### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF:

The State Implementation Plan
Submittals for the Chicago

Illinois 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area ) ) ) ) ) 

### DLC26-09



### Responsiveness Summary of the Rlinois Environmental

Protection Agency Following a Public Hearing on December 16, 

### 2008

On Decem1?er 16,**200~,** 

### the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA")

held a public hearing in Chicago, lllinois, on the Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 Chicago

8-hour ozone nonattainment area (''NAA'') and the associated establishment of motor vehicle

emissions budgets. The Illinois EPA proposes to submit these documents to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (''U.S. EPA") as State Implementation Plan ("SIP") revisions.

The Attainment Demonstration contains the State's plan to meet the requirements of the federal

Clean Air Act ("CAA") to achieve the National**Ambi~nt** 

### Air Quality Standard (''NAAQS'') for

8-hour ozone for the Chicago area. The Chicago NAA includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

McHenry, and Will counties, and Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in 

### Grundy C,ounty, and

Oswego Township in 

### Kendall County. This designation became effective on June 15,2004.

The SIP revision will establish new motor vehicle budgets for the attaim:nent year, 2009, for the

same area. The hearing satisfies the requirements of Section_II 0(1) of the CAA.

The Notice for the public hearing was published by the lllinois EPA in 

### accordance with

40 CFR 51.102, entitled ''Public Hearings," and the lllinQis EPA's ''Procedures for Informational

and Quasi-Legislative Public Hearings" (''Public Hearing Procedures").

On 

### December 16, 2008, the public hearing was held to fulfill the public participation

requirements for SIP revisions. Close of the record was January 15, 2009. Following the public

hearing, the Illinois EPA received three comments from the interested public. A summary of the

. 

### comments and the·lllinois EPA's responses are as follows:

1) One commenter requested that the Illinois EPA consider updating the vehicle

registration distribution database to a more recent timeframe in 

### establishing motor vehicle

emissions budgets for confonnity purposes.



### .' 1 ••

ATTACHMENT 5

### Response: The commenter is correct in stating that the proposed motor vehicle emissions

budgets contained in the lllinois EPA's November 15, 2008 draft 

### attainment demonstration and

maintenance plan documents were developed using a 2003 

### Registration Distribution dataset.

The**Regis~ti0!l** 

### pistribution data hreaks down the vehicle fleet by m.9del year providing an

annual percentage of vehicles from one model year old to 25 model years old. Since guidelines

. established by the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. EPA recommend the use of

planning assumptions that are no more than five years old, the illinois EPA has updated the

motor vehicle emissions budgets in both documents to reflect the most recent Registration

'. Distribution database.

The Dlinois EPA downloaded data representative of the year 2008 

### for the Chicago area from the

dataset acquired from the Dlinois Secretary of State and used in the Illinois Vehicle Inspection

and Maintenance Program. 

### Comparing the updated 2008 

### vehicle registration dataset to the 2003



### dataset included in the original proposal indicated that the percentage of vehicles in the region

, . 

### that were between one and five model years old was significantly lower in 2008 

### than in 2003

.



### . This would suggest that vehicle owners in the Chicago region' had slowed their purchasing of

new cars and were keeping their current vehicles longer. This lower percentage of newer

vehicles impacts the' expected level of emissions from the vehicle fleet in the region as newer,

cleaner vehicles make up 'a lesser fraction than what was previously projected. The updated

2008 

### Registration Distribution,**de~ribed** 

### in the Transportation Conformity sections of both

documents, was used to replace the 2003 

### dataset in the MOBILE6 input file and resulted in an

increase in estimated emissions of volatile organic compounds (''VOC'') and oxides of nitrogen

("NOx'') from on-road mobile sources for all future**ye~** 

### projected in the attainment

demonstration and maintenance plan documents.

