Friday,

August 3, 2001

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Ozone;

Proposed Rule

40802 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN136–1; FRL–7022–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

following as revisions to the Indiana

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area, i.e., for the Indiana

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 the

post-1999 ROP plan; a commitment to

conduct a mid-course review of the

ozone attainment demonstration; motor

vehicle conformity emission budgets for

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and

Oxides of Nitrogen ( NOX) and the

State’s commitment to revise the

emission budgets using the MOBILE6

emissions factor model; and a

Reasonably Available Control Measure

(RACM) analysis. EPA proposes to

revise the existing NOX emissions

control waiver for the Indiana portion of

the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area to eliminate the

waiver for those NOX emission sources

that the State has assumed will be

controlled in the ozone attainment

demonstration. These controlled sources

include Electrical Generating Units

(EGUs), major non-EGU boilers and

turbines, and major cement kilns in

Lake and Porter Counties. The existing

NOX 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. Finally, EPA

proposes to incorporate into the SIP a

portion of an agreed order between U.S.

Steel (currently USX Corporation) and

the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM)

signed by IDEM on March 22, 1996. The

portion of the agreed order proposed for

incorporation into the SIP requires U.S.

Steel to establish a coke plant process

water treatment plant at its Gary Works.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before September 4,

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 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?

D. What are EPA’s 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 NOX 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 technical 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. Do the modeling results demonstrate

attainment of the ozone standard?

10. Does the attainment demonstration

depend on future reductions of regional

emissions?

11. 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?

3. Did the State adequately demonstrate

attainment of the ozone standard?

4. Has Indiana adequately documented the

adopted emissions control strategy?

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 Indiana Counties are Covered by

the Post-1999 ROP Plan?

D. Who is Affected by the Indiana Post1999 ROP Plan?

E. What Criteria Must a Post-1999 ROP

Plan Meet to be Approved?

F. What Changes Did Indiana Make to the

1990 VOC Base Year Emissions

Inventory In This Submission?

G. Why were the 1996 15 Percent ROP

Target Level and the 1999 9 Percent ROP

Target Level for Lake and Porter

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40803

1 It is not clear to what extent the NOX controls

within the ozone nonattainment area itself will

contribute to attainment of the ozone standard; the

modeling results do not differentiate the impacts of

NOX emission controls for a subpart of the State.

Nonetheless, the State has relied on these NOX

emission controls, both inside of the nonattainment

area and statewide, to attain the ozone standard.

2The additional NOX emission controls not

considered in the ozone attainment demonstration

include NOX RACT, NOX NSR, and additional

mobile source NOX controls, including vehicle

inspection/maintenance (I/M) emission cutpoints.

3States with NOX 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.

Counties Recalculated, and Does Indiana

Have to Revise The Prior ROP Plans?

H. How Were the 1996 and 1999 Target

Emission Levels for Lake and Porter

Counties Recalculated?

I. How Were the Post-1999 Emission

Targets and Emission Reduction

Requirements Calculated?

J. What are the Criteria for Acceptable ROP

Emission Control Strategies?

K. What are the Emission Control Measures

In Indiana’s Post-1999 ROP Plan?

L. Are the Emission Control Measures and

Calculated Emission Reductions

Acceptable to the EPA?

M. Are the Planned Emissions Reductions

Adequate to Meet the ROP Emission

Reduction Requirements, Including ROP

Contingency Measure Requirements?

N. How Does The ROP Plan Affect

Outstanding Plan Requirements for

Contingency Measures on the 15 Percent

ROP Plan and the Post-1996 9 Percent

ROP Plan?

V. Contingency Measures Plan

A. What are the Requirements for

Contingency Measures Under Section

172(c)(9) and Section 182(c)(9) of the

CAA?

B. How Do the Northwest Indiana

Attainment Demonstration and ROP SIP

Address the Contingency Measure

Requirements?

C. Do the Northwest Indiana Attainment

Demonstration and ROP Plans Meet the

Contingency Measure Requirements?

VI. Mid-Course Review Commitment

A. Did Indiana Submit a Mid-Course

Review Commitment?

VII. NOX Waiver

A. What is the History of the NOX

Emissions Control Waiver in the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County Ozone

Nonattainment Area?

B. What are the Conclusions of the State

Regarding the Impact of the Ozone

Attainment Demonstration on the NOX

Control Waiver?

C. What are the Conclusions That Can Be

Drawn Regarding the NOX Control

Waiver From Data Contained in the

State’s Ozone Attainment

Demonstration?

D. What are the EPA Conclusions

Regarding the Existing NOX Waiver

Given the Available Ozone Modeling

Data?

VIII. Mobile Source Conformity Emissions

Budgets and Commitment to Re-Model

Using Mobile6

A. What Are the Requirements for Mobile

Source Conformity Emissions Budgets?

B. How Were the Indiana Attainment

Demonstration and ROP Emissions

Budgets Developed?

C. Did Indiana Commit to Revise the

Budgets When EPA Releases MOBILE6?

D. Are the Indiana Emissions Budgets

Adequate for Conformity Purposes?

IX. 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 Northwest Indiana Attainment

Demonstration Meet the RACM

Requirement?

X. 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 propose to approve: (1)

Indiana’s 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration for the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area;

(2) Indiana’s post-1999 ROP plan (an

ROP plan covering the time period of

November 15, 1999 through November

15, 2007) for the Indiana portion of the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area (the Northwest

Indiana area); (3) Indiana’s contingency

measure plans for both the ozone

attainment demonstration and the post1999 ROP plan; (4) Indiana’s

commitment to conduct a mid-course

review of the ozone attainment

demonstration; (5) Indiana’s ROP and

attainment motor vehicle conformity

emission budgets for VOC and NOX in

the Northwest Indiana area; and (6)

Indiana’s RACM demonstration for the

Northwest Indiana area.

We propose to modify an existing

NOX emissions control waiver (the NOX

emissions control waiver has been in

place since January 1996) for the

Northwest Indiana area. The existing

NOX emissions control waiver was

based on ozone modeling data showing

that NOX emission reductions in the

ozone nonattainment area would not

contribute to attainment of the ozone

standard in this nonattainment area.

However, ozone modeling supporting

the ozone attainment demonstration

addressed in this proposed rule shows

that statewide NOX emission controls at

EGUs, major non-EGU boilers and

turbines, and major cement kilns are

beneficial and will contribute to

attainment of the 1-hour standard in the

nonattainment area and its downwind

environs 1. The attainment

demonstration further shows that the

ozone standard will be attained by the

applicable attainment date without the

use of additional NOX emission

controls 2 (beyond other NOX emission

controls already implemented and/or

modeled in the ozone attainment

demonstration) in the ozone

nonattainment area. Consequently, such

additional NOX emission controls are in

excess of what is needed to attain the

ozone standard.

We propose to modify the existing

NOX control 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 propose to retain the

NOX waiver for RACT, NSR, and certain

transportation and general conformity,

and I/M 3 requirements.

Finally, we propose to incorporate

into the SIP part of an agreed order

between U.S. Steel and IDEM signed by

IDEM on March 22, 1996. This part

(section 3 of Exhibit E, ‘‘Clean Water

Coke Quench Project’’) of the agreed

order requires U.S. Steel to establish a

coke plant process water treatment plant

at its Gary Works, and results in VOC

emissions reductions relied on in the

post-1999 ROP plan. We are not

incorporating the remaining portions of

the agreed order into the SIP because

the State is not relying on these portions

of the agreed order to meet the CAA

requirements addressed in this

proposed rule.

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). 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

40804 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

4To date, the EPA has not issued a final rule

conditionally approving the State’s April 30, 1998

submittal. As noted in this proposed rule, the State

has submitted a revised ozone attainment plan,

negating the need for the EPA to complete the

conditional approval of the April 30, 1998

submittal.

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 stateauthorized 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 submission.

If we receive adverse comments, we

must address them prior to any final

federal action (we generally address

them in a final rulemaking action).

All state rules and supporting

information approved by the EPA under

section 110 of the CAA 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 given

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?

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, section 113 of the

CAA authorizes EPA 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 EPA’s 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 actions that may be necessary

for a state to complete 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 CAA.

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 recognizes 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 a 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 21, 2000 submittal of

IDEM reviewed here primarily deals

with attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard in the Northwest Indiana area

(the Indiana portion of the ChicagoGary-Lake County ozone nonattainment

area). As noted above, this area includes

Lake and Porter Counties. We are

separately rulemaking on the attainment

plan for the Illinois portion of 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 70514),

the EPA proposed to conditionally

approve the 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration for the Northwest

Indiana area submitted by IDEM on

April 30, 1998. The April 30, 1998

attainment demonstration submittal was

based on a range of possible emission

control measures reflecting various

emission control alternatives, and did

not specify a single set of emission

control measures that the State had

adopted as an 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, 2000,

the State did not adopt an emissions

control strategy supported by its

modeled ozone attainment

demonstration, and did not submit

adequate motor vehicle emission

budgets for VOC and NOX for the

Northwest Indiana area that comply

with EPA’s transportation conformity

regulations. In addition, we conditioned

our approval on the State submitting, by

December 31, 2000, an enforceable

commitment to conduct a mid-course

review of the ozone attainment plan in

2003. As noted below, this submittal

time has been delayed until 2004 to

allow the states to assess the impacts of

the NOX SIP Call rules following their

implementation.

The December 16, 1999 proposed

rulemaking noted that, if the EPA issued

a final conditional approval of the

State’s April 30, 1998 submission 4, 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 NOX

emissions reductions, models a specific

local emissions reduction strategy, and

reconsiders the effectiveness of the

existing NOX emissions control waiver

(see a discussion relating to the NOX

emissions control waiver below); (2)

adopted emission control measures

needed to meet the post-1999 ROP

requirements (a post-1999 ROP plan

covering the period of November 15,

1999 through the ozone attainment

year); and (3) local VOC and regional

NOX 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.

As noted below, the December 21,

2000 submittal, in part, addresses a

post-1999 ROP plan for the Northwest

Indiana area. The post-1999 ROP plan

provides required emission reductions

in addition to Indiana’s 15 percent ROP

plan (VOC emission reductions

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40805

5The NOX waiver does not include an exemption

from the need for the State to adopt motor vehicle

NOX emission budgets for the Northwest Indiana

area to support transportation and general

conformity reviews. After the State has submitted

and EPA has approved a motor vehicle NOX

emissions budget to be used for conformity

purposes, the NOX waiver is no longer applicable

for transportation or general conformity as the State

must consider the NOX emissions budgets when

making conformity determinations.

6Statewide NOX emission controls on major nonEGU boilers and turbines and major cement kilns

were also considered in the ozone attainment

demonstration, but specific controlled NOX sources

for these source categories were not identified for

the Northwest Indiana area.

occurring prior to November 15, 1996)

and 9 percent post-1996 ROP plan (VOC

emission reductions occurring prior to

November 15, 1999) for this ozone

nonattainment area. On July 18, 1997

(62 FR 38457), we published a final rule

approving Indiana’s 15 percent ROP

plan. On January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4126),

we published a final rule approving

Indiana’s post-1996 ROP plan. These

final rules addressed the emission

control measures selected by the State to

achieve required ROP emission

reductions, and addressed the State’s

calculation of the 1996 and 1999 VOC

emission targets for the Northwest

Indiana area.

The December 21, 2000 submittal

includes, as part of the ozone attainment

demonstration, the modeled impacts of

regional NOX emission reductions.

These regional NOX emission reductions

must be reviewed in light of the fact that

a NOX 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 NOX emissions

control waiver based on a showing that

NOX emission reductions in the ozone

nonattainment area would not

contribute to attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard. Through the January 26,

1996 rulemaking, the EPA granted

exemptions from the RACT and NSR

requirements for major stationary

sources of NOX and from certain vehicle

I/M and transportation and general

conformity requirements for NOX in the

Northwest Indiana area.5

Since EPA waived the NOX

requirements based on a demonstration

that NOX emission controls in the ozone

nonattainment area are not beneficial

toward attaining the ozone standard, the

State may not receive credit for NOX

emission controls in the ozone

nonattainment area toward ROP

requirements and attainment of the

ozone standard unless the State can

demonstrate that such emission controls

are actually beneficial for attainment of

the ozone standard. The State, in its

December 21, 2000 submittal, is now

demonstrating that certain regional NOX

emission controls (including some

controls on EGUs, major non-EGU

boilers and turbines, and major cement

kilns in the Northwest Indiana area)

would contribute toward attainment of

the ozone standard.6 We are proposing,

based on the information submitted, to

revise the NOX waiver for the Northwest

Indiana area, as further explained

below.

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. More specifically, to

meet the schedule of an existing consent

agreement 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

Northwest Indiana 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 21, 2000 Indiana

submittal and this proposed rule

address the following topics: (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 Northwest Indiana

area; (3) contingency measures for the

post-1999 ROP plan and for the ozone

attainment demonstration; (4) ROP and

attainment motor vehicle transportation

conformity emission budgets; and (5)

Indiana’s commitments for a mid-course

review of the ozone attainment

demonstration. This proposed rule also

addresses: (1) The status of rule

adoption and implementation needed to

support the ozone attainment

demonstration and post-1999 ROP plan;

(2) revisions to the existing NOX control

waiver for the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County ozone nonattainment area; and

(3) a RACM analysis for the Northwest

Indiana area.

In this notice, we do not respond to

the public comments submitted on our

December 16, 1999 proposed rule on

Indiana’s April 30, 1998 ozone

attainment demonstration submittal. We

will address those comments along with

comments addressing this proposed rule

when we take final action on Indiana’s

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 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (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). 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). 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

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

40806 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

7Memorandum, ‘‘Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations,’’ issued March 2, 1995. A copy of

the memorandum may be found on EPA’s web site

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

8Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, to the

members of the Environmental Council of States

(ECOS), dated April 13, 1995.

9 In general, a commitment for severe areas to

adopt by December 2000 the control measures

necessary for attainment and ROP plans through the

attainment year applies to any additional measures

necessary for attainment that were not otherwise

required to be submitted earlier. (This

memorandum was not intended to allow states to

delay submission of measures required under the

Clean Air Act.) Thus, this commitment applies to

any control measures or emission reductions on

which any state relies for purposes of a modeled

attainment demonstration.

10Memorandum, ‘‘Guidance for Implementing

the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,’’

issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this

memorandum may be found on EPA’s web site at

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

11The 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: ‘‘O3TEST’’).

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 of the base year

anthropogenic emissions for each 3-year

period until the attainment date

(following an initial 15 percent

reduction in the VOC emissions by

November 15, 1996). In some cases,

NOX 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 NOX SIP

Call?

Notwithstanding significant efforts by

the states, in 1995 EPA recognized that

many states in the eastern half of the

United States could not meet the

November 15, 1994 time frame for

submitting attainment demonstration

SIP revisions because emissions of NOX

and VOC in upwind states (and the

ozone formed by these emissions)

affected these nonattainment areas and

the full impact of this effect had not yet

been determined. This phenomenon is

called ozone transport.

On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols,

EPA’s then Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation, issued a

memorandum to EPA’s Regional

Administrators acknowledging the

efforts made by states but noting the

remaining difficulties in making

attainment demonstration SIP

submittals.7 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) 8

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.

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,

state-wide NOX 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 9; (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.10 In

addition, state submissions due in April

1998, under the Wilson policy, should

have also included motor vehicle

emissions budgets.

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 NOX

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 NOX emission reductions within

each jurisdiction to a level consistent

with a NOX emission budget identified

in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (October

27, 1998). The final rule is commonly

referred to as the NOX SIP Call.

EPA completed final rulemaking on

the NOX SIP Call on October 27, 1998,

requiring states to address transport of

NOX and ozone to other states. To

address transport, the NOX SIP Call

established state-specific emission

budgets for NOX that the 23

jurisdictions were required to meet

through enforceable SIP emission

control measures adopted and

submitted by September 30, 1999. The

EPA did not identify specific NOX

sources that the states must regulate nor

did the EPA limit the states’ choices

regarding where within the states to

achieve the emission reductions.

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 NOX SIP

Call. On March 3, 2000, the Court issued

a decision, which largely upheld EPA’s

final NOX SIP Call rule, with certain

exceptions that do not affect this

proposed rule. On June 23, 2000, the

Court lifted the stay. Finally, 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.

