois) leads to modeled peak ozone concentrations meeting all three benchmarks of the statistical test. See LADCO's September 18, 2000 “Technical Support Document—Midwest Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area.” Therefore, attainment of the ozone standard is demonstrated through modeling for the SR 16 emissions control strategy. In light of the inherent uncertainties in the ozone modeling and to further evaluate the ozone attainment demonstration, LADCO has also chosen to conduct two additional analyses that are components of a WOE analysis. First, using the base period observed ozone design values for various ozone monitoring sites and the modeled 2007, post-control peak ozone concentrations for the domain grid cells in the vicinities of these monitors, LADCO predicted 2007 ozone design values for these monitoring sites (this procedure is referred to as the “relative reduction factor” test) yses that are components of a WOE analysis. First, using the base period observed ozone design values for various ozone monitoring sites and the modeled 2007, post-control peak ozone concentrations for the domain grid cells in the vicinities of these monitors, LADCO predicted 2007 ozone design values for these monitoring sites (this procedure is referred to as the “relative reduction factor” test). For the SR 16 control strategy, the relative reduction factor test leads to predicted ozone design values below the ozone standard for all ozone monitoring sites and modeling receptor locations considered, with the highest projected ozone design values being 122 ppb at an unmonitored mid-Lake Michigan location (a synthetic base period ozone design value was used for this site) and 119 ppb for a Michigan City, Indiana ozone monitoring site. Second, LADCO conducted an ozone trends analysis, which shows a considerable amount of progress toward attaining the ozone standard. Local ozone levels have significantly declined over time, while incoming ozone concentrations (transported ozone concentrations) remain relatively high. The WOE analyses further support the conclusions of the attainment demonstration and counter any concerns that may be raised regarding the inherent uncertainties in the ozone modeling and the tendency of the modeling system to under-predict some peak ozone concentrations (the modeling system also over-predicts some peak ozone concentrations). Based on all of the ozone modeling data available and related emissions analyses, LADCO concludes that the best ozone control strategy would be to control local VOC emissions (within the urban nonattainment areas) and to couple this with the control of domain-wide, regional NO X emissions (the purpose of EPA's NO X SIP Call and Illinois' adoption of NO X emission control rules for EGUs, non-EGU boilers and turbines, and cement kilns). This recommended emission control strategy approach is compatible with the emission control strategy selected by Illinois VOC emissions (within the urban nonattainment areas) and to couple this with the control of domain-wide, regional NO X emissions (the purpose of EPA's NO X SIP Call and Illinois' adoption of NO X emission control rules for EGUs, non-EGU boilers and turbines, and cement kilns). This recommended emission control strategy approach is compatible with the emission control strategy selected by Illinois. 9. What Additional Analyses and Emissions Were Modeled by the State of Illinois? Although the December 26, 2000 submittal of the ozone attainment demonstration by the IEPA indicates that the State of Illinois has adopted SR 16 as the emissions control strategy for attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, the IEPA has also decided to test the potential impacts of several emission changes not considered by the LADCO States as a whole. The additional emissions changes include: (a) Addition of NO X emissions from recently permitted combustion turbine EGUs; and (b) incorporation of transportation conformity emissions budgets that include a greater level of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) than considered in the LADCO ozone modeling. Illinois has recently issued emission permits for 33 new combustion turbine EGUs statewide (prior to the submittal of the ozone attainment demonstration and prior to the public hearing on this attainment demonstration). Ten of these units are located within the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. These combustion turbine units include “combined-cycle” installations for providing base load and intermediate to peak load electricity production, as well as “simple-cycle” installations for providing peak load generating capacity (peaker-plants). Some of the installations have been built to replace existing units and others have been built to reduce boiler usage at existing facilities ment area. These combustion turbine units include “combined-cycle” installations for providing base load and intermediate to peak load electricity production, as well as “simple-cycle” installations for providing peak load generating capacity (peaker-plants). Some of the installations have been built to replace existing units and others have been built to reduce boiler usage at existing facilities. The IEPA has determined the peak daily VOC and NO X emissions to be added by all of these installations and has determined the existing VOC and NO X emissions that would be replaced by the new installations. Modeled emission rates are based on the turbines operating at 100 percent loads. The attainment demonstration analyses conducted by LADCO included the 2007 Chicago link-based transportation network VMT provided by CATS. Historically and in previous ozone rate-of-progress plans, the IEPA has used higher 2007 VMT estimates for 2007 provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation. To remain consistent with