Of note, these emissions changes increased the level of emissions proposed as motor vehicle

emissions budgets for the attainment**y~ar,** 2009, 

### and the maintenance year, 2020. 

### The motor

vehicle emissions budgets contained in the final attainment demonstration and maintenance plan

documents reflect this change. The increases in estimated emissic:>ns also affect the Reasonable

Further Progress (''RFP'') 

### demonstration and Contingency Measures contained in the attainment

2

### demonstration. The updated emissions estimates have been incorporated into the appropriate

RFP and Contingency Measures sections of the final attainment demonstration document.



### __ 2) 

## A**~ommenter not~**  

### _that**th~ a~ent**  

### demoristration document**c~ntained** 

### apparently conflicting statements regarding lllinois' NOx Reasonably Available Control

Technology (''RACT'') proposal and requested clarification.



### Response: The lllinois EPA agrees that the wording regarding NOx RACT as contained

in the draft 

### attainment demonstration document is unclear. The 

### final document has been revised

to reflect the fact that the modeling performed for the attainment year, 2009, did not include

emission reductions reflective' oflllinois' NOx RACT program since it was recognized that

Dlinois' mlemaking process would not be completed in time to allow industries sufficient time to

implement controls. The 2009 modeling demonstrated that the Chicago nonattainment area

would attain the standards by the attainment deadline without reliance on these emission

reductions. Since it is expected that rulemaking for lllinois' NOx RACT program will be

completed in time for controls on most emission units**t~.** 

### be installed by 2012, emission

reductions from NOx RACT were included in the modeling for 2012. As 

### stated in the attainment

demonstration, the 2012 modeling demonstrates attainment of the monitor in Holland, MI.

3) One commenter urged lllinois to adjust its attainment strategy to allow the

monitor in Holland, MI, 

### to attain the ozone standard by the 2009 attainment deadline, noting the

strong contribution oflllinois emission sources to ozone concentrations in western Michigan.



### Response: The lllinois EPA acknowledges the contribution oflllinois emission sources to

ozone levels in western Michigan and haSworked diligently to mitigate lllinois' contribution to

downwind states. lllinois has participated in regional planning efforts through the Lake

Michigan Air Directors Consortium ("LADCO''), the Midwest Regional Planning Organization

("RPO''), and the State Collaborative efforts with other Midwestern and Northeastern states.

lllinois has 

### adopted regulations affecting coal-fired electric generating units ("EGUs") that are

more stringent than the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule ("CAIR''). The lllinois EPA has also

proposed NOx RACT requirements for industrial sources in the Chicago area, and has proposed

requirements on consumer products and architectural, industrial, and maintenance coatings

3

### which will reduce precursor emissions statewide sooner than 

### federal requirements. The lllinois

EPA believes that it has pursued all feasible control measures that could be implemented to

address lllinois' contribution to downwind states including western Michigan, and that these

measures are being implemented as expeditiously as possible.

4) One commenter requested that the lllinois EPA provide a schedule for proposing

required rules to address recently revised Control Techniques Guidelines ("CTGs'').



### Response: The lllinois EPA recognizes that revised rules to address Group II and Group

III CTGs issued by U.S. EPA in 2006 and 2007 are overdue. The illinois EPA has prepared draft

rules to address the Group II CTGs and initiated outreach with stakeholders in late 2008

.. illinois

EPA expects to conclude the stakeholder process soon and anticipates proposing Group II

revisions to the illinois Pollution Control Board ("IPCB'') in the next feW weeks. Similarly, the

.lllinois EPA has drafted a regulatory proposal to address the Group ill 

### CTGs and will soon

initiate a review by stakeholders prior to filing the proposal with the IPCB. The illinois EPA**~ll** 

### seek expedited rulemaking by the IPCB for both**proposal~.**



### 5) At hearing, one commenter asked for a clarification in Table C2 in the**Maintenan~e** 

### Plan regarding appropriate units (tons per day versus tons per year) represented in

the table.