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.11 In order to have complete

ozone modeling attainment

demonstration submissions, states

should have submitted the required

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40807

12The initial, ‘‘ramp-up’’ day for each modeled

high ozone episode is excluded from this

determination.

modeling analyses and identified any

additional evidence that EPA should

consider in evaluating whether areas

will attain the ozone standard.

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

observed meteorological conditions

conducive to the formation of ozone.

The meteorological conditions are

selected based on historical data for

high ozone periods in the

nonattainment area or in its associated

modeling domain. Emissions for a base

year and monitored ozone and ozone

precursor (generally VOC and NOX)

concentrations are used to evaluate the

modeling system’s ability to reproduce

actual monitored air quality values

(ozone and other associated pollutants).

Following validation of the modeling

system for the base year, ozone

precursor emissions are projected to an

attainment year and modeled in the

photochemical modeling system to

predict air quality levels in the

attainment year. Projected emission

changes include source emissions

growth up to the attainment year and

emission controls implemented by the

attainment year.

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-OfEvidence (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.

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 nonattainment 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 for a given modeled

volume) 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.

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 (emissions

control strategy) 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

emissions control strategy and that the

emissions control strategy may be

inadequate to attain the ozone standard.

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

modeling domain grid cell for each

modeled day 12 to the ozone attainment

level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the

predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test

is passed.

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.

40808 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

13States 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.

14The NOX NSR requirements do not currently

apply in the Northwest Indiana area based on a

NOX waiver granted to Indiana on January 26, 1996

(61 FR 2428).

15The NOX RACT requirements do not currently

apply in the Northwest Indiana area based on a

NOX waiver granted to Indiana on January 26, 1996

(61 FR 2428).

16To provide interim progress, EPA accepted 9

percent VOC/NOX 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. We review Indiana’s

post-1999 ROP plan later in this proposed rule.

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

limitations, and provides a means for

considering other evidence to help

assess whether attainment of the

NAAQS is likely. The process by which

this is done is the WOE determination.13

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 midcourse 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.

For purposes of fully approving a state’s

SIP, the state needs to adopt and submit

rules for all VOC and NOX 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 NOX, Including an Offset Ratio of 1.3:1 and a Major Source VOC and NOX Emissions Threshold of 25 Tons

Per Year 14

• RACT for VOC and NOX 15

• Enhanced Vehicle I/M

• 15 Percent VOC Control Plan for ROP Through 1996

• 3 Percent VOC/NOX Reduction Per Year Through the Ozone Standard Attainment Year—Post-1996 ROP16

• RACM

• Contingency Measures

• Base Year Emissions Inventory

• Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery At Retail Service Stations

• Reformulated Gasoline

• Measures to Offset Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

• Emission Statement Rules Requiring Sources to Periodically Submit Summaries to Their VOC and NOX Emissions

• Ozone Attainment Demonstration

• Clean Fuels Fleet Program

• Enhanced Ambient Monitoring (Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System [PAM])

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40809

b. NOX reductions affecting boundary

conditions. Emission reductions that

will be achieved through EPA’s NOX SIP

Call are expected by the EPA and the

states to reduce the levels of ozone and

ozone precursors entering ozone

nonattainment areas and ozone

modeling domains at their boundaries,

and to reduce the NOX 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 other pollutants

entering the modeling domain, referred

to as ‘‘boundary conditions.’’ The

boundary conditions and the ozone

generated and transported within the

modeling domains are expected to be

impacted by the NOX emission

reductions resulting from the NOX SIP

Call in many areas. Therefore, EPA

believes it is appropriate to allow states

to continue to assume the NOX emission

reductions resulting from the NOX SIP

Call in areas outside of the local ozone

modeling domains. If states assume

emission reductions other than those

resulting from the NOX 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 approvable

ozone attainment demonstrations. States

subject to the NOX SIP Call, particularly

those relying on the NOX SIP Call-based

emission reductions as part of their

ozone attainment demonstrations, are

expected to have adopted the NOX

emission control regulations needed to

comply with the NOX SIP Call. In these

areas, approval of the ozone attainment

demonstrations is dependent on the

approval of the NOX 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 receive our final approval of the

state’s 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration SIP.

c. Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

The EPA believes that attainment

demonstration and ROP SIPs must

necessarily estimate the motor vehicle

VOC and NOX 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,

are 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. 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. States with severe and

extreme ozone nonattainment areas

should also provide for a MCR because

of the uncertainty inherent in emission

projections that extend 10 to 15 years

into the future. (See EPA’s ‘‘Guidance

on Use of Modeled Results to

Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone

NAAQS,’’ June 1996.) 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 ChicagoGary-Lake County ozone nonattainment

area, the state(s) must submit an

enforceable commitment (Indiana 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

Indiana) in which the states have

implemented the NOX regulations

resulting from the NOX 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 NOX 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 and the state would review

the results and determine whether the

state 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. We

anticipate that these findings would be

made as SIP Calls under section

110(k)(5) of the CAA 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.

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,

40810 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t1pgm.html.

e. Memorandum, ‘‘Guidance for

Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and

Pre-Existing PM10 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

Additional Emission Reductions, Not

Modeled,’’ U.S. EPA, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards,

November 1999, Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.

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 sit: 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 Indiana held a public

hearing on the ozone attainment

demonstration on November 15, 2000.

IDEM submitted the attainment

demonstration to EPA on December 21,

2000.

2. What Are the Basic Technical

Components of the Submittal?

Since Indiana, along with Illinois,

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

Indiana’s 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.

Indiana, like Illinois and Wisconsin,

has included a state-specific cover letter

and a state-specific synopsis of the

ozone attainment demonstration. As

part of their respective ozone attainment

demonstrations, all three States

included the LADCO documents listed

above to support their adopted emission

control strategies and ozone attainment

demonstrations.

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 Indiana’s 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. 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

implemented on 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

Peninsula (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 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 sub-regional 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 represent a

variety of meteorological conditions that

have been found to be conducive to high

ozone concentrations in this area; (2)

there is an intensive data base available

for the 1991 episodes; and (3) several of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40811

17Analyses 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. 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).

18Sources to be addressed through PiG

techniques were selected based on their magnitudes

of NOX emissions (the top 100 ranked stacks) and

locations (the next 34 topped ranked stacks in the

Lake Michigan and St. Louis areas).

these episodes (the July episodes) were

modeled as part of the OTAG analyses,

providing ozone transport and modeling

domain boundary data.

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, NOX, 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 NOX

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 credits for the mobile source

Tier II/Low Sulfur program.

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 17. Point source emissions for

some sources were addressed through

the use of Plume-in-Grid (PiG) 18

techniques incorporated within UAM–

V. An additional discussion of the

development of the modeled emission

inventories is presented below.

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. 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.

Base-case 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. Peak

modeled ozone concentrations over

Lake Michigan, however, appear to be

underestimated on many 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.

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

the impacts of emission control

strategies).

40812 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

19For 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 Indiana’s December 21,

2000 attainment demonstration submittal.

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.19 All other inputs to the

ozone modeling system have been fixed

at the levels used in the validated base

year modeling analyses.

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

emission 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 NOX SIP

Call documentation) or by the States

based on 1996 periodic emission

inventories. Where appropriate, EPA’s

NOX 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 NOX were also

increased for heavy-duty diesel vehicles

as the result of the use of built-in

‘‘defeat’’ devices. These increased NOX

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 spacial, 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. Countylevel 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 directly

temporally resolved through the use of

EMS–95, which includes temporal

emission profiles for these 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 NOX 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. Source growth

and emission control factors used in

EPA’s NOX 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

categories 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40813

summarizing data that can be checked

against alternative emission data sets/

reports. Table 7 of LADCO’s September

27, 2000 TSD lists the EMS–95

standardized QA reports and is

included by reference here. These

reports were generated in the

preparation of the Grid M emissions

data and were used for QA efforts.

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.

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 NOX. After testing and reviewing

the ozone impacts of various strategies

and considering CAA-mandated

emission control requirements

(including the requirements of the NOX

SIP Call), Indiana has adopted an

emission control strategy that is

consistent with LADCO Strategy Run 13

(SR 13) as the emission control strategy

that will be pursued to attain the 1-hour

ozone standard in the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area.

Table II lists the emission controls

included in SR 13.

TABLE II.—SR 13—EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY

VOC EMISSION CONTROLS

Stationary Point Sources:

• RACT in Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• NSR—Lowest Achievable Emission Rates (LAER) and Emission Offsets in Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

Non-Road Mobile and Other Area Sources:

• Federal Phase II Small Engine Standards.

• Federal Marine Engine Standards.

• Federal Heavy Duty Vehicle (≥ 50 horsepower) Standards—Phase I.

• Federal Reformulated Gasoline—Phase I and II in Mandatory Areas.

• Commercial/Consumer Solvent and Architectural Coating Emission Controls.

• Stage I and Stage II Gasoline Service Station Vapor Controls in Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• Autobody Refinishing, Degreasing, and Dry Cleaning Emission Controls in Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

On-Road Mobile Sources:

• Federal Reformulated Gasoline—Phase I and II in Mandatory (Ozone Nonattainment) Areas.

• Basic and Enhanced Vehicle I/M in Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• Tier 1 Light Duty Vehicle and Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Standards.

• Clean Fuel Fleets in Serious and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• 9.0 Pounds per Square Inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Everywhere in the Ozone Modeling Domain.

NOX EMISSION CONTROLS

Utility Stationary Sources:

• Title IV Phase 1 and Phase 2 Acid Rain Controls.

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for major NOX Sources (NOX emissions ≥

250 tons per year).

• RACT and NSR Limits in Non-waivered Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• 0.25 Pounds NOX per Million British Thermal Units of Heat Input (0.25 Pounds NOX/MMBtu) Emission Limit in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

and Tennessee.

• Missouri State Rule (0.25 pounds NOX/MMBtu in the Eastern Third of the State and 0.35 Pounds NOX/MMBtu in the Western Two-thirds

of the State).

• Michigan State NOX Rule.

Non-Utility Stationary Sources:

• RACT and NSR Limits in non-waivered ozone nonattainment areas.

• PSD and NSPS for major NOX sources.

• Indiana NOX Rule for Major Non-utility Sources (60 Percent Reduction of NOX Emissions at Major Non-Utility Sources).

• Michigan NOX rule for major non-utility sources,

Non-Road and Other Area Sources:

• Federal Reformulated Gasoline—Phase I.

• Federal Phase II Small Engine Standards.

• Federal Marine Engine Standards.

• Federal Heavy Duty Vehicle Standards—Phase I.

• Federal Reformulated Gasoline—Phase II in Mandatory Areas.

• Federal Locomotive Standards, Including Rebuilds.

• High Compression Engine 4 grams Standard.

On-Road Mobiles Sources:

• Enhanced Vehicle I/M in Serious and Above Non-waivered Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• Basic Vehicle I/M in Moderate Non-waivered Ozone Nonattainment Areas.

• Tier 1 Light Duty Vehicles and Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Standards.

• Federal Reformulated Gasoline—Phase II in Mandatory Areas.

• Clean Fuel Fleets in Mandatory Areas.

40814 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE II.—SR 13—EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY—Continued

• National Low Emission Vehicle Program.

• Heavy Duty Vehicle 3 grams/mile Standard.

Please note that although the emissions

control strategy includes certain NOX

and VOC emission controls for states

other than Indiana, this emissions

control strategy does not obligate these

other states to these emission controls.

These states, however, are otherwise

obligated under the CAA to achieve the

emission reductions represented by this

assumed emissions control strategy

through mandated emission control

requirements (e.g., RACT), EPA’s SIP

Call regulations (e.g., NOX controls in

Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee), or

as part of an attainment demonstration

(e.g., NOX control measures in

Wisconsin and Missouri). Thus,

although each state is selecting its own

emissions control strategy that may

deviate from the one listed above, the

ultimate emission reductions reflected

by that strategy are otherwise mandated

for the area and, thus, may be relied on

for purposes of the Indiana attainment

demonstration.

Indiana will implement emission

controls consistent with the modeled

emissions control strategy, including, in

some instances (as discussed elsewhere

in this proposed rule) emission controls

with lower emission limits than

modeled in the adopted emissions

control strategy within Indiana itself.

The status of the Indiana emission

control measures is discussed below.

In the ozone modeling, the emission

controls required by the CAA were

assumed for all states within Grid M,

and were assumed for all areas outside

of Grid M in modeling used to

determine the background ozone and

ozone precursor concentrations for Grid

M.

Indiana has developed NOX control

rules to achieve a required cap on the

State’s NOX emissions. Indiana has

adopted NOX rules for EGUs, non-EGU

boilers and turbines, and cement kilns

(EPA proposed to approve these rules

on July 2, 2001, 66 FR 34864) consistent

with EPA’s NOX SIP Call. These NOX

rules will achieve NOX emissions

reductions in Indiana sufficient to or

exceeding the NOX emissions reduction

included in SR–13. Other states in Grid

M have also submitted adopted or draft

NOX rules to comply with the NOX SIP

Call. In addition, Wisconsin and

Missouri (neither are subject to the NOX

SIP Call at this time) have adopted and

submitted NOX EGU rules. EPA

approved Missouri’s NOX EGU rule on

December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82285). EPA

proposed to approve Illinois’ NOX EGU

rule on August 31, 2000 (65 FR 52967),

and proposed to approve Illinois’ nonEGU (major non-EGU boilers and

turbines and major cement kilns) rules

on June 28, 2001 (66 FR 34382).

Table III compares the VOC and NOX

emission rates by major source sector in

Grid M for the 1996 base year and for

the adopted emission control strategy,

SR 13, in 2007.

TABLE III.—COMPARISON OF 1996 AND SR 13 (2007) EMISSIONS IN GRID M

[Emissions in tons/day]

Pollutant Point—EGU Point—NonEGU

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 13 ................................................ 37 1,771 1,167 4,410 2,671 30,816 40,872

NOX:

1996 Base Year ................................ 5,844 1,876 2,138 602 5,681 2,000 18,141

SR 13 ................................................ 3,033 2,047 1,748 734 3,359 2,000 12,921

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. 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 13. 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 13

6–25–91 ........................................................................................................................... 104 123 123 111

6–26–91 ........................................................................................................................... 175 136 138 117

6–27–91 ........................................................................................................................... 118 139 127 111

6–28–91 ........................................................................................................................... 138 124 102 93

7–16–91 ........................................................................................................................... 130 129 108 104

7–17–91 ........................................................................................................................... 137 119 89 87

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40815

TABLE IV.—PEAK MONITORED AND MODELED OZONE CONCENTRATIONS FOR GRID M—Continued

[Ozone concentrations in ppb]

Date Peak ozone

observed

Peak ozone

modeled

validation

Peak ozone

modeled

1996 base

year

emissions

Peak ozone

modeled

SR 13

7–18–91 ........................................................................................................................... 170 137 108 104

7–19–91 ........................................................................................................................... 170 137 112 110

7–20–91 ........................................................................................................................... 138 168 150 130

6–21–95 ........................................................................................................................... 112 123 122 118

6–22–95 ........................................................................................................................... 119 131 131 122

6–23–95 ........................................................................................................................... 123 128 128 116

6–24–95 ........................................................................................................................... 166 136 136 123

6–25–95 ........................................................................................................................... 108 125 124 119

7–12–95 ........................................................................................................................... 146 118 118 104

7–13–95 ........................................................................................................................... 178 147 146 127

7–14–95 ........................................................................................................................... 150 140 140 126

7–15–95 ........................................................................................................................... 154 156 156 130

Sources: 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

potential ozone standard exceedances

on July 20, 1991 and July 13–15, 1995

when the projected 2007 emissions are

considered in the modeling. As noted in

LADCO’s September 18, 2000 summary

of the attainment demonstration, simple

modeling and assessment of the

potential future peak ozone

concentrations (using projected

emissions and considering possible

emissions controls) (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.

Our 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

modeled by LADCO were determined to

be ‘‘severe,’’ including July 20, 1991 and

July 15, 1995.

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.

Indiana has determined that

emissions control strategy SR 13 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 13

emissions control strategy.