these prior plans and with the base data used to derive the 1990 base year emissions (used to calculate furture year emissions and ROP plan emission reduction targets), the IEPA concluded that it should consider the extra emissions resulting from the higher VMT estimates. To test the impacts of the extra VOC and NO X emissions resulting from the permitted turbines and the increased VMT estimates, the IEPA has re-conducted the Grid M ozone modeling for SR 16, adding the extra VOC and NO X emissions for the July 1991 modeled ozone episode days (the IEPA notes that this episode is the most constraining episode, requiring the greatest amount of ozone precursor emission reduction amongst all tested high ozone episodes). The State has re-conducted the modeling analyses for the revised Grid M emissions, and concludes that the revised modeling results pass the statistical test benchmarks. The peak modeled ozone concentrations for SR 16 and the IEPA supplemental ozone modeling are given in Table V ing episode, requiring the greatest amount of ozone precursor emission reduction amongst all tested high ozone episodes). The State has re-conducted the modeling analyses for the revised Grid M emissions, and concludes that the revised modeling results pass the statistical test benchmarks. The peak modeled ozone concentrations for SR 16 and the IEPA supplemental ozone modeling are given in Table V. Table V.—Comparison of Predicted Peak 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations 19 [Ozone Concentrations in ppb] Episode day LADCO SR 16 results IEPA supplemental ozone results 7-16-91 103 104 7-17-91 89 90 7-18-91 109 109 7-19-91 111 113 7-20-91 128 130 19 Data taken from Table 2, Chapter I, of the December 21, 2000 “Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the Chicago Nonattainment Area” included as part of Illinois' December 26, 2000 ozone attainment demonstration submittal. The IEPA concludes that the added emissions do not overturn the X emissions from the EGU turbine installations will not actually increase the total NO X emissions in the State of Illinois. Since all of these new turbines will be subject to the State's EGU NO X rule, their NO X emissions will be included in the State's NO X emissions total, which will be constrained through a statewide NO X emissions cap under EPA's NO X SIP Call. Therefore, not all of the estimated 1-2 ppb ozone increase will actually occur. It should be noted that, although these modeling results do not affect the conclusions regarding the adopted emissions control strategy, they do potentially affect the existing NO X emissions control waiver in the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. See the section of this proposed rule addressing the NO X emissions control waiver below. 10 ctually occur. It should be noted that, although these modeling results do not affect the conclusions regarding the adopted emissions control strategy, they do potentially affect the existing NO X emissions control waiver in the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. See the section of this proposed rule addressing the NO X emissions control waiver below. 10. Do the Modeling Results Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone Standard? Based on LADCO's ozone modeling results and Illinois' supplemental modeling results, EPA believes that LADCO and, in particular, the State of Illinois have demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for the Chicago area based on the adopted SR 16 emissions control strategy. 11. Does the Attainment Demonstration Depend on Future Reductions of Regional Emissions? Yes. The adopted emissions control strategy includes regional NO X emission reductions for the State of Illinois as well as for surrounding states in compliance with EPA's NO X SIP Call. LADCO has [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [66 FR 341 Software Defined Radios](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-63.md) - [66 FR 1059 Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled; Scheduling Video Teleconference Hearings Before Administrative Law Judges](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-319.md) - [66 FR 1069 Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-377.md) - [66 FR 1273 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 172N, 172P, R172K, 172RG, F172N, F172P, FR172J, and FR172K Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-343.md) - [66 FR 1280 National Reconnaissance Office Privacy Act Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-416.md) - [66 FR 1283 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-88.md) - [66 FR 1923 Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Miami River, Miami, Dade County, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-762.md) - [66 FR 1923 Tax Treatment of Cafeteria Plans](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-259.md) - [66 FR 2374 Indiana Regulatory Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-835.md) - [66 FR 2395 Digital Television Broadcast Service; Jacksonville, NC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-678.md) - [66 FR 3521 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-1235.md) - [66 FR 4768 Water Pollution Control; Program Modification Application by South Dakota To Administer the Sludge Management (Biosolids) Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-1347.md) - [66 FR 6488 Importation of Mangoes From the Philippines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-1655.md) - [66 FR 6494 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 412 Helicopters and Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 Helicopters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-1587.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_01-16937. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.