### Response: Table C2 referenced at hearing is actually contained in the attainment

demonstration .document, not in the maintenance plan. The illinois EPA has clarified the table,

as well as the corresponding Table Ct, to include both tons per day**~d** 

### tons per year emission**~es** 

### for the listed pollutants.

6) 

### At hearing, one commenter .requested more details be provided in the attainment

demonstration regarding Dynegy's consent decree. In particular, the commenter requested that

. 

## . the document provide a summary of the schedule for installing control equipment at Dynegy's

electric generating stations.



### Response: The text in the final attainment demonstration has 

### been updated from the draft



### document to include additiona1language regarding the implementation of control measures at

4

### Dynegy's facilities. According to the consent decree, Dynegywas required to meet specified

emission limits 

### within 30

- 45 days after entry of the consent decree. The consent decree was

eIJtered on May 27, 2005, so the implementation of control measures occurred well before the

attainment year, 2009.

7) 

### At hearing, one commenter questioned the level of proposed NOx RAeT



### emission reductions that are necessary for maintenance purposes, as described in 

### the draft



### maintenance plan.



### Response: As 

### mentioned in the document, a maintenance plan is to provide for the

continued attainment of the 8-hoUr ozone NAAQS for a nonattainment area for a period often

years after U.S. EPA has formally redesignated the area**~o** 

### attainment. There are several

required elements of a maintenance plan, including requirements for the state to' provide a
projection of the emission inventory forward to a year at least ten years after redesignation, and a

demonstration that the projected level of emissions is sufficient to maintain the ozone NAAQS.

The lllinois EPA has 

### addressed these requirements by prgviding a projected emissions inventory

for 2020, which is at least ten years after a presumed**re~esignation** 

### by U.S. EPA in 2009 or 2010.

The requirement to provide a demonstration that the projected level of emissions is sufficient to

.
maintain the ozone NAAQS is met by showing that the projected level of precursor emissions in

. 2020 is less than it is in the year attainment was achieved. lllinois EPA's inventory for 2020

includes reductions expected from implementation of NO x RAeT 

### since it is expected that this

program, in addition to numerous others, will be in 

### place by then. The demonstration does not

rely on emission reduction targets specific to any particular control measure.



### 5On 

### behalf of the Director Douglas Scott and the lllinois EPA staff, we would like to

thank all those who participated at the public hearing and for your comments and questions.

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency

Dated: March 18, 2009
TIlinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, lllinois 62702 (217) 782-5544

6

# ·

,

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

An Affiliate of the illinois Chamber of Commerce

January 15,2009



### Pana Vetterhoffer

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand A venue East

P.O. Box 19276**Springfiel~,** IL 62794-9276 3150 Roland Avenue Springfield, It 62703

217-523-4942 (FAX -4948)

Email: iergstaff@ierg.org



# REC·EIVE:D

- Division of Legal 

### Counsel



## JAN 16 

## 2009**Environment~** 

### Protection

Agency

Subject: Comments, Chicago Ozone Attainment**Demonstra~on** and Maintenance Plan

.

The Dlinois Environmental Regulatory Group ("IERG") submits the following in regard to the

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency's ("Illinois EPA" or " Agency")**r~uest** for comments

on the State Implementation Plan ("SIP") Submittals for the Chicago, lllinois Ozone**Nonatta~ent** Area at its Public Hearing held December 16, 2008 in Chicago ("Hearing").

IERG's comments are based on the Agency presentation made at Hearing, on the Draft

Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 B-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

### Air Quality Standard

for the Oricago Nonattainment Area [AQPSTR08-07, dated November IS, 2008] ("Draft"), and

on the Draft Maintenance Plan for the'lllinois Portion of the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment

Area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard [AQPSTR 08-OB, dated November IS, 2008] ("Maintenance Plan").

.

Given the nature of the Notice of Public Hearing, the posting of the Draft and Maintenance Plan

- both addressing the 1997 8-HourOzone NatioitalAmbient Air Quality Standard for the Chicago Nonattainment Area

- IERG must question**~e** rationale for the Agency to have

articulated its intent to move ahead to plan attaiI)ment of the 2008 B-Hour Ozone Standard in

the context of this attainment demonstration (Hearing Transcript, page 55). The 2008 8-hour
standard, currently the subject oJ litigation, is a separate matter to be the subject of future exploration and dialogue. IERG, therefore, restricts its comments below to attainment of the

19978-hour standard and its maintenance.