In light of the inherent uncertainties

in the ozone modeling and to further

support the ozone attainment

demonstration, LADCO has also chosen

to conduct two additional analyses that

are components of a WOE analysis.

First, LADCO has conducted a relative

attainment test. Using the base period

observed ozone design values for

various ozone monitoring sites and the

modeled peak ozone concentrations for

the domain grid cells in the vicinities of

these monitors, LADCO has predicted

2007 ozone design values for these

monitoring sites (this procedure is

referred to as the ‘‘relative reduction

factor’’ test). For SR 13, the relative

reduction factor test leads to predicted

ozone design values below the ozone

standard for all ozone monitoring sites

considered, with the highest projected

ozone design values being 124 ppb at an

unmonitored mid-Lake Michigan

location (a synthetic base period ozone

design value was used for this site) and

124 ppb for a Michigan City, Indiana

ozone monitoring site.

Second, LADCO conducted two air

quality analyses to further support the

ozone attainment test. An ozone trends

analysis 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. Analyses of VOC

emissions show that reduced local VOC

emissions is primarily responsible for

the lowered local ozone concentrations.

LADCO concludes that the best ozone

control strategy for the lower Lake

Michigan area is to control local VOC

emissions (within the urban

nonattainment areas) and domain-wide,

regional NOX emissions (the purpose of

EPA’s NOX SIP Call and Indiana’s

adoption of NOX emission control rules

for EGUs, non-EGU boilers and turbines,

and cement kilns). This implied

emission control approach is compatible

with the emission control strategy

selected by Indiana.

The WOE analyses further support the

conclusions of the attainment

40816 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

20 ‘‘Baseline emissions’’ are defined in section

182(b)(1)(B) of the CAA as the total amount of

actual VOC or NOX emissions from all

anthropogenic sources in the area during calendar

year 1990, excluding emissions that would be

eliminated due to: (1) Any measure relating to

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).

9. Do the Modeling Results Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone Standard?

Based on LADCO’s ozone modeling

results, EPA believes that LADCO and,

in particular, the State of Indiana have

demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard for the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area

based on the adopted SR 13 emissions

control strategy.

10. Does the Attainment Demonstration

Depend on Future Reductions of

Regional Emissions?

Yes. The adopted emissions control

strategy includes regional NOX emission

reductions for the State of Indiana as

well as for surrounding states in

compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call.

LADCO has concluded that regional

NOX emissions reductions are crucial to

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

in the Lake Michigan area.

11. Has the State Adopted All of the

Regulations/Rules Needed To Support

the Ozone Attainment Strategy and

Demonstration?

Indiana has adopted and is

implementing all emission controls

required under the CAA, including the

emission controls contained in Indiana’s

15 percent and post-1996 ROP plans.

The State of Indiana has submitted

adopted NOX rules for EGUs, major nonEGU boilers and turbines, and major

cement kilns. The State adopted these

rules on June 6, 2001, and, as noted

above, we proposed to approve these

rules on July 2, 2001 (66 FR 34864). It

should be noted here that the NOX rules

being adopted by Indiana will provide

significantly greater statewide NOX

emission reductions than were assumed

for the subject controlled sources in the

adopted emission control strategy SR

13. Indiana is proceeding with the

implementation of NOX rules to comply

with EPA’s NOX SIP Call, which

addresses the transport of NOX and

ozone. The NOX rule being

implemented by Indiana for EGUs will

achieve a NOX emission limit of 0.15

pounds NOX/MMBtu rather than the

0.25 pounds NOX/MMBtu NOX

emission limit modeled for the

attainment strategy. The State is also

implementing NOX emission controls

for major non-EGU boilers and turbines

and for major cement kilns to comply

with EPA’s NOX SIP Call (SR 13

assumes a 60 percent NOX emission

reduction from major non-EGU sources,

which approximates the NOX emissions

impacts of the NOX SIP Call emission

control regulations to be implemented

in Indiana). The additional NOX

emission controls are needed to reduce

NOX and ozone that are transported to

other states.

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?

Yes. The State’s submittal thoroughly

documents the techniques and data

used to derive the modeling input data.

The submittal adequately summarizes

the modeling inputs and outputs and

the conclusions drawn from the

modeling outputs. Therefore, we

conclude that Indiana has successfully

documented the ozone modeling and

that its attainment demonstration is

complete from a documentation

standpoint. This includes

documentation of a selected emissions

control strategy, which was lacking in

the State’s April 1998 ozone attainment

demonstration submittal.

2. Did the Modeling Procedures and

Input Data Used Comply With the Clean

Air Act Requirements?

Yes. The State of Indiana, through

LADCO, has used the UAM to model

attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard. The State has documented the

modeling results and the input data

considered. The modeling procedures

and input data comply with the

requirements of the CAA as well as with

EPA policy.

3. Did the State Adequately Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone Standard?

Yes. Indiana, in accordance with

EPA’s December 1997 attainment

demonstration guidance, has

demonstrated that attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard is achievable by

November 15, 2007 provided projected

reductions in background ozone and

ozone precursor concentrations occur as

the result of the implementation of

EPA’s NOX SIP Call. EPA has

determined that the adopted emission

control strategy, including local VOC

emission control measures and regional

NOX emission control measures, is

adequate for the attainment of the ozone

standard.

4. Has Indiana Adequately Documented

the Adopted Emissions Control

Strategy?

Yes. The emission controls included

in the adopted strategy have been

identified and their cumulative

emission impacts have been

documented.

5. Is the Emissions Control Strategy

Acceptable?

Yes. The adopted emissions control

strategy relies significantly on the

adoption of regional NOX emission

controls by Indiana. Indiana has

adopted rules to reduce NOX emissions

from EGUs, major non-EGU boilers, and

major cement kilns to comply with

EPA’s NOX SIP Call. The EPA proposed

to approve these rules on July 2, 2001

(66 FR 34864). We can not approve the

attainment demonstration until we have

also fully approved all of the NOX

emission control rules relied on in the

State’s ozone attainment demonstration.

Assuming that we will approve

Indiana’s NOX rules prior to or by the

time we promulgate final approval of

the ozone attainment demonstration, we

find the ozone attainment

demonstration to be approvable.

IV. Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress (ROP)

Plan

A. What Is a Post-1999 ROP Plan?

Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA

requires states with ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

serious and above, including the

Northwest Indiana area (which is

classified as severe nonattainment for

the one-hour ozone standard), to adopt

and implement ROP plans to achieve

periodic reductions in ozone precursors

(VOC and/or NOX) after 1996. The

requirement is intended to ensure that

an area makes definite and reasonable

progress toward attainment of the ozone

NAAQS. Since Indiana has already

adopted and implemented a post-1996

ROP plan to meet the requirements of

section 182(c)(2)(B) through November

15, 1999 (EPA approved this plan on

January 26, 2000, 65 FR 4126) and since

the ROP plan reviewed here addresses

the ROP requirements for the period

after November 15, 1999, we refer to the

ROP plan reviewed in this proposed

rule as the ‘‘post-1999 ROP plan.’’

The post-1999 ROP emission

reductions are to occur at a rate of 9

percent of baseline emissions 20 (later

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40817

motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions

promulgated by the EPA by January 1, 1990; and

(2) any regulations concerning Reid Vapor Pressure

promulgated by the EPA by November 15, 1990 or

required to be promulgated under section 211(h) of

the CAA.

referred to as ‘‘adjusted baseline

emissions’’), net of emissions growth,

averaged over each 3-year period

through the attainment year (2007 for

the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area). The State must

achieve the first 9 percent ROP

milestone (i.e., 9 percent emission

reduction, net of growth) by November

15, 2002, another 9 percent ROP

milestone by November 15, 2005, and

the remaining 6 percent ROP milestone

by November 15, 2007.

B. What Is the ROP Contingency

Measure Requirement?

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires

states with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate and above to

adopt contingency measures by

November 15, 1993. Such measures

must provide for the implementation of

specific emission control measures if an

ozone nonattainment area fails to

achieve ROP or to attain the NAAQS

within the time-frames specified under

the CAA. Section 182(c)(9) of the CAA

requires that, in addition to the

contingency measures required under

section 172(c)(9), the contingency

measure portion of the SIP for serious

and above ozone nonattainment areas

must also provide for the

implementation of specific measures if

an area fails to meet any applicable

milestone in the CAA. As provided in

these sections of the CAA, the

contingency measures must take effect

without further action by the state or by

the EPA upon failure of the state to meet

ROP emission reduction milestones or

to achieve attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by a required deadline.

Our policy, as provided in the April

16, 1992 ‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (General

Preamble) (57 FR 13498), states that the

contingency measures, in total, must be

able to provide for emission reductions

equal to or greater than 3 percent of the

1990 baseline emissions (sufficient

emission reductions to equal one year of

ROP).

While all contingency measures and

rules must be fully adopted by the

states, states can use the contingency

measures in one of two different ways.

A state can choose to implement

contingency measures before a

milestone deadline, choosing to

implement them along with ROP

measures and prior to the milestone

date. Alternatively, a state may decide

not to implement a contingency

measure until an area has actually failed

to achieve a ROP or attainment

milestone. In the latter situation, the

contingency measure emission

reduction must be achieved within one

year following identification of a

milestone failure by the EPA.

C. What Indiana Counties Are Covered

by the Post-1999 ROP Plan?

The post-1999 ROP plan covers

emission reduction requirements for the

Northwest Indiana area (Lake and Porter

Counties). The VOC emission reduction

requirements, as discussed below, are

determined relative to the adjusted

baseline (1990) VOC emissions in this

area. Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the CAA

permits the State to substitute NOX

emission controls to meet part of the

VOC emission reduction requirements

for ROP provided that the NOX emission

reduction produces an ozone reduction

equivalent to that achieved from the

required VOC emission reduction.

Indiana has not relied on NOX control

substitution to achieve the ROP

requirements.

D. Who Is Affected by the Indiana Post1999 ROP Plan?

The post-1999 ROP plan does not

itself create any new emission control

requirements. Rather, it is a

demonstration that existing regulations

or regulations being developed to meet

other emission reduction requirements

are sufficient to achieve the required

ROP emission reduction requirements.

The post-1999 ROP plan refers to

various emission control regulations

that have contributed to or will

contribute to achieving the required

ROP emission reductions for the 1999–

2002, 2002–2005, and 2005–2007

periods in the Northwest Indiana area.

These regulations, both federal and

State, affect a variety of industries,

businesses, and, through the vehicle I/

M program and other mobile source

emission reduction requirements, motor

vehicle owners. Most of these

regulations, however, are already

federally enforceable through the

approved SIP or through rules

promulgated by EPA.

E. What Criteria Must a Post-1999 ROP

Plan Meet To Be Approved?

Our January 1994 guidance document,

‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-OfProgress Plan and the Attainment

Demonstration,’’ provides States with

the appropriate methods to calculate the

emission reductions needed to meet the

ROP emission reduction requirements.

A complete list of ROP guidance

documents is provided in the direct

final approval of Indiana’s Post-1996

ROP Plan (65 FR 4126, January 26,

2000).

F. What Changes Did Indiana Make to

the 1990 VOC Base Year Emissions

Inventory in This Submission?

As in the post-1996 ROP plan, the

State has documented a change in the

1990 base year VOC emissions in the

December 21, 2000 submittal. In

response to public comments regarding

the post-1996 ROP plan, the State

reviewed the on-road mobile source

emissions. The post-1996 ROP plan had

used county-wide estimates of Vehicle

Miles Traveled (VMT) and vehicle

speed distributions and, in the post1996 ROP plan, the State did not

disaggregate the VMT estimates by

vehicle class. The new data provide

information on the VMT, speed, and

vehicle mix data with more resolution.

In previous ROP plans, Indiana

obtained mileage data primarily from

the Indiana Department of

Transportation through the use of the

Highway Performance Modeling System

(HPMS). The detail of the mileage

information was limited to broad

roadway classifications, and countyspecific vehicle mix data were not

available.

To fulfill transportation conformity

requirements, the Northwest Indiana

Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC)

developed a travel demand model. The

information contained in the model

includes the VMT distribution of the

vehicles, the speeds of the vehicles, and

the vehicle type mix of the vehicles on

a link-by-link basis. These data

produced more accurate vehicle

emissions data than the county-wide

inputs.

The revised 1990 mobile source

emissions estimates differ significantly

from those previously determined for

the 1990 base year and used in the post1996 ROP plan. The 1990 on-road

mobile source VOC emission estimates

for Lake and Porter Counties are being

revised downward from 119,231 pounds

per day (PPD) to 71,560 PPD. This

results in a significant decrease in the

total 1990 base year VOC emissions for

Lake and Porter Counties relative to

those assumed in the post-1996 ROP

plan and previously approved by the

EPA (65 FR 4126, January 26, 2000).

Table V. compares the previously

approved VOC emissions for Lake and

Porter Counties with those documented

in the State’s post-1999 ROP plan.

40818 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.—ORIGINAL AND REVISED 1990 BASE YEAR VOC EMISSIONS

[Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana]

Source category

Previous 21

VOC

emissions

(pounds per

day)

Revised 22

VOC

emissions

(pounds per

day)

Point sources ........................................................................................................................................................... 350,771 350,771

Area Sources ........................................................................................................................................................... 83,821 83,821

On-Road Mobile Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 119,231 71,560

Off-Road Mobile Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 23,367 23,367

Biogenics ................................................................................................................................................................. 42,880 42,880

Totals ............................................................................................................................................................ 620,070 23 572,399

21Source: 65 FR 4131, January 26, 2000—table titled ‘‘Total VOC Emissions’’ coupled with Table 3.1 (‘‘1990 Lake and Porter Total VOC

Emissions’’) in ‘‘Post-1999 Rate of Progress Plans: Northwest Indiana Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area: Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana,’’

December 21, 2000 State of Indiana submittal, Appendix F. Assume all source category emissions in Table 3.1 are unchanged from previously

approved levels except on-road mobile source emissions, as documented by the State in the December 21, 2000 submittal. 22Emissions taken directly from Table 3.1 of ‘‘Post-1999 Rate of Progress Plans: Northwest Indiana Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area: Lake

and Porter Counties, Indiana,’’ December 21, 2000 State of Indiana submittal, Appendix F. 23 Note that the total VOC emissions given here differs slightly from the total specified by IDEM. IDEM documented a total VOC emissions of

572,398 pounds per day (PPD). The total given here is mathematically correct given the available data. The difference between this total

(572,399 PPD) and that documented by IDEM is probably due to rounding differences. It is assumed that IDEM maintained data in fractional

PPD, whereas we are working with emissions, as documented, in non-fractional PPD, leading to the rounding differences. We are proposing to

approve the revision of the 1990 base year VOC emissions as summarized by the State.

IDEM has concluded that the 1990

base year emissions were actually

significantly lower than those used in

the post-1996 ROP, and has requested

that the 1990 SIP base year inventory be

adjusted accordingly. The calculation of

emission reduction requirements for the

post-1999 ROP plan are based on the

revised VOC emissions. IDEM has noted

in the December 21, 2000 submittal that

this revision in base year emissions

results in the need for revisions in the

prior (1996 and 1999) ROP target

emission levels.

G. Why Were the 1996 15-Percent ROP

Target Level and the 1999 9-Percent

ROP Target Level for Lake and Porter

Counties Recalculated, and Does

Indiana Have To Revise the Prior ROP

Plans?

The 15 percent ROP emission target

level (1996 milestone year) and the post1996 ROP emission target level (1999

milestone year) had to be recalculated

because IDEM has revised the 1990 base

year VOC emissions inventory and

because these emission target levels are

input data for the calculation of

subsequent ROP emission target levels.

Each succeeding ROP milestone

emission target level incorporates the

preceding milestone year emission

target level. Changing the base year

emissions results in the need for a

cascading calculation of milestone year

emission target levels.

The need for new calculated emission

target levels does not necessitate

revisions of prior ROP plans. Since

subsequent milestone year emission

target levels incorporate recalculations

of preceding emission target levels, any

shortfall in emission reductions

resulting from the revisions in emission

estimates is eliminated by appropriately

adjusting the milestone year emission

targets for years following the year of

the revised emission estimates. For

example, if the base year (1990) VOC

emission estimates are lowered, as is the

case here, subsequent milestone year

emission target levels, those for 1996,

1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007, should be

appropriately lowered.