IERG fully supports Illinois EPA's request that U.S. EPA re-designate the Chicago area to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone ("current") National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS"), based on ambient monitoring data from 2006 through 2008. IERG commends the Agency in its efforts to improve the region's air quality and to achieve this milestone, which

will protect the health of Chica\o's citizen,s and the quality pf .the environment, while facilitating the growth and development necessary to supPQrt lllinois' economic future.

IERG understands that existing ("on the books") controls are expected to produce sigrlmcant improvement in ozone air quality to allow all sites in the Lake Michigan region to meet the

current 8-hour standard by the applicable attainment date, with the exception of the Holland,

Provided by the lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group.**J~nuary** 15, 2009

I Comments

. Page2of4

MI monitoring station. (Draft, page 8). That station is projected to attain the 85 ppb level by


### 2012 with no additional control measures. (Draft, page 9; emphasis added).

IERG further imderstands the following" on the books" emission .reduction measures to account

for the success of the attainment demonstration (Draft, pages 11 through 16):



### 1. Title IV (Phases I

### ~d II) 

### (Clean Air Act of1990, as amended)

2. NOx SIP Call 

### (Federal Register: October 27, 1998, 

### vol. 63, 

### no.207 pp. 57355-57538) (35 II. 

### Adm. Code Part 217)

.

3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)/Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards 

### (Clean Air Act 

### 0[1990, as amended)

4. Vex: Solvent Categories: Aerosol Coatings, Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coatings, Consumer Solvents 

### (Federal Register: March 24, 2008,001.73, no.57, pp. 15421-15631) 

### (Federal Register: September 11, 1998, 

### vol.63, no.176, pp. 48848-48887) 

### (Federal Register: September 11,1998, 

### vol.63, no.176, pp. 48819-48847)

5. Portable Fuel Containers 

### (Federal Register: February 26,2007, vol.n, no.37, pp. 8427-8570)

6. Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance Program 

### (Clean Air Act 0[1990, as amended)

7. Reformulated Gasoline 

### (Clean Air Act 0[1990, as amende.d)

8. Tier 2 Motor Vehicie Emissions Standards and· Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements 

### (Federal Register: February 10,2000, 

### vol. 65, 

### no.28, pp. 6697-6870)

9. On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel

Sulfur Control Requirements 

### (Federal Register: January 18, 

### 2001, vol. 66, 

### nC?o 12,

.. pp. 5002-5193)

10. Federal Control Programs Incorporated into NONROAD Model (e.g., Nonroad

Diesel Rule), plus Evaporative Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle

Standards 

### (Federal Register: November 8,2002, vol.67, no.217, pp. 68241"-68447)

11. Tier 4 Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards and Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content

Restrictions 

### (Federal Register: June 29,2004, vol. 69, 

### no. 124, 

### pp. 38957-39273)

. . 12. Marine Compression-Ignition Engine Standards and Locomotive Engine

Standards 

### (Federal Register: April 16, 1998, 

### vol. 63, 

### no. 73, 

### pp. 18977-19084) (Federal Register: December 29,1999, 

### vol.64, no. 249, 

### pp. 73299-73373)

Provided by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

### , january 15, 2009

Conunents Page30f4

13. Consent Decrees-Dynegy Midwest Generation, Refineries' (ConocoPhillips, CITGO, ExxonMobil, Marathon Ashland), Ethanol Plants (Archer Daniels Midland).

IERG Members are pleased to have significantly contributed to the successful implementation

of the above strategies. We recognize them as the culmination of the**c'onsid.era~le** effort employed by the Agency in the development of workable regulatory solutions that positively

contribute to the quality of the**enviro~ent,** and their application by the regulated community

at industrial faqIities to improve the region's air quality.