H. How Were the 1996 and 1999 Target

Emission Levels for Lake and Porter

Counties Calculated?

IDEM calculated the 1996 and 1999

emission target levels, and presented

these data in electronic spreadsheet

tables to support the post-1999 ROP

plan (we are including in the docket for

this proposed rule hard copies of the

spreadsheet data tables). We present in

Tables VIa and VIb the State’s

calculations of the 1996 and 1999 VOC

emission target levels using data

supplied in the State’s post-1999 ROP

plan and supporting spreadsheets with

one correction as noted below. The

formula in brackets, [], in the following

tables (and in other tables in this section

of the proposed rule) show how

emission values are calculated from

other parameters within the same tables.

Note that we have included in Table

VIb one factor that Indiana did not

include in its calculations. This factor is

the ‘‘fleet turnover correction factor.’’

This factor, as discussed in our January

1994 ‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996 RateOf-Progress Plan and the Attainment

Demonstration’’ (EPA–452/R–93–015),

is needed to account for non-creditable

mobile source emission reductions

occurring between milestone years as a

result of the Federal Motor Vehicle

Emission Control Program (FMVCP).

IDEM, in making its ROP calculations,

has assumed that this correction factor

is accounted for in the FMVCP emission

reduction used to calculate the ROP

emission reduction requirement for each

milestone period, and that a separate

fleet turnover correction factor is not

needed to account for non-creditable

emission reductions. However, based on

section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA and our

January 1994 post-1996 ROP guidance,

we believe that this assumption is

incorrect. Our calculated ROP emission

target levels and required total emission

reduction requirements presented here

account for the fleet turnover correction

factors for each milestone year following

1996. This difference in approach

(between IDEM and EPA) with regard to

this correction factor accounts for the

differences between our ROP estimates

and those of IDEM as reflected in the

subsequent tables and discussion.

TABLE VIA.—RECALCULATED 1996

VOC EMISSION TARGET LEVEL FOR

LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

VOC emissions parameter

VOC

emissions

(pounds per

day)

1990 Total VOC Emissions .. 572,398

1990 ROP Baseline Emissions (A) ............................ 529,518

1990–1996 Non-Creditable

Emission Reductions (B) ... 158,586

1990 Adjusted Base Year

Emissions (C) [(A)¥ (B)] .... 370,932

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40819

TABLE VIA.—RECALCULATED 1996

VOC EMISSION TARGET LEVEL FOR

LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

VOC emissions parameter

VOC

emissions

(pounds per

day)

15 Percent of Adjusted Base

Year Emissions (D) ........... 55,640

1996 Target Emissions Level

[(C)¥(D)] ............................ 315,292

(A) Total VOC Emissions minus Biogenic

Emissions (42,880 PPD).

(B) Non-Creditable Emission Reductions include: Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Emission Reduction = 130,169 PPD; Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program = 27,689 PPD (these

emission reductions were taken from the

spreadsheet data submitted to support the

post-1999 ROP plan); and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Restrictions = 728 PPD.

TABLE VIB.—RECALCULATED 1999

EMISSION TARGET LEVEL FOR LAKE

AND PORTER COUNTIES

VOC emission parameter

VOC emissions

(pounds per

day)

1990 ROP Baseline Emissions (A) ............................ 529,518

TABLE VIB.—RECALCULATED 1999

EMISSION TARGET LEVEL FOR LAKE

AND PORTER COUNTIES

VOC emission parameter

VOC emissions

(pounds per

day)

1990–1999 Non-Creditable

Emission Reductions (B) ... 193,337

1990 Adjusted Base Year

Emissions (C) [(A)¥(B)] ..... 336,181

9 Percent of Adjusted Base

Year Emissions (D) ........... 30,256

Fleet Turnover Correction (E) 4,865

1996 Target Emissions Level

(F) ...................................... 315,292

1999 Target Emissions Level

[(F)¥(D)¥(E)] .................... 280,171

(A) From Table VIa above.

(B) Non-Creditable Emission Reductions include: Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Emission Reduction = 160,055 PPD; Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program = 32,554 PPD (these

emission reductions were taken from the

spreadsheet data submitted by IDEM to support the post-1999 ROP plan); and Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) Restrictions = 728 PPD.

(E) This is the difference between the 1996

and 1999 FMVCP emission reductions. Note

that IDEM does not include this factor in their

calculation of the 1999 target emission level.

(F) From Table VIa above.

Comparing the State’s derived 1999

VOC emissions target level (285,036

PPD) and the 1999 VOC target emissions

level given in Table VIb, it can be seen

that IDEM and EPA do not arrive at the

same 1999 emissions target level. As

noted above, this difference is due to

our inclusion of a fleet turnover

correction factor in the calculation of

the 1999 target emissions level. This

difference is reflected in the calculation

of 2002, 2005, and 2007 VOC emission

target levels summarized below, where

we compare Indiana’s calculation of

emission reduction targets and required

emission reduction levels with our

calculation of the emission reduction

targets and required emission reduction

levels.

I. How Were the Post-1999 Emission

Targets and Emission Reduction

Requirements Calculated?

Tables VIIa, VIIb, and VIIc summarize

the calculation of the 2002, 2005, and

2007 VOC emission reduction targets

and the VOC emission reductions

required to meet ROP requirements in

each of these milestone years. Both the

State’s calculations and our calculations

are presented. We present our

calculations in a side-by-side

comparison to facilitate assessment of

the State’s ROP plan.

TABLE VIIA.—CALCULATION OF THE 2002 VOC EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET AND EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENT

[VOC emissions in pounds per day]

VOC emission parameter Indiana emissions estimate

EPA emissions estimate

1990 ROP Baseline Emissions (A) .......................................................................................................................... 529,518 529,518

1990–2002 Non-Creditable Emission Reductions (B) ............................................................................................. 176,950 176,950

1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions (A)¥(B) ......................................................................................................... 352,568 352,5689

Percent of Adjusted Base Year Emissions (C) ........................................................................................................ 31,731 31,731

FMVCP Fleet Turnover Correction (D) .................................................................................................................... 0 8,585

1999 Emissions Target Level (E) ............................................................................................................................. 285,036 280,171

2002 Emissions Target Level (F) [(E)¥(C)¥(D)] ...................................................................................................... 253,305 239,855

Projected 2002 Emissions (G) ................................................................................................................................. 248,413 248,413

VOC Emission Reduction Needed to Achieve ROP (H) [(G)¥(F)] .......................................................................... (4,892) 8,558

(A) From Table VIa.

(B) Non-Creditable Emission Reductions include: Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Emission Reduction = 135,083 PPD; Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program = 41,139 PPD; and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Restrictions = 728 PPD. All data taken from Appendix F of Indiana’s December

21, 2000 submittal.

(D) This is the difference between the 1999 and 2002 FMVCP emission reductions.

(E) The State’s estimate is taken from Appendix F of the December 21, 2000 submittal. EPA’s estimate is taken from Table VIb of this proposed rule.

(G) From Appendix F of the State’s December 21, 2000 submittal.

(H) Emissions in parentheses, (), indicate projected emissions below the ROP emission target levels.

TABLE VIIB.—CALCULATION OF THE 2005 VOC EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET AND EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENT

[VOC emissions in pounds per day]

VOC emission parameter Indiana emissions estimate

EPA emissions estimate

1990 ROP Baseline Emissions (A) .......................................................................................................................... 529,518 529,518

1990–2005 Non-Creditable Emission Reductions (B) .............................................................................................. 179,980 179,980

1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions (A¥B) ............................................................................................................ 349,538 349,538

9 Percent of Adjusted Base Year Emissions (C) ..................................................................................................... 31,458 31,458

FMVCP Fleet Turnover Correction (D) ..................................................................................................................... 0 1,653

2002 Emissions Target Level (E) ............................................................................................................................. 253,305 239,855

2005 Emissions Target Level (F) [ E¥C¥D] ............................................................................................................. (I) 221,846 206,744

40820 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VIIB.—CALCULATION OF THE 2005 VOC EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET AND EMISSION REDUCTION

REQUIREMENT—Continued

[VOC emissions in pounds per day]

VOC emission parameter Indiana emissions estimate

EPA emissions estimate

Projected 2002 Emissions (G) .................................................................................................................................. 203,508 203,508

VOC Emission Reduction Needed to Achieve ROP (H) [ G¥F] ............................................................................... (18,338) (3,236)

(A) From Table VIa.

(B) Non-Creditable Emission Reductions include: Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Emission Reduction = 136,460 PPD; Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program = 42,792 PPD; and Reid Vapor Pressure Restrictions = 728 PPD. All data taken from Appendix F of Indiana’s December 21,

2000 submittal.

(D) This is the difference between the 2002 and 2005 FMVCP emission reductions.

(E) The State’s estimate is taken from Appendix F of the December 21, 2000 submittal. EPA’s estimate is taken from Table VIIa of this proposed rule.

(G) From Appendix F of the State’s December 21, 2000 submittal.

(H) Values in parentheses, (), indicate projected emissions below the ROP emissions target levels.

(I) This value is taken from Appendix F of the State’s December 21, 2000 submittal. The value we would calculate given the input data documented here would be 221,847 PPD, slightly different from the State’s documented value. Rounding differences can explain this small difference.

TABLE VIIC.—CALCULATION OF THE 2007 VOC EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET AND EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENT

[VOC emissions in pounds per day]

VOC emission parameter Indiana emissions estimate

EPA emissions estimate

1990 ROP Baseline Emissions (A) .......................................................................................................................... 529,518 529,518

1990–2007 Non-Creditable Emission Reductions (B) ............................................................................................. 181,015 181,015

1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions (A)¥(B) ......................................................................................................... 348,503 348,503

6 Percent of Adjusted Base Year Emissions (C) ..................................................................................................... 20,910 20,910

FMVCP Fleet Turnover Correction (D) .................................................................................................................... 0 117

2005 Emissions Target Level (E) ............................................................................................................................. 221,846 206,744

2007 Emissions Target Level (F) [(E)¥(C)¥(D)] ...................................................................................................... 200,936 185,717

Projected 2007 Emissions (G) ................................................................................................................................. 197,759 197,759

VOC Emission Reduction Needed to Achieve ROP (H) [(G)¥(F)] .......................................................................... (3,177) 12,042

(A) From Table VIa.

(B) Non-Creditable Emission Reductions include: Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Emission Reduction = 137,378 PPD; Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program = 42,909 PPD; and Reid Vapor Pressure Restrictions = 728 PPD. All data taken from Appendix F of Indiana’s December 21,

2000 submittal.

(D) This is the difference between the 2005 and 2007 FMVCP emission reductions.

(E) The State’s estimate is taken from Appendix F of the December 21, 2000 submittal. EPA’s estimate is taken from Table VIIb of this proposed rule.

(G) From Appendix F of the State’s December 21, 2000 submittal.

(H) Emissions in parentheses, (), indicate projected emissions below the emissions target level.

The data in Tables VIIa through VIIc

indicate that the State and EPA arrive at

different emission target levels and

different ROP emission reduction

requirements. This is due to one factor,

the difference in the approaches of

IDEM and EPA with regard to the

consideration of a fleet turnover

correction factor. We believe that this

correction factor is needed to fully

remove the non-creditable impacts of

the FMVCP as required by section

182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA. Application of

the FMVCP fleet turnover correction

factor, as noted above, is discussed in

EPA’s January 1994 ‘‘Guidance on the

Post-1996 Rate-Of-Progress Plan and the

Attainment Demonstration’’ (EPA–452/

R–93–015). As indicated below,

however, EPA has determined that the

differences between IDEM’s and EPA’s

approaches to the consideration of this

correction factor does not cause

sufficient differences in our ROP

calculations to cause us to propose

disapproval of Indiana’s post-1999 ROP

plan. Even when the fleet turnover

correction factor is considered,

Indiana’s plan provides for sufficient

VOC emission reductions to achieve the

required ROP through the attainment

year.

J. What Are the Criteria for Acceptable

ROP Emission Control Strategies?

Under section 182(b)(1)(C) of the

CAA, emission reductions claimed for

ROP are creditable to the extent that the

emission reductions have actually

occurred before the applicable ROP

milestone dates. The CAA requires that

to be creditable, emission reductions

must be real, permanent, and

enforceable. At a minimum, the

emission reduction calculation methods

should follow the following four

principles: (1) Emission reductions from

control measures must be quantifiable;

(2) control measures must be

enforceable; (3) interpretation of the

control measures must be replicable;

and (4) control measures must be

accountable (see 57 FR 13567). Post1996 plans must also adequately

document the methods used to calculate

the emission reduction for each

emission control measure.

Section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA

places limits on what emission control

measures states can include in ROP

plans. All permanent and enforceable

control measures occurring after 1990

are creditable with the following

exceptions: (1) FMVCP reductions due

to requirements promulgated by January

1, 1990; (2) RVP reductions due to RVP

regulations promulgated by November

15, 1990; (3) emission reductions

resulting from Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) ‘‘Fix-Up’’

regulations required under section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA; and (4)

emission reductions resulting from

vehicle I/M program ‘‘Fix-Ups’’ as

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40821

required under section 182(a)(2)(B) of

the CAA.

K. What Are the Emission Control

Measures In Indiana’s Post-1999 ROP

Plan?

VOC Emission Control Measures

Table VIII specifies the VOC emission

control measures relied on in the post1999 ROP plan and their associated

VOC emission reductions for each

milestone year as calculated by IDEM.

TABLE VIII.—NORTHWEST INDIANA VOC EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES

[Emission reductions in pounds per day]

VOC control measure

Emission reduction level—PPD

2002 2005 2007

Mobile Source Measures: .................... .................... ....................

Federal Non-Road Engine Standards .............................................................................................. 1,711 3,477 2,394

Point Source Measures: .................... .................... ....................

Petroleum Refineries National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) ......... .................... .................... 5,198

Sinter Plant Rule (State Rule 326 IAC 8–13) .................................................................................. 37,920 .................... ....................

US Steel Agreed Order—Supplementary Environmental Project .................................................... .................... .................... 905

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage RACT (State Rule 326 IAC 8–9) .................................................. .................... .................... 2,653

Cold Cleaner Degreasing (State Rule 326 IAC 8–3) ....................................................................... .................... .................... 24 4,769

Area Source Measures: .................... .................... ....................

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (State Rules 326 IAC 8–8 and 326 IAC 8–8.1) .............................. 1,365 .................... ....................

Commercial/Consumer Solvent Reformulation ................................................................................ .................... .................... 2,210

Total Creditable VOC Emission Reductions ............................................................................. 40,996 3,477 25 18,129

24See the discussions below concerning EPA’s calculation of the VOC emission reduction for the Cold Cleaning Degreasing rule. EPA calculates a VOC emission reduction of 3,661 pounds/day for this source category. 25With EPA’s correction to the emission reduction estimate for Cold Cleaning Degreasing, this total VOC emission reduction estimate would be

decreased to 17,021 pounds/day.

The following summarizes the

emission controls and the associated

emission reduction calculation

procedures documented in Indiana’s

Post-1999 ROP Plan. In most cases,

milestone year emission reductions

were determined by comparing

projected uncontrolled emissions with

projected controlled emissions for each

controlled source category.

Federal Non-Road Engine Standards

These standards are federally required

for all small non-road, spark-ignited

engines, including 2-stroke, 4-stroke,

and diesel engines. Indiana calculated

emission reductions according to EPA

guidance. The calculated emission

reductions consider the impacts of fuel

standards as well as the federal

emission standards. To calculate the

emission reduction, Indiana used EPA

guidance to apply a percentage emission

reduction per equipment type. The

emission control is cumulative,

providing additional emission reduction

each milestone period as older

equipment is replaced by new,

compliant equipment.

Sinter Plant Rule

This rule (326 IAC 8–13) applies to

sintering processes that exist as of the

effective date of the rule at integrated

and steel manufacturing facilities in

Lake and Porter Counties. The rule sets

an emission limit of 0.12 pounds VOC

per ton of sinter produced during the

summer months (May through

September), unless a source owner or

manager can demonstrate that this level

of emissions control is not reasonably

available. If it is determined that this

emission level is infeasible for a

particular source, then a VOC emission

level resulting from the product of 0.25

pounds VOC per ton of sinter and a

daily production rate must be achieved.