IERG further understands that emissions reductions to be achieved under the Illinois (Nonattainment Area) NOx RACf requirements currently before, but not yet adopted, by the

Illinois Pollution Control Board (R08-19), which cannot practicably be implemented until 2010,

will not contribute to attainment by the 2009 attainment deadline (Draft, page 17). Nor as IERG understands, is the pending NOx RACf proposal considered to be "on the books" controls'for

purposes of this attainment demonstration (Hearing Transcript, pages 24 through 25). Rather,

the Agency identifies NOx RACT as 'a requirement that is contained in the Oean Air Act, which ,- it commits, to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA when the Board finishes the rulemaking .(Hearing Transcript, pages 48 through 49).

.

IERG notes**~t** the Illinois EPA states**tha~** emissions reductions achieved under this NOx

RACf proposal (presuniably R08-19) will help to maintain attainment beginning in 2010, and


### will also contn'bute to 

### attainment in 

### Holland, M1 

### by 

### 2012 (emphasis added, Draft, page 17).
However, IERG finds it necessary to point out that on page 9 of the Draft, the Agency stated

. that the Holland, MI station is projected to attain the 85 ppb level by 2012 

### with no 

### additional
control measures. IERG must question these apparently conflicting statements, and would ask

the Agency's clarification in this regard.

IERG commends the Illinois EPA for having determined its "on the books" control measures and continuing reductions in YOM emissions will achieve the 15% RFP target for the Chicago

nonattainment area, and that all control measutes that were reasonably available and would expedite attainment already have been implemented. (Draft, pages 18 through 21). This speaks

well of Illinois EPA's long-term participation in regional**o~one** planning and dedication to

, stakeholder involvement in its processes. Further, given Illinois industry's role in contributing

to the requirement for contingency measures, we are pleased that the Agency has acknowledged that these measures will help ensure the nonattainment**~ea** will continue to
achieve attainment in subsequent years, once the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met.

With regard to maintaining the attainment status, IERG notes positively the Agency's statement
that the Section 5.0 Control**Mea~ures** and Regulations (Maintenance Plan, pages 19 through 23), particularly those required in past ozone SIP revisions and the more recent control programs implemented, will continue to provide emissions reductions in fpture years. (Maintenance Plan,

page 19). This speaks to the success of Illinois' regulatory efforts.

Provided by the lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group "JimuC\ry 15, 2009

Comments Page 4 of4

IERG further notes the lllinois EPA's statement that it will submit regulations to implement

NOx RACT in the NAA for purposes of what IERG understands to be the current (i.e., 1997) 8-

hour ozone NAAQS (Maintenance Plan, pages 21 through 22). IERG acknowledges that NOx

RACf in the current Chicago nonattainment area is a requirement that must be met under the

Oean-Air Act, and offers**nQ._argwn~nt** in**.~~** regard: However,**wha~remains** unclear is the quantity of emissions**reductio~** that must achieved under any NOx RACf propOw, given that

the area has achieved attainment absent any emission reductions due to NOx RACf. IERG

further questions the level of proposed NOx RACf emissions reductions**n~essary** for

maintenance purposes, given the Agency's statement that its contiitgency plan anticipates

emissions reductions from the Section 5 Control Measures and Regulations that Illinois 

### "has adopted and is continuing to implement

... will be sufficient to mitigate exceedances or violations of the NAAQS that may occur in the coming years 

### without further 

### regulatory action."
(Maintenance Plan, page**~4,** emphasis added).

In addition, IERG understands that the gean Air Act requires RACf rules to be in place for

sources of YOM that are subject to Control Technique Guidelines (".CfGs"). (Draft, page 19,

and Maintenance Plan, page 21).**~G** further understands that the lllinois EPA has yet to

propose regulations for some sources for which revised CfGs have been issued by the U.S.
EPA, but that it plans to do so. (Id., and Hearing Transcript, page 48). At the December 16 Hearing, the Agency stated that**U~S.** EPA Will likely not approve the SIP revisions being proposed until those regulations are final. (Hearing Transcript, page- 48). In light of the fact that

the proposed regulations have yet to be filed wiJh the Illinois Pollution Control Board, IERG

would request that the AgencY explain when it-anticipates these SIP revisions will be presented

tO'the Board for adoption.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Again, we applaud the Agency recommendation to re-designate the Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and its

confidence that the attainment designation can be·maintained. Illinois industry appreciates having been a partner in the effort to improve air quality.