The production rate must be based on

the 1990 through 1994 average

production rate or on an alternative,

more representative production rate.

The emission limit for the rest of the

year (October through April) has been

set at 0.36 pounds VOC per ton of sinter.

The calculated emission reduction

level was based on the less stringent of

the control options. The calculated

emission reduction also reflects the fact

that a limit on production is instituted

when the higher emissions limit is

approved by the State. This provides a

cap on throughput.

The Sinter Plant Rule was approved

by the EPA on July 5, 2000 (65 FR

41350).

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

This rule (326 IAC 8–8) is based on

the federal New Source Performance

Standards for new and existing

municipal solid waste landfills with a

design capacity equal to or greater than

2.5 million megagrams and that emit

equal to or more than 50 megagrams per

year (55 tons per year) of non-methane

organic compounds. The State rule also

applies to new and existing solid waste

landfills with design capacities greater

than or equal to 100,000 megagrams of

solid waste and that emit more than 50

megagrams per year (55 tons per year)

of non-methane organic compounds.

Indiana calculated the emission

reduction based on an emission

destruction efficiency of 98 percent and

a collection efficiency ranging from 50

to 60 percent, yielding an overall VOC

emission control efficiency of 49 to 59

percent. A rule effectiveness factor of 80

percent is also used in the calculation

of the emission reduction level.

EPA approved this rule on March 28,

2000 (65 FR 16323).

Commercial/Consumer Solvent

Reformulation

This is a federal rule (‘‘National

Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Consumer Products,’’ 40

CFR part 59, subpart C). The VOC

emission reduction was calculated using

available EPA guidance. The total

emission reduction was calculated by

assuming emission reduction levels for

each of several controlled product

categories and for each consumer

production classification in Indiana’s

Area Source Inventory.

40822 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

26 Indiana based this emission reduction estimate

on EPA guidance existing as of 1990. EPA’s

estimate presented here is based on subsequent

guidance.

Petroleum Refineries NESHAP

The federal petroleum refineries

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)

applies to all existing and new

petroleum refineries. The rule requires

control of air toxics (including some

VOC) from miscellaneous process vents,

equipment leaks, storage vessels, and

wastewater collection and treatment

systems.

Indiana calculated the emission

reductions according to EPA guidance.

Indiana’s Post-1999 ROP Plan

documents the assumptions made for

each controlled petroleum refinery

source type.

U.S. Steel Agreed Order—

Supplementary Environmental Project

Under a March 22, 1996 agreed order

between Indiana and U.S. Steel, VOC

controls are to be achieved through a

supplementary environmental project to

be performed by U.S. Steel for the coke

quenching operations at the Gary

Works. (The supplementary

environmental project is specified in

section 3 (‘‘Clean Water Coke Quench

Project’’) of Exhibit E in the March 22,

1996 agreed order.) Based on this

supplemental environmental project

portion of the agreed order, U.S. Steel

established a new process water

treatment plant at the Gary Works coke

plant. This water treatment plant uses a

biotreatment process based on an

innovative Integral Activated Sludge

System comprised of two 2.14 million

gallon tanks operated in parallel, each

containing an anoxic zone, aerobic zone,

and an integral clarifier system. The

water treatment plant uses oil/tar

separation tanks, skimmers,

equalization tanks, and an ammonia still

to treat the water before it is sent to the

Integral Activated Sludge System and

on to the quenching system. The

removal of the oils, tars, and ammonia

will remove nearly all of the VOC found

in the pre-treated water, minimizing the

VOC release from coke quenching,

reducing the VOC emissions by an

estimated 905 pounds/day. This is just

one of the supplementary projects being

performed by U.S. Steel to fulfill the

requirements of the agreed order.

IDEM submitted the agreed order to

the EPA to support the ozone attainment

demonstration. We are proposing to

incorporate section 3 (‘‘Clean Water

Coke Quench Project’’) of Exhibit E of

this agreed order into the SIP, making it

federally enforceable. We are not

proposing to take action on other

portions of the agreed order for the

purposes of this proposed rule.

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage RACT

The State adopted this rule (326 IAC

8–9) on May 3, 1995. Compliance was

phased in, with the majority of the

requirements applicable by May 1, 1999.

The rule applies to storage vessels with

a capacity greater than 39,000 gallons

that are used to store volatile organic

liquids with a maximum true vapor

pressure of 1.52 pounds per square inch

or greater. The rule requires the use of

an internal floating roof with vapormounted primary and secondary seals

and controlled fittings on fixed roof and

internal floating roof tanks. For external

floating roof tanks, the rule requires the

replacement of vapor-mounted seals

with liquid mounted seals or shoes and

installation of secondary seals with

controlled fittings. The compliance date

for this rule for external floating roof

and fixed roof tanks was May 1, 1996.

Internal floating roof tanks had up until

10 years after this date to achieve

compliance with this rule. IDEM

estimates that this rule will result in a

VOC emissions reduction of 2,653

pounds/day by 2007.

The following information was taken

into consideration to calculate the VOC

emission reduction for this rule. The

VOC emission reduction for fixed roof

tanks is estimated to be 96 percent. For

internal floating roof tanks, the VOC

emission reduction is expected to be 29

percent. The expected VOC emission

reduction for external floating roof tanks

is unknown because no data is available

that can be used to determine the

number of tanks in each vapor pressure

range by seal type, but a 50 to 80

percent VOC emission reduction could

be expected depending on the capacity

and baseline control status of the tanks.

The State assumed a 50 percent

emission reduction coupled with an 80

percent rule effectiveness (assumed rule

effectiveness for all tank types).

EPA approved the Volatile Organic

Liquid Storage RACT Rule on January

17, 1997 (62 FR 2593).

Cold Cleaner Degreasing

The State adopted this rule (326 IAC

8–3–8) in November 1998. Compliance

was phased in, with the majority of the

requirements applicable by March 2001.

This rule applies to processes that use

a solvent to remove grease, oil, or dirt

from the surface of a part prior to

surface coating or welding. In cold

cleaning, a part to be cleaned is dipped

into or sprayed with a solvent. Sources

that commonly have cold cleaning

degreasing units include auto repair

shops and other industries. The rule

reduces the VOC emissions from cold

cleaning degreasers by establishing a

vapor pressure limit for the solvents.

Suppliers are required to provide a low

vapor pressure solvent to users in the

affected counties and to keep

transaction records. Users are required

to use only low vapor solvents and to

keep records of their solvent purchases.

IDEM estimates that this rule results

in a 67 percent reduction of VOC

emissions for this source category.

IDEM’s documentation calculates that

this rule provides for a VOC emission

reduction of 4,769 pounds/day in the

Northwest Indiana area.26 EPA,

however, is only crediting Indiana with

a VOC emission reduction of 3,661

pounds/day. This calculation revision is

based on the fact that perchloroethylene

(perc), which is a solvent used in some

cold cleaner degreasing units, has been

determined to be negligibly reactive,

and, therefore, delisted as a VOC.

Pursuant to a May 13, 1993

memorandum from the EPA’s Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards to

EPA’s Regional Branch Chiefs on

‘‘Perchloroethylene Emissions from

Degreasing,’’ perc makes up 23 percent

of the solvent used in degreasing

operations. The projected 2007 VOC

emissions from cold cleaning degreaser

operations is 7,097 pounds/day. To

account for the adjustment to remove

the perc emissions, this emissions level

is decreased to 5,465 pounds/day (a 23

percent reduction from the 7,097

pounds/day emissions level). The 67

percent emissions reduction due to the

Cold Cleaner Degreaser rule is then

calculated to be 3,661 pounds/day.

The EPA proposed to approve this

rule on June 7, 2001 (66 FR 30656).

Final action on this rule must be

completed before the EPA takes final

action on the State’s ROP plan.

L. Are the Emission Control Measures

and Calculated Emission Reductions

Acceptable to the EPA?

We find the estimated emission

reduction estimates to be acceptable for

all reduction categories. The emission

reduction estimates have been

adequately documented. Finally, the

emission reduction estimates are

supported by State rules, which will be

fully approved before we give final

approval to the ROP plan, a State agreed

order, which we are proposing to

incorporate by reference into the SIP

making it federally enforceable, and by

federal emission control requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40823

27The ROP contingency requirement is 3 percent

of the 1990 adjusted base year VOC emissions.

Indiana has chosen to implement sufficient

emission controls to pre-implement (prior to being

triggered by emission reduction shortfalls) the

contingency emission reduction for each of the

milestone years.

28 3 percent of 1990 adjusted base year emissions.

The 1990 adjusted base year emissions are specific

to each milestone year as noted in Tables VIIa

through VIIc of the proposed rule.

29See Table VIII of this proposed rule.

M. Are the Planned Emissions

Reductions Adequate To Meet the ROP

Emission Reduction Requirements,

Including ROP Contingency Measure

Requirements?

The State, in Appendix F of the

December 21, 2000 submittal,

documents that the VOC emissions

reductions resulting from the selected

ROP emission control measures will be

sufficient to meet the ROP emission

reduction requirements for 2002, 2005,

and 2007, including meeting the

contingency requirements 27 for each

milestone year.

As noted above, we have calculated

ROP emissions reduction requirements

differing from those calculated by IDEM.

The question is now whether the

emission reductions planned by Indiana

are sufficient to meet the emission

reduction requirements we have

calculated. Table IX presents a

comparison of our calculated emission

reduction requirements and the

emission reductions expected to occur

in each ROP milestone period (during

each 3 year period between milestone

years) or by each milestone year. In this

table, we have also included the VOC

emission reductions needed to meet the

contingency requirement to test whether

Indiana’s ROP plan would actually meet

the contingency requirement through

the implementation of emission controls

prior to each milestone year.

TABLE IX.—COMPARISON OF PLANNED VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND ROP AND CONTINGENCY MEASURE EMISSION

REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS (AS DETERMINED BY EPA) FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

[VOC emissions in pounds per day]

Milestone year

ROP required

VOC emission

reduction

Contingency

emission reduction needed 28

Total creditable emission

reductions 29

Emission reduction shortfall (A)

2002 ................................................................................................................. 8,558 10,577 40,996 (21,861)

2005 ................................................................................................................. (3,236) 10,486 3,477 (28,665)

2007 ................................................................................................................. 12,042 10,455 17,021 (33,675)

(A) Values in parentheses, ( ), indicate that the creditable emission reductions exceed the sum of the ROP required VOC emission reduction

and the contingency emission reduction needed for a given milestone year. Excess emission reductions are credited against emission reduction

requirements for succeeding milestone years.

From Table IX, you can see that the

Northwest Indiana area will have

sufficient VOC emission reductions to

achieve the ROP emission reduction

requirements for each of the milestone

years. In addition, by each milestone

year, sufficient VOC emission

reductions will be achieved to provide

for the 3 percent contingency emission

reduction needs. Therefore, the ROP

plan meets the calculated emission

requirements of both the State and EPA.

The ROP plan provides sufficient VOC

emission reductions to meet all ROP

requirements.

N. How Does the ROP Plan Affect

Outstanding Plan Requirements for

Contingency Measures on the 15-Percent

ROP Plan and the Post-1996 9-Percent

ROP Plan?

As noted in the final rulemaking for

15 percent ROP plan (62 FR 38457, July

18, 1997) and the final rulemaking for

the post-1996 ROP plan (65 FR 4126,

January 26, 2000), the EPA did not

approve the contingency plans related

to those ROP plans. Technically, the

State is still obligated to meet these

planning requirements or to

demonstrate the adequacy of the 15

percent ROP plan and the post-1996

ROP plan for meeting the 1996 and 1999

emission targets (274,553 PPD [1996]

and 292,021 PPD [1999] as defined in

the final rules, versus 309,993 PPD

[1996] and 275,798 [1999] based on the

revised 1990 base year emissions, as

discussed above).

The contingency plans for the 1996

and 1999 milestone years would have to

have provided for contingency measures

yielding a total VOC emission reduction

with a maximum of 10,940 PPD. Table

IX shows that the VOC emission

reductions expected to result from the

current ROP plan exceed the current

ROP requirements by an amount greater

than this maximum contingency

requirement. The current ROP plan is

adequate to also cover these prior

contingency requirements. We,

therefore, conclude that this ROP plan

meets all outstanding contingency plan

requirements, and that the State has met

all contingency planning requirements

through the current time. It is not

necessary for the State to revisit the

contingency plans for the 15 percent

ROP plan and the post-1996 ROP plan.

We propose to approve those

contingency plans as effectively being

met by the current ROP and contingency

plans.

V. Contingency Measures Plan

A. What Are the Requirements for

Contingency Measures Under Section

172(c)(9) and Section 182(c)(9) of the

CAA?

Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the

CAA require SIPs to contain additional

measures that will take effect without

further action by a state or EPA if an

area fails to meet ROP requirements or

attain the standard by the applicable

date. The CAA does not specify how

many contingency measures are needed

or the magnitude of emissions

reductions that must be provided by

these measures. However, EPA provided

guidance interpreting the control

measure requirements of the CAA

contingency requirements in the April

16, 1992, General Preamble for

Implementation of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. See 57 FR 13498,

13510. In that guidance, EPA indicated

that states with moderate and above

ozone nonattainment areas should

include sufficient contingency measures

so that, upon implementation of such

measures, additional emissions

reductions of up to 3 percent of the

emissions in the adjusted base year

inventory (or such lesser percentage that

will cure the identified failure) would

be achieved in the year following the

40824 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

year in which the failure has been

identified. States must show that their

contingency measures can be

implemented with minimal further

action on their part and with no

additional rulemaking actions, such as

public hearings or legislative reviews.

The additional 3 percent emission

reduction would ensure that progress

toward attainment occurs at a rate

similar to that specified under the ROP

requirements for severe areas (i.e., 3

percent emission reduction on average

per year) and that the State will achieve

these emission reductions while

conducting additional control measure

development and implementation as

necessary to achieve the ozone standard.

EPA has determined that federal

measures can be considered to analyze

whether the contingency measure

requirements have been met. While

these measures are not SIP-approved

contingency measures which would

apply if an area fails to attain, EPA

believes that existing federally

enforceable measures that are achieving

emission reductions during the relevant

period can be used to provide the

necessary substantive relief. Therefore,

federal measures may be used in the

analysis, to the extent that the

attainment demonstration does not

otherwise rely on them or take credit for

them. (See, e.g., 66 FR 586, 615 (January

3, 2001).)

B. How Do the Northwest Indiana

Attainment Demonstration and ROP SIP

Address the Contingency Measure

Requirements?

The CAA contingency measure

requirements require states to have

contingency measures for the ROP plan

and for the attainment demonstration.

Since the measures are required to take

effect without further action by the state

or EPA if an area fails to meet the

applicable requirement, there are

slightly different considerations that

apply to contingency measures for ROP

plans and for the attainment

demonstration.

Contingency Measures for the ROP

Plans

Measures used to meet the

contingency requirement for ROP plans

have to take effect without further

action in a reasonable time-frame. As

noted above in the discussion of

Indiana’s post-1999 ROP plan, Indiana

simply added the VOC emission

reduction that would be required for

contingency measures to the ROP

emission reduction requirement for each

milestone year. The State then

identified total creditable reductions

that will be implemented by each

milestone year, fulfilling both the core

ROP plan requirements and the

contingency requirement (See ROP

approval section of this notice). For

example, in the 2002 rate of progress

plan, the reduction requirement for the

9 percent ROP is ¥4,892 pounds/day.

(Excess reductions from previous ROP

plans provided for lower 2002 estimated

emissions than the target level.) The

contingency requirement is 10,577

pounds VOC/day. Indiana calculated

the total required reduction of 5,685

pounds/day (10,577¥4,892). Indiana

identified 40,996 pounds/day of

reductions in VOC emissions that would

be implemented by 2002, thus fulfilling

the ROP and contingency measure

requirements. Likewise, contingency

measure reductions were calculated for

the 2005 and 2007 milestone years and

were met with measures that will have

been implemented prior to the last year

of each ROP period (prior to November

15, 2005 and prior to November 15,

2007). These contingency measures

adequately fulfill the ROP contingency

requirements for Northwest Indiana.

However, to the extent that some of

emission control measures were

included in the modeled attainment

demonstration emission control

strategy, they cannot all be used as

attainment demonstration contingency

measures. They are not in ‘‘excess’’ of

the emission control measures needed

to demonstrate attainment.

Contingency Measures for the

Attainment Demonstration

Calculation of Indiana’s total 1990

adjusted base year inventory for VOC

emissions for the nonattainment area is

detailed in EPA’s July 18, 1997 (62 FR

38457) approval of the 15 percent ROP

plan and in Indiana 15 percent ROP

plan submittal and subsequent ROP

submittals. Indiana’s 1990 adjusted base

year inventory of VOC emissions for

2007 for the Northwest Indiana

nonattainment area is 348,503 pounds

per day (lb/day). Per EPA’s guidance,

Indiana’s contingency measures should

achieve VOC reductions equivalent to 3

percent of the adjusted base year

inventory, or 10,455 lb/day.

Indiana has identified surplus

emissions reductions that occur through

2009 that are available as contingency

measure reductions for the attainment

demonstration contingency

requirement. As provided above, these

contingency measure reductions are not

the same emission reductions as the

contingency measures relied on for the

ROP plans.

The total amount of VOC emission

reduction needed for Indiana to meet

the contingency measure requirement in

the Northwest Indiana area is 10,455 lb/

day. Indiana has demonstrated a VOC

emission reduction of 10,533 lb/day to

fulfill the requirement. The control

measures and the calculated reduction

are listed in the following table:

INDIANA ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

CONTINGENCY MEASURE REDUCTIONS

Control measure VOC reduction

(lb/day)

U.S. Steel Agreed Order—

Supplementary Environmental Project ................... 905

Volatile Organic Liquid (VOL)

Storage RACT ................... 2,653

Cold Cleaner Degreasing ..... 3,661

On-Board Diagnostics .......... 1,375

Mobile Source Emissions ..... 1,939

Total ........................... 10,533

The emission reductions indicated here

are those emission reductions resulting

from the noted emission controls but

which have not been claimed for

achieving ROP and were not included in

the modeled attainment demonstration.

Indiana relies on a number of State

and federal rules to serve as contingency

measures. The State measures have

already been implemented and include:

The U.S. Steel Agreed Order; the VOL

Storage RACT; and the Cold Cleaner

Degreasing rule. (We approved the VOL

Storage RACT on January 17, 1997 (62

FR 2593) and proposed to approve the

Cold Cleaner Degreasing rule on June 7,

2001 (66 FR 30656).) In addition, several

federal measures are relied upon which

achieve reductions in the 2007–2009

time-frame, including the On-Board

Diagnostics rule, and mobile source

measures from the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emissions Control Program.

Indiana documented the methodology

for the calculation of the emission

reductions, and this documentation is

available in the Docket. The measures

and the reduction calculations are

summarized here. More detail on these

emissions calculations is provided in

the Docket.

U.S. Steel Agreed Order—

Supplementary Environmental Project

As noted above, this project entails a

new water treatment plant which uses

oil/tar separation tanks, skimmers,

equalization tanks, and an ammonia still

to treat quench water before the water

is sent to an Integral Activated Sludge

System as part of a new coke plant

water treatment process. The expected

VOC emissions reductions from the

implementation of this supplementary

environmental project, which were not

credited toward the attainment

demonstration, are 905 lb/day.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40825

30The OBD test standards are federal

requirements, and, as such, do not necessitate the

approval of 326 IAC 13–1.1 by the EPA before the

OBD-based emissions reductions can be credited to

the Post-1999 ROP plan.

31As noted above, the State’s attainment

demonstration did include weight-of-evidence to

further bolster the validity of the ozone attainment

demonstration. In this case the weight-of-evidence

is viewed as a useful component of the ozone

attainment demonstration given the inherent

uncertainties of photochemical dispersion

modeling, such as that employed through the use

of the UAM.

VOL Storage RACT

As noted above in the discussion of

Indiana’s post-1999 ROP plan, IDEM has

calculated the VOC emissions reduction

for this control measure to be 2,653 lb/

day in 2007. This emission reduction

was not credited in the ozone

attainment demonstration, and,

therefore, can be credited toward the

contingency measure requirements.

Cold Cleaning Degreasing Rule

As noted above in the discussion of

Indiana’s post-1999 ROP plan, EPA is

only crediting Indiana with a VOC

emission reduction of 3,661 pounds/day

for this emissions control rule in 2007.

On-Board Diagnostics Test and Mobile

Source Emissions

The On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) test

standards have already been adopted by

Indiana in 326 IAC 13–1.1.30 The State

was to have begun OBD testing in its

inspection and maintenance program by

January 1, 2001. However, on March 28,

2001, the EPA Administrator signed a

final rulemaking to amend the vehicle

inspection and maintenance program

requirements to incorporate a check of

the OBDs system and to extend the date

that States need to comply until January

1, 2002. Implementation of this check in

the Northwest Indiana area will begin in

January 2002. Indiana estimated the

amount of VOC emissions reductions

resulting from OBD testing that will

occur in 2008 and 2009. The result of

this estimate, 1,375 pounds/day, is

listed in the table.

The reductions in mobile source

emissions represent the difference

between estimated mobile source

emissions for Lake and Porter Counties

in 2007 and those in 2009. This estimate

was made by applying the MOBILE5bproduced VOC ‘‘All Vehicle’’ emission

factors for 2007 and 2009 to the

projected average summer weekday

VMT for the respective years, specific to

Lake and Porter Counties. The average

speed (37.0) and VMT projections used

in this calculation were derived from

the Northwestern Indiana Regional

Planning Commission’s travel demand

model. The 2007 and 2009 emission

factors were produced by using the

same standard MOBILE5b inputs that

were used for the attainment

demonstration. Based on these

calculations, the projected emission

reduction from the mobile source

contingency measures is 1,939 lb/day.

These reductions meet the criteria for

reductions to be used as contingency

measures for the attainment

demonstration. The measures are

already adopted for implementation and

will provide for specific emission

control measures after 2007 if the area

fails to attain the ozone standard. The

measures will take effect without any

further action by the State or by the EPA

Administrator. Since the emission

reductions will occur subsequent to

November 15, 2007, the reductions are

surplus to the attainment demonstration

and were not modeled in the attainment

demonstration. Therefore, the EPA

proposes to approve these measures as

contingency measures for the Northwest

Indiana ozone attainment

demonstration.

C. Do the Northwest Indiana Attainment

Demonstration and ROP Plans Meet the

Contingency Measure Requirement?

Indiana has identified contingency

measures which will provide for a 3

percent reduction in VOC emissions

from the 1990 adjusted base year

inventory, as required by section

172(c)(9)and section 182(c)(9) of the

CAA appropriately to provide

approvable contingency plans for both

the attainment demonstration and the

ROP plans. Indiana identified excess

(excess to the requirements of ROP)

emission reductions sufficient to meet

the contingency requirement for the

Post-1999 ROP plan for each of the

milestone years. Indiana, however, did

not specify which reductions were

considered for contingency purposes.

Rather, Indiana added the 3 percent

required contingency (approximately

10,500 tons/day) emission reduction to

the ROP requirements for each

milestone year and then identified

creditable reductions, that were being

implemented before the last year of each

milestone period to fulfill the

requirement. This same set of emissions

control measures, however, could not be

used to fulfill the attainment

demonstration requirement since some

of the measures were not excess to the

emission reductions modeled in the

attainment demonstration. Indiana filled

this 10,455 lb/day gap by identifying

excess emissions reductions occurring

subsequent to November 15, 2007 that

were not needed for ROP and that had

not been modeled in the attainment

demonstration, which only included

emission reductions through November

15, 2007.

The only remaining question or issue

is the timing of the post-2007 emission

reductions. As noted above, the General

Preamble indicates that the contingency

measure emission reductions should be

achieved in the year following the year

in which the attainment failure has been

identified. For the Northwest Indiana

area, the attainment date is November

15, 2007. Therefore, the critical

attainment ozone season is April

through October of 2007 (the last ozone

season prior to the attainment date).

Following this ozone season, it will take

the State of Indiana and other States in

the Northwest Indiana downwind

environs several months to review and

quality assure the 2007 ozone data. EPA

must then use these data to make the

determination of attainment, which can

take up to 6 months after the end of the

2007 ozone season. This means that the

determination of attainment will not

occur until sometime in 2008.

Therefore, 2009 is the ‘‘year following

the year’’ in which EPA is expected to

make the determination of attainment,

and Indiana can take credit for any

emission controls implemented between

2007 and 2009.

VI. Mid-Course Review Commitment

A. Did Indiana Submit a Mid-Course

Review Commitment?

Indiana has submitted a MCR

commitment. Although Indiana does not

rely on weight-of-evidence in the final

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration,

Indiana has submitted a MCR

commitment letter. In the December 16,

1999 proposed rulemaking, the EPA

provided for Indiana to submit a MCR

commitment letter because the 1-hour

ozone attainment demonstration

submitted in 1998 had modeling which

relied on weight-of-evidence. The most

recent modeling submitted in the

attainment demonstration SIP does not

rely on weight-of-evidence to

demonstrate attainment.31 EPA’s June

1996 guidance also recommends a midcourse review for severe and extreme

areas due to the uncertainty of

emissions projections that extend out

for a number of years in the future. The

MCR is a good check on whether the

projected emissions reductions are

occurring and whether progress is being

made toward attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard. Indiana and the other

Lake Michigan States have submitted

letters of commitment to complete the

MCR.

Indiana submitted a letter dated

February 21, 2000, which contained a

40826 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

32 ‘‘Criteria and Procedures for Determining

Conformity to State or Federal Implementation

Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C.

or the Federal Transit Act,’’ as amended August 15,

1997 (62 FR 43780).

33 ‘‘Determining Conformity of General Federal

Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans;

Final Rule,’’ November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214).

34Prior to the approval of an ozone attainment

demonstration or a ROP plan, an ozone

nonattainment area granted a NOX waiver may be

exempted from the conformity requirements for

build/no-build test and a less-than-1990 emissions

test. After an attainment demonstration or a ROP

plan containing motor vehicle emissions budgets is

approved and the emissions budgets are found to

be adequate by the EPA, conformity determinations

must be conducted using the motor vehicle

emissions budgets and the NOX waiver no longer

applies for conformity purposes.

commitment to complete a mid-course

review. The letter and other documents

were discussed at a public hearing on

November 15, 2000. This commitment

provided that Indiana would perform

the MCR within 2 years after the

implementation of the statewide NOX

emission controls. More recently,

Indiana has submitted a letter dated

June 4, 2001 in which Indiana commits

to submit the mid-course review by

December 31, 2004, the date

recommended by EPA.

VII. NOX Waiver

A. What Is the History of the NOX

Emissions Control Waiver in the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County Ozone

Nonattainment Area?

Part D of the CAA establishes the SIP

requirements for nonattainment areas.

Subpart 2, part D of the CAA establishes

additional provisions for ozone

nonattainment areas. Section 182(b)(2)

of this subpart requires the application

of RACT regulations for major stationary

VOC sources located in moderate and

above ozone nonattainment areas as

well as in ozone transport regions.

States with affected areas were required

to submit RACT regulations by

November 15, 1992. Section 182(a)(2)(C)

requires the application of NSR

regulations for major new or modified

VOC sources located in marginal and

above ozone nonattainment areas as

well as in ozone transport regions.

States were required to adopt revised

NSR regulations by November 15, 1992.

Section 182(f) requires States to apply

the same requirements to major

stationary sources of NOX as apply to

major stationary sources of VOC.

Therefore, the RACT and NSR

requirements also apply to major

stationary sources of NOX in ozone

nonattainment areas and in ozone

transport regions (the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area

is not part of an ozone transport region).

The section 182(f) requirements are

discussed in detail in EPA’s ‘‘State

Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides

Supplement to the General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57

FR 55628, November 25, 1992). For

ozone nonattainment areas located

outside of an ozone transport region, the

NOX emission control requirements do

not apply to NOX sources if: (1) The

EPA determines that net air quality

benefits are greater in the absence of

NOX emission reductions; or (2) the EPA

determines that additional reductions of

NOX emissions would not contribute to

attainment of the ozone standard in the

area. Where any one of these tests is met

(even if the other test is failed), the NOX

RACT and NSR requirements of section

182(f) would not apply and may be

‘‘waived.’’ See section 182(f)(1). In

addition, under section 182(f)(2) of the

CAA, if the EPA determines that excess

reductions in NOX emissions would be

achieved under section 182(f)(1) of the

CAA, the EPA may limit the application

of section 182(f)(1) to the extent

necessary to avoid achieving such

excess emission reductions.

In addition to determining the

applicability of NOX requirements for

RACT and NSR, the section 182(f)

waiver process may also determine the

applicability of certain requirements

applicable to NOX under the CAA’s

mobile source transportation and

general conformity requirements, which

assure conformity of federal and state

transportation programs and projects to

approved SIPs. The general and

transportation conformity requirements

are found at section 176(c) of the CAA.

The conformity requirements apply on

an area-wide basis in all ozone

nonattainment areas. The EPA’s

transportation conformity final rule 32

and general conformity rule 33 reference

the section 182(f) exemption process as

a means for exempting an affected area

from certain NOX conformity

requirements. The approval of a section

182(f) exemption petition in favor of a

NOX waiver results in the exemption of

marginal and above ozone

nonattainment areas from the emission

reduction tests 34 with respect to NOX

under the transportation and general

conformity requirements of the CAA.

See EPA’s May 27, 1994 memorandum

entitled ‘‘Section 812(f) Nitrogen Oxides

(NOX) Exemptions-Revised Process and

Criteria,’’ from John Seitz, Director of

the Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. However, once NOX

emission budgets are established under

attainment demonstrations and ROP

plans, areas must meet the NOX

emission budgets notwithstanding the

existence of NOX waivers.

Similarly, under the I/M program

final rule (57 FR 52950), November 5,

1992, the section 182(f) petition is also

referenced to determine applicability of

I/M-based NOX emission reductions (I/

M NOX emission cut-points). The I/M

requirements for serious and above

ozone nonattainment areas are found at

section 182(c)(3) of the CAA. Basic I/M

testing programs must be designed such

that no increase in NOX emissions occur

as a result of the programs. So long as

this is done, if a NOX waiver petition is

granted to an area required to

implement a basic I/M program, the

basic I/M NOX emission cut-points may

be omitted. Enhanced I/M testing

programs must be designed to reduce

NOX emissions consistent with an

enhanced I/M performance standard. If

a NOX waiver petition is granted to an

area required to implement an enhanced

I/M program, the NOX emission

reduction is not required, but the

enhanced I/M program must be

designed to offset NOX emission

increases resulting from the repair of

vehicles due to hydrocarbon or carbon

monoxide emission failures detected

through the I/M program.

As part of a July 13, 1994 submittal

from LADCO, the States of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin

petitioned the EPA for a waiver of the

NOX emission requirements of section

182(f) of the CAA and for a waiver of

above-described NOX emission control

requirements for conformity and basic

and enhanced I/M in the ozone

nonattainment areas in the Lake

Michigan ozone modeling domain (this

includes the Chicago-Gary-Lake County

ozone nonattainment area). The EPA

reviewed this petition in proposed

rulemaking on March 6, 1995 (60 FR

12180) and in final rulemaking on

January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428). The final

rulemaking approved the existing

waiver of RACT, NSR, and certain I/M

and general conformity NOX

requirements in the subject ozone

nonattainment areas. The EPA also

granted an exemption from certain

transportation conformity NOX

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas classified as marginal or

transitional within the Lake Michigan

ozone modeling domain on February 12,

1996 (61 FR 5291). These exemptions

were granted based on a data analysis/

modeling demonstration showing that

additional NOX emission reductions

either would not contribute to or would

interfere with attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard for ozone nonattainment

areas within the ozone modeling

domain.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40827

35At the time the NOX control exemption was

granted, the States had not completed the final

ozone attainment demonstrations for the Lake

Michigan ozone modeling domain. The NOX

exemption/waiver petition was supported by ozone

modeling data available at the time of the

exemption approval. This ozone modeling data

included sensitivity analyses investigating the

potential impacts of NOX emission changes on peak

ozone concentrations within the ozone modeling

domain. It was recognized that the final ozone

attainment demonstrations could ultimately be

based on different input data that would provide a

different picture of the impacts of NOX emission

changes on peak ozone concentrations.