Deirdre K. Himer

Executive Director'

Pr6vided by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory GroupJanuary 13, 2009

Ms. Dana Vetterhoffer

illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, It**62794-~276** Sum BOO, SeaJs Tower ChIcago. 1160606

voice 312-454-0400

fax 312-454-0411 www.anap.lllilois.gov


# RECEIVED**Divisi~n** 

### of Legal Counsel



## JAN 1 2009**Environm~ntal Proteetio~**  

## Agency

Subject: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Proposed 8-Hour Ozone Attainment**Dem~nstrati.on** and Maintenance Plan State Implementation Plans

Dear Ms. Vetterhoffer:

. 

## - The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) appreciates this opportunity. to

comment of the proposed motor vehicle emissions budgets inclu4ed in' the 8-. hour ozone
Attamment Demonstration and Maintenance Plan State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

The transportation confoI'IIl!ty regulations require that updated plannii'lg assumptions be used

in**~e** development of motor vehicle emissions budgets and transportation conformity

determinations. Guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration and the United

States Environmental Protection Agency state that planning assumptions should be no older

than five years to be considered current. One of the key planning assumptions used in both

SIPs and conformity determinations is the vehicle registration distribution.

The Transportation Conformity section of the two SIPs states that the registration distribution

used in the development of the proposed motor vehicle emissions budgets was from 2003.

CMAP suggests that the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency consider updating the

vehicle registration distribution database to more recent time frame. The use of an updated

vehicle registration distribution will result in a more accurate representation of the Chicago area vehicle fleet, more accurate emissions estimates, and more consistency between the -SIPs and

, CMAP conformity analyses.

Please contact Ross Patronsky' at 312-386-8796, rpatronsky@cmap.illinois.gov, if you have any· questions,

Sincerely,

# ~6lP,/~. Donald P. Kopec Deputy Executive Director

conf09001

# ~§',' .

. )

",

_.-';,ll



### ".

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM

GOVERNOR STATE OF MICIIIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

LANSING. 

# DEC:

'STEVEN E. CHESTER

DIRECTOR



### January 15, 2009



### Ms. Rachel Doctors
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

## p·.a. Box 19276 

### Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276



### Dear Ms. Doctors: 

# RECEIVED

Division of Legal Counsel



## JAN 2C 2009

.

Environmental 

## Protection**A~ency**



### The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) offers' the following comments

on the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA's) 

### draft attainment demonstratipn
and maintenance plan, dated November 15, 2008, 

### proposed for submittal as State Implementation Plan revisions.

The MDEQ is heartened to note that air quality in the Lake Michigan air shed has improved

to the degree in which all the Chicago area monitors are attaining the 0.08 

### parts per million

ozone Nation·al. Ambient-Air Quality Standard. This is a substantial achievement and reflects well on:the·effo·rts of the 'regional planning process undertaken by the .Lake Michigan Air bkectors Consortium partners

.

. The MDEQ would like to see an adjustment in:fhe:.s·{rategy to provide for earlier emissions

reductions in our upwind neighboring states' 

### that would result in attainment at the Holland, Michigan monitor. Although the photochemicarmodeling Indicates that this shoreline
monitor location 

### will be ·attaining by 2012, 

### the federal Clean Air Act deadline for attainment
in Holland is 2009. 

### Transport studies clearly demonstrate that ozone precursor emissions 'from sources in Illinois are large contrjbutors to ozone levels at shoreline monitors in West Michigan, and that local· emissions have a negligible impact on ozone levels. For that

reason, the MDEQ urges Illinois to take additional steps to curtail ozone precursor emissions in the near term.