36At the time of the granting of the waiver, the

Lake Michigan ozone modeling domain was

substantially smaller than Grid M, covering the

Northeast portion of Illinois, Northwest portion of

Indiana, Southeast portion of Wisconsin, and

Southwest portion of Michigan centering on the

lower half of Lake Michigan.

The continued approval of the

exemption was made contingent on the

results of the States’ final ozone

attainment demonstrations and

emission control plans for the ozone

modeling domain 35 (61 FR 2428,

January 26, 1996). It was noted that the

ozone modeling in the final ozone

attainment demonstrations would

supersede the ozone modeling

information that provided the basis for

the support of the NOX emissions

control waiver. To the extent that the

final attainment plans include NOX

emission controls on major stationary

sources in the ozone nonattainment

areas in the Lake Michigan ozone

modeling domain, we noted that we

would remove the NOX emissions

control waiver for those sources. We

agreed that the NOX emissions control

waiver should be continued for all

sources and source categories not

covered by new NOX emission controls

in the final attainment demonstrations.

Consistent with those statements, EPA

is reconsidering the existing NOX

waiver as part of the rulemaking on the

final ozone attainment demonstration

plans.

B. What Are the Conclusions of the State

Regarding the Impact of the Ozone

Attainment Demonstration on the NOX

Control Waiver?

The State of Indiana has included

NOX emission controls resulting from

plans to meet EPA’s NOX SIP Call as

critical components of the ozone

attainment demonstration for the

Northwest Indiana area. The State

concludes that, in light of the NOX

controls for certain sources included in

the final 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration, the NOX waiver is now

moot for these sources. The attainment

demonstration and ROP plans, however,

do not take credit for NOX emission

reductions resulting from the

implementation of NOX RACT, NOX

NSR, and vehicle I/M NOX emission

cut-points.

C. What Are the Conclusions That Can

Be Drawn Regarding the NOX Control

Waiver From Data Contained in the

State’s Ozone Attainment

Demonstration?

The State has taken credit for NOX

emission reductions in the Northwest

Indiana area resulting from the new

EGU, major non-EGU boilers and

turbines, and major cement kiln NOX

emission control regulations. Chart 4.3

in the State’s December 2000

‘‘Attainment Demonstration And

Technical Support Document:

Northwest Indiana Severe Ozone

Nonattainment Area: Lake and Porter

Counties, Indiana’’ clearly demonstrates

a significant NOX emission reduction in

Northwest Indiana expected to occur as

the result of EPA’s NOX SIP Call.

D. What Are the EPA Conclusions

Regarding the Existing NOX Waiver

Given the Available Ozone Modeling

Data?

The fact that the State and LADCO

have modeled ozone benefits for NOX

emission controls, including NOX

emission controls on EGUs, major nonEGU boilers and turbines, and major

cement kilns in the Northwest Indiana

area, indicates that the NOX waiver as

initially granted should be revisited.

The initial broad waiver was based on

the demonstration that NOX controls in

the ozone nonattainment areas within

the Lake Michigan ozone modeling

domain 36 would not lower peak ozone

concentrations in the modeling domain.

The final ozone attainment

demonstration shows that this earlier

conclusion is no longer supported given

the currently available ozone modeling

data. The final attainment

demonstration supports the conclusion

that NOX controls on EGUs, large nonEGU boilers and turbines, and cement

kilns, to the extent planned to occur as

a result of compliance with EPA’s NOX

SIP Call, will lower peak ozone

concentrations in Grid M and in the

modeling domain originally considered

in the granting of the NOX waiver.

In this notice, EPA proposes to amend

the NOX waiver to the extent that the

State has assumed NOX emission

reduction credits for EGUs, major nonEGU boilers and turbines, and major

cement kilns under the NOX SIP Call to

support the ozone attainment

demonstration. The NOX waiver would

be removed for those NOX sources

controlled under the rules

implementing the ozone attainment

demonstration, that is, for all sources

covered by the State’s NOX rules in the

Northwest Indiana area.

Since additional NOX emission

controls beyond those already planned

in the ozone attainment demonstration

are not needed to attain the ozone

standard in the ozone modeling domain

and since Indiana has not assumed NOX

emission reductions resulting from

certain emission control requirements as

part of the ozone attainment

demonstration and post-1999 ROP plan,

the NOX waiver remains supportable for

RACT, NSR, transportation and general

conformity, and I/M. This conclusion is

consistent with the excess NOX

emission reduction test provisions of

section 182(f)(2) of the CAA. NOX

emission reduction credits for these

waived emission control measures are

not assumed in the State’s ozone

attainment demonstration. EPA,

therefore, proposes to shift the basis for

the NOX waiver from section 182(f)(1) of

the CAA, as indicated in the January

1996 approval of the existing waiver, to

section 182(f)(2) of the CAA.

VIII. Mobile Source Conformity

Emissions Budgets and Commitment To

Re-model Using MOBILE6

A. What Are the Requirements for

Mobile Source Conformity Emissions

Budgets?

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires

states to establish criteria and

procedures to ensure that federally

supported or funded projects conform to

the air quality planning goals in the

applicable SIP. This requirement

applies to transportation plans,

programs and projects developed,

funded or approved under title 23

U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act

(transportation conformity) and to all

other federally supported or funded

projects (general conformity). EPA’s

transportation conformity rule requires

that transportation plans, programs, and

projects conform to state air quality

implementation plans and establishes

the criteria and procedures for

determining whether or not they do

conform. Conformity to a SIP means that

activities will not produce new air

quality violations, worsen existing

violations, or delay timely attainment of

the national ambient air quality

standards.

Attainment demonstrations and ROP

Plans are required to contain adequate

motor vehicle emissions budgets

derived from the mobile source portion

of the demonstrated attainment and

ROP emission inventories. The motor

40828 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

vehicle emissions budgets establish caps

on mobile source emissions. VOC and

NOX emissions associated with

transportation projects, transportation

improvement programs, and long-range

transportation plans cannot exceed

these caps. The criteria for judging the

adequacy of motor vehicle emissions

budgets are detailed in the

transportation conformity regulations in

40 CFR 93.118.

B. How Were the Indiana Attainment

Demonstration and ROP Emissions

Budgets Developed?

Indiana has submitted mobile source

emissions budgets for VOC and NOX for

the 2007 attainment year based on the

emissions analyses included in the

attainment demonstration. Indiana has

also submitted mobile source emission

budgets for VOC for the year 2002 and

2005 based on the ROP emissions

calculations. The following outlines the

techniques used by Indiana to derive the

VOC and NOX emissions budgets.

VMT growth estimates were derived

consistent with the 15 percent ROP plan

and 9 percent ROP plan for the

Northwest Indiana area. An interagency

consultation process involving the

Indiana Department of Transportation

(INDOT), IDEM, the Federal Highway

Administration, the EPA and NIRPC

took place. The 2007 budgets are

consistent with the attainment

demonstration. EPA found the emission

budgets to be adequate on May 31, 2000

(see 65 FR 38277, June 20, 2000). The

State estimated the benefits of the Tier

II engine regulations and low sulfur

gasoline requirements by using the EPA

MOBILE5 information sheet #8. The

2002 and 2005 VOC motor vehicle

emission budgets likewise used the

same transportation network

assumptions and MOBILE modeling, the

only difference being the year and the

transportation system and controls that

are in place in the respective years.

Emission factors were generated for

2002, 2005 and 2007 using EPA’s

MOBILE5b emission factor model. The

emission factors for 2005 and 2007 were

then adjusted to reflect implementation

of the Tier II/Low Sulfur gasoline

program by using the EPA-supplied

information sheet since this national

program will be in place in 2004. The

resulting motor vehicle emissions

budgets for the 2007 attainment year are

9.4 TPD of VOC and 24.29 TPD of NOX.

The VOC budget for ROP for 2002 is

13.13 TPD, and the VOC budget for 2005

is 10.99 TPD. The 2002 and 2005

budgets are based on the control

measures identified in the ROP portion

of the submittal. Since Indiana relied on

emission reductions from Tier 2 under

the EPA-supplied information sheet,

Indiana has committed to revise the

emissions budgets within 2 years after

the release of the MOBILE6 emission

factor model. Indiana addressed these

emissions budgets and its commitment

to revise the budgets using MOBILE6 in

the attainment demonstration submittal.

The LADCO attainment

demonstration modeling includes the

most recent 2007 Northwest Indiana

link based transportation network

provided to LADCO by NIRPC. The

mobile source control measures

considered in the development of the

emissions budgets include: enhanced

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M); federal reformulated gasoline; the

Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions

Control Program, federal gasoline vapor

pressure requirements, the National

Low Emission Vehicle program; the

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle standards,

and the Tier II/Low Sulfur gasoline

requirements. The attainment

demonstration modeling conducted by

LADCO for the Northwest Indiana area

and Grid M, as was discussed earlier in

this notice, demonstrated attainment of

the 1-hour ozone standard.

C. Did Indiana Commit To Revise the

Budgets When EPA Releases MOBILE6?

In order for EPA to approve

attainment demonstrations, states whose

attainment demonstrations include the

effects of the Tier II/Low Sulfur gasoline

program need to commit to revise and

resubmit their attainment demonstration

motor vehicle emission budgets based

on MOBILE6 after EPA releases the new

emission factor model, because Tier II

reductions cannot be properly

accounted for using the current version

of the model (MOBILE5b). This policy

was detailed in the supplemental notice

of proposed rule issued on July 28, 2000

(65 FR 46383). Indiana committed to

revising its 2002, 2005 and 2007 motor

vehicle emissions budgets within two

years of the release of MOBILE6. In

addition, no conformity determinations

will be made during the second year

following the release of MOBILE6

unless adequate MOBILE6-derived

budgets are in place. If the State fails to

meet its commitment to submit revised

budgets using MOBILE6, EPA could

make a finding of failure to implement

the SIP, which would start a sanctions

clock under CAA Section 179.

D. Are the Indiana Emissions Budgets

Adequate for Conformity Purposes?

Indiana’s motor vehicle emission

budgets were posted on the EPA Web

site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/traq) for

the 30-day adequacy public comment

period. The comment period associated

with the Web posting closed March 28,

2001. We received no comments on the

adequacy of the budgets. Based on

EPA’s review of the State’s 2002, 2005

and 2007 motor vehicle emission

budgets, we found the budgets adequate

in a letter to the State on May 9, 2001.

Subsequently, we published a notice in

the Federal Register on May 29, 2001

(66 FR 29126) announcing this finding.

The finding was effective on June 13,

2001. The finding is available at EPA’s

conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/, (once there,

click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then

look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

The criteria by which we determine

whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission

budgets are adequate for conformity

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4). Please note that an

adequacy review should not be used to

prejudge EPA’s ultimate approval of the

SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate,

the SIP could later be disapproved. We

have described our process for

determining the adequacy of submitted

SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999

memo titled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on

Implementation of March 2, 1999

Conformity Court Decision’’). We

followed this guidance in making our

adequacy determination. EPA is today

proposing to approve the motor vehicle

emissions budgets. Since Indiana has

committed to revise the emissions

budgets following the release of the

MOBILE6 emission factor model, our

approval of the emission budgets

reviewed here would only last until we

receive the revised emissions budgets

and find them to be adequate.

As we proposed on July 28, 2000 (65

FR 46383), the approval action we are

proposing today will be effective for

conformity purposes only until revised

attainment motor vehicle emissions

budgets are submitted and we have

found them to be adequate. The revised

MOBILE6 attainment emissions budgets

will apply for conformity purposes as

soon as we find them to be adequate.

We are limiting the duration of our

approval in this manner because we are

only approving the attainment

demonstrations and their emissions

budgets because the State has

committed to revise them using

MOBILE6. Therefore, once we have

confirmed that the revised MOBILE6

emissions budgets are adequate, they

will be more appropriate than the

emissions budgets we are proposing to

approve for conformity purposes now.

If the revised emissions budgets raise

issues about the sufficiency of the

attainment demonstration, EPA will

work with the States on a case-by-case

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40829

basis to address these issues. If the

revised emissions budgets show that

motor vehicle emissions are lower than

the budgets we are proposing to

approve, a reassessment of the

attainment demonstration’s analysis

will be necessary before reallocating the

emission reductions or assigning them

to the motor vehicle emissions budgets

as a safety margin. The area must assess

how its original attainment

demonstration is impacted by using

MOBILE6 versus MOBILE5 before it

reallocates any apparent motor vehicle

emissions reductions resulting from the

use of MOBILE6.

IX. Reasonably Available Control

Measure (RACM) Analysis

A. What Are the Requirements for

RACM?

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires

SIPs to contain RACM as necessary to

provide for attainment. EPA has

previously provided guidance

interpreting the RACM requirements of

section 172(c)(1) of the CAA. See 57 FR

13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation that

potentially available measures that

would not advance the attainment date

for an area would not be considered

RACM. EPA also indicated in that

guidance that states should consider all

potentially available measures to

determine whether they were

reasonably available for implementation

in the area, and whether they would

advance the attainment date. Further,

states should indicate in their SIP

submittals whether measures

considered were reasonably available,

and, if measures are reasonably

available, they must be adopted as

RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that

states could reject potential RACM

measures either because they would not

advance the attainment date, would

cause substantial widespread and longterm adverse impacts, or would be

difficult or impossible to implement for

various reasons related to local

conditions, such as economics or

implementation concerns. The EPA also

issued a recent memorandum on this

topic, ‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably

Available Control Measures (RACM)

Requirement and Attainment

Demonstration Submissions for Ozone

Nonattainment Areas.’’ John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html.

B. How Does This Submission Address

the RACM Requirement?

The Northwest Indiana attainment

demonstration addresses RACM through

several aspects of the submittal. Mobile

source measures have been addressed

through evaluation of Transportation

Control Measures (TCMs) and Rate of

Progress (ROP) Plans in the Northwest

Indiana area. Stationary sources and

area sources were addressed by Indiana

through an exhaustive search for costeffective controls and additional

emission reductions as part of the ROP

planning process to determine the most

reasonably available control measures.

Also, Indiana has adopted control

measures which have gone beyond the

federally-mandated stationary and area

source controls. Perhaps most

importantly, the Northwest Indiana

attainment demonstration contains

UAM modeling which demonstrates

that the Northwest Indiana area cannot

attain solely through VOC reductions in

the Northwest Indiana nonattainment

area. Attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard in the Northwest Indiana area

relies on reductions of transported

ozone to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard. To demonstrate attainment of

the 1-hour ozone standard, the Lake

Michigan Air Directors Consortium

(LADCO) modeling used reductions on

the order of 50–60 percent for VOCs in

the severe nonattainment areas. The

Northwest Indiana attainment

demonstration relies on emission

reductions of over 65 percent, including

both ROP creditable emission

reductions and non-creditable emission

reductions. Any potential emission

reductions from the implementation of

any additional potential RACM

measures would be very small

compared to the ROP emission

reductions that will be reached by the

2007 attainment date.

The Consideration and Implementation

of Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs)

The following paragraphs describe the

process that has been used to evaluate

reasonably available TCMs in the

Northwest Indiana area. IDEM has

worked with NIRPC and various

stakeholder groups to evaluate and

implement TCMs which are reasonably

available. IDEM conducted the first

exhaustive look at TCMs in 1993 as part

of its efforts to comply with Section

182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, which

requires severe nonattainment areas to

develop a ‘‘VMT Offset SIP’’ to identify

and adopt ‘‘specific and enforceable

transportation control strategies and

transportation control measures(TCMs)

to offset any growth in emissions from

growth in vehicle miles of travel.’’ A

consultant, Cambridge Systematics,

developed a report on April 30, 1993,

entitled ‘‘TCMs to Offset Emissions from

VMT Growth in Northwest Indiana.’’

This study revealed that no additional

TCMs needed to be adopted to meet the

requirements of the VMT Offset SIP.

However, the study also provided

valuable information on the feasibility

and effectiveness of TCMs in the

Northwest Indiana area. As a starting

point, it recognized a wide range of

potential measures, including those

listed in section 108(f) and then looked

in more detail at specific measures that

are likely to provide the most benefits

and be reasonably available in the

Northwest Indiana area. Of all the

strategies identified, the State and

NIRPC determined that the only strategy

that could potentially have appreciable

impact was area-wide ride sharing

incentives. The next three most effective

strategies, the transit improvement

package, the South Shore Line Park-and

Ride program and Transportation

Management were identified to have a

maximum of a 0.33 percent effect on

VMT.

Indiana and NIRPC further evaluated

potential TCMs in 1998 in the process

of developing further ROP plans and the

attainment demonstration. August and

September 1998 Fact Sheets presented

at these meetings are available in the

docket. Again, an extensive set of

potential measures, including area-wide

ridesharing incentives were evaluated.

However, in comparison to the

reductions that were being

accomplished through national mobile

source measures and the reductions that

could be accomplished through regional

NOX measures, the reductions that

could be achieved were minimal, not

substantial enough to advance the

attainment date, and also, in most cases,

more costly. Due to federal measures

and the State ROP plan measures,

emissions of VOCs from motor vehicles

in the Northwest Indiana area are

expected to decrease nearly 75 percent

between 1990 and 2007. As these

measures go into place, reducing the

mile per gallon emissions from vehicles

and the total contribution to

nonattainment from the mobile source

sector, additional mobile source

measures become less reasonable, more

costly on a dollar per ton emissions

reduction basis and less likely to

advance the attainment date. For these

reasons, additional TCMs in the

Northwest Indiana area are not

considered RACM.

Even though these measures are not

expected to advance the attainment

40830 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

date, NIRPC has implemented a wide

range of transportation projects which

provide long term air quality benefits as

part of its conformity requirements and

which, in part are supported by the

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

(CMAQ) Program. The CMAQ program

funds are administered by the Federal

Highway Administration; however,

selection of projects takes place at the

MPO level. These projects include

increased commuter parking at transit

stations, new transit service into

Chicago, signal coordination projects, a

vanpool program, an intelligent

transportation system on the most

congested freeway, I–94, a transit needs

analysis and bicycle and pedestrian

programs.

Stationary Source and Area Sources

RACM Analysis

IDEM has examined all sources in the

nonattainment area for possible

reductions. The Indiana 15 percent ROP

plan, 9 percent ROP plan and the

continuing 3 percent per year ROP

emission reductions have resulted in the

implementation of emission controls on

a wide variety of sources and have gone

beyond the federally mandated

requirements for a severe nonattainment

area. Indiana, in cooperation with the

other Lake Michigan States of Illinois,

Wisconsin and Michigan, worked to

consider regional control measures and

strategies to bring the four State Lake

Michigan area into attainment. The

control measures considered were part

of the Lake Michigan Ozone Control

Program (LMOP). The procedures used

to identify, evaluate, and select possible

control measures were described in a

1992 document entitled, ‘‘Protocol for

Selection of Control Measures and

Strategies for Modeling.’’ LADCO

provided several opportunities for

comments on this protocol, including

conducting public hearings and

distributing the protocol to stakeholders

for comments. The protocol’s purpose

included, ‘‘to insure that no reasonable

control measures were omitted from

consideration and to establish a process

to analyze and assess the potential

impacts of each control measure in an

objective and equitable manner.’’

Initially, a large number of control

measures which reduced VOC and/or

NOX emissions were examined in white

papers prepared and distributed for

public comment. The measures were

then evaluated and ranked for modeling

as part of the attainment demonstration

modeling.

The State considered an extensive list

of potential control measures and chose

measures which went beyond the

federally mandated controls, and which

were found to be cost-effective and

technologically feasible. In addition to

the federally mandated measures,

Indiana chose to adopt several programs

including, most recently,

comprehensive rules requiring

reductions at sinter plants and cold

cleaning degreasing operations for

emission reductions substantial enough

to exceed the ROP requirements. These

regulations went beyond federally

mandated controls and are documented

in the State’s submittals. Through the

post-1999 and prior ROP plans, the most

significant area source categories have

been addressed, including degreasing,

commercial/consumer products, surface

coating, and petroleum transport and

refueling. Total creditable ROP

reduction measures amount to 104 TPD

of VOC emissions reductions in the

Northwest Indiana ozone nonattainment

area. Indiana used the ROP process to

identify and implement all reasonably

available control measures leaving only

measures achieving small reductions in

VOCs, resulting in high costeffectiveness values. Through this

process, all of the following were

implemented in Northwest Indiana:

15% ROP summary for Lake

and Porter Counties

Emission

reductions

(pounds VOC/

day)

Creditable Reduction From Mandatory

Controls

Mobile Sources:

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

(326 IAC 13–1.1) ....... 6,817

Federal Reformulated

Gasoline Program (40

CFR Part 80, Subpart

D) ............................... 14,905

Area Sources:

Stage II Gasoline Vapor

Recovery (326 IAC 8–

4–6) ............................ 9,824

Federal Architectural

and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings

Rule ............................ 2,920

Point Sources:

Non-Control Techniques

Guideline (CTG) Reasonably Available

Control Technology

(RACT) Rule (326 IAC

8–7) ............................ 4,559

Creditable Reductions From NonMandatory Controls

Point Sources:

Coke Oven Battery

Shutdowns at Inland

Steel Flat Products

(326 IAC 6–1–

10.1(k)(5)) .................. 23,609

15% ROP summary for Lake

and Porter Counties

Emission

reductions

(pounds VOC/

day)

Area Sources:

Automobile Refinishing

(326 IAC 8–10) .......... 4,679

Residential Open Burning (326 IAC 4–1) ...... 929

Total Creditable Reductions from 15

percent ROP plan .. 68,242

The post-1996 ROP plan

control strategies and their

emission reductions

Emission

reductions

(pounds VOC/

day)

Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Plant NESHAP (40

CFR Part 61 Subpart L) .... 55,371

Inland Steel Coke Battery

Shutdowns (326 IAC 6–1–

10.1(k)(5)) (40 CFR

52.770(c)(99)) ................... 6,666

Reformulated Gasoline Use

in Small Engines (40 CFR

Part 80) ............................. 575

New Small Engine Emission

Standards (40 CFR Part

90) ..................................... 6,034

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Reasonably Available

Control Technology (326

IAC 8–9) (40 CFR

52.770(c)(111)) ................. 2,700

Coke Oven NESHAP (40

CFR Part 63 Subpart L) .... 6,314

Total Emission Reduction from Post-1996

9 percent ROP plan 77,660

For the additional emission

reductions that are achieved in the

2002, 2005 and 2007 ROP plans, please

see the ROP section in this proposed

rule. The result of this comprehensive

plan is that all of the most significant

point and area source emissions that are

reasonable to control are covered by

either RACT or a specific Indiana rule

targeted at achieving reasonable VOC

reductions. Reductions from any other

potential RACM measures are relatively

small; certainly far less than the ROP

reductions and the reductions that were

modeled by LADCO in the Lake

Michigan area attainment

demonstration.

Based on reviews of the State’s

analysis of measures and lists of control

measures which have been

implemented in other nonattainment

areas, EPA believes that there are no

other emission control measures that

Indiana could have implemented that

would have accelerated attainment. EPA

is not aware of other practicable

measures which will result in

comparable emissions reductions that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 40831

can be implemented sooner than those

contained in Indiana’s ROP.

Modeling Analysis

The State’s air quality modeling

results indicate that additional VOC and

NOX controls, beyond those already

addressed in the ozone attainment

demonstration and those to be achieved

through EPA’s NOX SIP Call, within the

nonattainment area will not accelerate

attainment of the ozone standard. Air

quality modeling was conducted by

LADCO for the four Lake Michigan

States. LADCO and the four States also

conducted special monitoring of ozone

and ozone precursors to support the

attainment demonstration modeling

efforts. A significant conclusion of the

monitoring study is that there are high

levels of ozone and ozone precursors

entering the Lake Michigan region. The

high boundary conditions were

measured to be on the order of 70–110

ppb of ozone on some hot summer days.

This transported ozone significantly

contributes to ozone exceedances in the

region. Elevated ozone levels were

found to extend well upwind of the

Lake Michigan region covering large

areas of the eastern United States. These

results and those of other areas led to

the OTAG effort.

The initial LADCO modeling and

sensitivity tests found VOC emissions in

the nonattainment area would need to

be reduced as much as 90 percent to

provide for attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard if the transported ozone

were not reduced. However, if

reductions in boundary conditions were

considered, then the VOC reduction

target is still very high, on the order of

50–60 percent depending on the

boundary conditions. The sensitivity

tests found that reducing NOX in the

nonattainment area could actually

increase ozone concentrations and, thus,

the area was granted a NOX waiver in

1996. This is discussed in detail in the

section on the NOX waiver in this

proposal. Thus, reductions in NOX in

the nonattainment area will not bring

the area into attainment and reductions

in VOCs of 90 percent in the

nonattainment area are not possible

without draconian measures. Indiana

has already explored all possible RACM

to find reductions for the ROP and any

other possible VOC reductions from

sources in the Northwest Indiana area

would not be enough to reach

attainment or advance the attainment

date.

Indiana has submitted these modeling

analyses in the Phase I and II attainment

demonstration submittals. The results of

modeling reductions in emissions only

within the nonattainment area did not

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

standard, and, therefore, this

demonstrates that such emission

reductions alone could not advance the

attainment date. It was only when the

boundary conditions were changed that

the modeling demonstrated attainment.

The long range transport of ozone and

precursor emissions from upwind of the

area were the significant contributor to

the nonattainment problem. Air quality

modeling, which EPA performed in

association with the NOX SIP Call, (63

FR 57356) confirmed the states’

analyses. These modeling runs

conclusively show that the Northwest

Indiana area cannot attain the ozone

standard without the NOX SIP Call

measures to reduce transported ozone.

Reductions from other potential RACM

measures are comparatively small and

would not advance the attainment date.

In December of 2000, Indiana

submitted air quality modeling and a

strategy for reducing emissions,

including statewide NOX reductions

needed to meet the NOX SIP Call. The

Technical Support Document for the

subregional modeling analysis contains

a variety of control strategies modeled to

evaluate their impact on ozone air

quality. Of particular importance is the

sensitivity run SR1a, which evaluated

the impact of one of the more

substantial VOC reduction measures,

Tier II/Low Sulfur gasoline. This

measure was calculated by LADCO to

provide a VOC reduction of about 200

TPD in 2007 for the entire Lake

Michigan Nonattainment area. The

modeling results summarize that the

improvement in ozone air quality from

this measure provides a 1–2 ppb ozone

concentration improvement. Any of the

VOC control measures that were not

selected for implementation as part of

Indiana’s ROP or attainment plan are

significantly smaller than the Tier II/

Low Sulfur control measure (produce

significantly VOC emission reductions).

For example, the most potentially

beneficial TCM, according to the

Cambridge Systematics report, areawide ridesharing, would only produce a

maximum VOC emission reduction

benefit of half a ton per day. Thus, their

contribution to improving ozone air

quality would be much less than 1 ppb

and would not advance attainment of

the ozone standard earlier than 2007.

As previously described, the

modeling analyses submitted by Indiana

and conducted by LADCO showed that

it was only when the states tested the

impacts of NOX reductions beyond the

boundaries of the nonattainment area

that the modeling indicated

improvements in air quality to the

degree necessary to attain the standard.

In other words, the transport of ozone

and precursor emissions from upwind

areas significantly contribute to the

Northwest Indiana and Lake Michigan

States nonattainment problem. Air

quality modeling which EPA performed

in association with the NOX SIP Call (63

FR 57356) confirmed the States’

analyses.

Indiana held public hearings on these

materials and took public comment on

the modeling and conclusions. Any

measures that have not been included

would provide only marginal air quality

improvements, and at significantly

greater expense. Additional control

measures beyond the measures being

implemented under the 3 percent per

year ROP emission reductions in the

Northwest Indiana area and regional

NOX emission reductions are, therefore,

not reasonable since the implementation

of such measures will not significantly

improve air quality and, to make a

significant impact, would need to be

draconian in nature.

Thus, the Northwest Indiana area

relies on reductions from outside the

nonattainment area from EPA’s NOX SIP

Call and section 126 rule (65 FR 2674,

January 18, 2000) to reach attainment. In

the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356), EPA

concluded that NOX emission

reductions from various upwind states

were necessary to provide for timely

ozone attainment in various downwind

states. The NOX SIP Call, therefore,

established requirements for control of

sources of significant emissions in all

upwind states. However, these

reductions were not slated for full

implementation until May 2003.

Further, the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit recently ordered that EPA could

not require full implementation of the

NOX SIP Call prior to May 2004.

Michigan, et al., v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No.

98–1497, Order of Aug. 30, 2000. In

addition, all of the necessary VOC

reductions that are modeled in the

attainment demonstration for the

Northwest Indiana area will not be in

place until 2007. Thus, the attainment

demonstration modeling indicates that

the area successfully achieves the

emissions reductions necessary to reach

attainment in 2007 and that additional

potential RACM could not advance the

attainment date.

C. Does the Northwest Indiana

Attainment Demonstration Meet the

RACM Requirement?

The EPA has reviewed the submitted

attainment demonstration

documentation, the process used by the

Metropolitan Planning Organization and

the State to review TCMs, other possible

40832 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

reduction measures for point and area

sources, and the emissions inventory for

the Northwest Indiana area. Although

EPA encourages areas to implement

available RACM measures as potentially

cost-effective methods to achieve

emissions reductions in the short term,

EPA does not believe that section

172(c)(1) requires implementation of

potential RACM measures that either

require costly implementation efforts or

produce relatively small emissions

reductions that will not be sufficient to

allow the area to achieve attainment in

advance of full implementation of all

other required measures.

EPA does not believe that section

172(c)(1) requires implementation of

additional measures for Northwest

Indiana, but this conclusion is not

necessarily valid for other areas. For

other areas, some of which may be

‘‘upwind’’ areas, such measures may in

fact be RACM, and the States in which

such areas are located have a

responsibility to determine whether

additional measures are RACM. In

addition, if in the future EPA moves

forward to implement another ozone

standard, this RACM analysis would not

control what is RACM for this or any

other areas for that other ozone

standard.

Furthermore, EPA encourages areas to

implement technically available and

economically feasible measures to

achieve emissions reductions in the

short term even if such measures do not

advance the attainment date, since such

measures will likely improve air quality.

Also, over time, emission control

measures that may not be RACM now

for an area may ultimately become

feasible for the same area due to

advances in control technology or more

cost-effective implementation

techniques. Thus, areas should continue

to assess the state of control technology

as they make progress toward

attainment and consider new control

technologies that may in fact result in

more expeditious improvement in air

quality.

The attainment demonstration for the

Northwest Indiana area indicates that

the ozone benefit expected to be

achieved from regional NOX emission

reductions (such as from the emission

controls complying with the NOX SIP

Call) are substantial. In addition, many

of the measures designed to achieve

emissions reductions from within the

nonattainment area will also not be fully

implemented prior to the 2007

attainment date. Therefore, EPA

concludes that since the reductions

from potential RACM measures do not

nearly equate to the reductions needed

to demonstrate attainment, none of

these measures could advance the

attainment date prior to full

implementation of the NOX SIP Callbase rules and full implementation of

the ROP measures, and, thus, there are

no additional potential local measures

that can be considered RACM for this

area. Additionally, the area cannot

advance the attainment date because all

of the ROP emission reductions (3

percent per year up to the 2007

attainment year) have been modeled in

the attainment demonstration, and the

modeling indicates that the reductions

are needed to reach attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard by 2007. All of the

ROP measures will not be fully

implemented until the 2007 attainment

date, and, thus the area will not be able

to advance the attainment date.

X. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

proposes to approve state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under state law and does

not impose any additional enforceable

duty beyond that required by state law,

it does not contain any unfunded

mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). This

proposed rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it have substantial direct effects on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This proposed rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Volatile organic

compounds, Nitrogen oxides, ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: July 24, 2001.

William E. Muno,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–19151 Filed 8–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P