.

The MDEQ congratulates the IEPA for accomplishing the goal of .ozone attainment. Michigan would like to reach this goal for**~II** 

### of our communiti.es as .well.·-

.

"1 ::_.: ' •• 

### . . . Steven 

### E:. Chester'

. .: '. ..'

.. Dir.ect6r· .:' '. .•

..... , .. '

... :

.. '

... .;.

,. '.; .'**:~':,:,** 

### '.**:.,,~** 

### '

.. :

.... ". : :·

..**·:-··:·:'!5f7-373~7917:** 

### .;...

.. . '., .:,'.>';'**~"""_::'.** '.



### cc:: Mr

.. Do'uglas 

## P; Scott, Director, IEPA



## . Mr. 'Jim Sygo,' '£?eputy Director,**~D!=Q** 

### Mr. G. Vinson Hellwig, MDEQ·

.. .**:.':'~.** ..:: ";

" .

I ••• :**~::** ;. ••

CONSTlTVTION HAll- 525 v-'EST ALLEGAN STREET

- P.O. BOX 30473

- LANSING. MICHIGA", 48909·7973 www.michlgan.gov

- (800) 682·9278

# Maintenance Plan for the

Illinois Portion of the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AQPSTR 09-04

April 5, 2009

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1 021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

______ 1

...

ATTACHMENT 6i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES

. . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF FIGURES

. . . . . . . . . iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . 6

1.1 Regulatory Background

. . . . . . 6

1.2 Status of Air Quality

. . . . . . . 8

2.0 REDESIGNATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 9

3.0 OZONE MONITORING

. . . . . . . 11

3.1 Monitored Design Values

. . . . . . 11

3.2 Qua lity Assurance

. . . . . . . 13

3.3 Continu ed Monito ring

. . . . . . 13

4.0 EMISSION INVENTORY

. . . . . . . 14

4.1 Attainment Year Inventory

– 2006

. . . . . 14

4.2 Air Quality Improvements and Emission Controls

. . . 15

4.3 Emissi on Projections

. . . . . . . 16

4.4 Demonstration of Ma intenance

. . . . . 17

4.5 Provisions for Future Updates

. . . . . 18

5.0 CONTROL MEASURES AND REGULATIONS

. . . 19

5.1 Attainment Demonstration Control Measures

. . . 19

5. 2 Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

. . . . 20

5. 3 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

. . . 2 0

5. 4 Controls to Remain in Effect

. . . . . . 2 1

5. 5 Provisions for Permitting New or Modified Emission Sources

. 22

5. 6 Transport ation Conformity

. . . . . . 22

6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

. . . . . . 24

6.1 Contingency M easure s

. . . . . . 24

6.2 Commitmen t to Revise Plan

. . . . . . 26

6.3 Public Participation

. . . . . . . 2 6

6.4 Legal Authority to Implement and Enforce

. . . . 27

7 .0 CONCLUSIONS

. . . . . . . . 28ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDIX A Summary of Ambient Air Monitoring Data ( 2006

- 2008 )

APPENDIX B Transportation Conformityiii LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 4.1 2006 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions

. . . . . . 14

Table 4. 2 20 02 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions

. . . . . . 15

Table 4.3 2013 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions

. . . . . . 16

Table 4.4 2020 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions

. . . . . . 1 7

Table 4. 5 Comparison of 2006

, 2013 , and 20 20 Emission Estimates

Chicago Nonattainment Area

. . . . . . 17

Table 4. 6 Estimated NOx Emission Reductions from Utility Boilers

Resulting from Implementation of Illinois’ Multi

- Pollutant Standards

. 18

Table 5.1 Proposed Chicago NAA Year 2020 Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS

. . . . 23

Table 6.1 Contingency Plan for the Chicago 8

- Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area

. . . . . . . 2 5iv LIST OF FIGURES Page

Fig ure 1.1 Map of the Lake Michigan Ozone Nonattainment Areas

. . 7

Figure 3.1 Ozone Monitors in the Lake Michigan Area

. . . . 11

Figure 3. 2 Comparison of 8

- Hour Ozone Design Values for the

Lake Michigan Region Between 2001

- 2003 and 2006

- 2008

. . 125

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document describes Illinois’ Maintenance Plan for the Illinois portion of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. A Maintenance Plan is required before the area can be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment of the 8

- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated in 1997

. This document also provides technical information required to support a redesignation request. Illinois intends to submit such a
request to the U. S. Environmental Pro tectio n Agency (U.S. EPA)

. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ( Illinois EPA) has prepared this plan in c o nsultation with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), and the U.S. EPA. The IDEM is preparing a similar plan for the Indiana portion of the Chicago nonattainment area.

Ozone air quality has dramatically improved in the Lake Michigan region as a result of implementation of State and Federal control measures since the designation of the Chicago area as nonattainment in 2004. With the exception of Holland, Michigan, t he entire Lake Michigan region, including the Chi cago nonattainment a rea, has at least three years of complete, quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2006

- 2008 that demonstrates compliance with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS . These air quality improvements are due to permanent and enforce able emission control measures.

This Maintenance Plan provides for continued attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone air quality standard for the Chicago nonattainment area for a period of ten years after U.S. EPA has formally redesignated the area to attainm ent. The Plan also provides assurances that, even if there is a subsequent violation of the air quality standard, measures listed in the Plan will prevent any future occurrences through contingency measures that would be triggered upon such an occurrence. Finally, the Plan includes on

- road motor vehicle emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations to assure that any increases in emissions from this sector do not jeopardize continued attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard during t he ten

- year maintenance period.6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document describes Illinois’ Maintenance Plan for the Illinois portion of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. A maintenance plan is required before the area can be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment of the 8

- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in 1997

. Illinois intends to submit such a request to the U.S. EPA in conjunction with this Maintenance Pl an. The Illinois E PA has prepared this plan in

co nsulta tion with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the Lake Michiga n Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), and U.S. EPA. The IDEM is preparing a similar plan for the Indiana portion of the Chicago nonattainment area . With the exception of Holland, Michigan, t he entire Lake Michigan region, including the Chicago area, has at least three years of complete, quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2006

- 2008 , demonstrating

attainment with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS.

This document also provides the technical information needed to support a request to redesignate the Chicago area to attainment of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes specific requirements to be met in order for a nonattainment area to be considered for redesignation. Before an area can be reclassified

to attai nment, U.S. EPA must make a determination that the area has attained the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS based on at least three complete years of ambient monitoring data. U.S. EPA must have approved a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the area under Section

110 and Part D of the CAA. The state must demonstrate that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and other federal requirements. Finally, the state must submit,

and U. S. EPA must approve, a maintenance plan under Section 175(A) of the CAA, including provisions for contingency measures that will be implemented if future

violations of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS are measured.

This Maintenance Plan provides for the continued a ttainment of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for the Chicago nonattainment area (NAA) for a period of ten years after U.S. EPA has formally redesignated the area to attainment. The Plan also provides assurances that even if a subsequent violation of the ozone NAAQ S occurs, provisions in the Plan will prevent any future occurrences through contingency measures that would be triggered upon such occurrence.

This document addresses the maintenance plan requirements established by the CAA and U.S. EPA, and includes add itional information to support continued compliance with the

8

- hour ozone NAAQS.

1.1 Regulatory Background

The CAA, as amended in 1990, requires areas that fail to meet the NAAQS for ozone to develop SIPs to expeditiously attain and maintain the NAAQS. Historically, exceedances of the ozone NAAQS have been monitored in Cook and Lake Counties in Illinois, and in7

portions of Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan immediately downwind of the Chicago, Gary, and Milwaukee metropolitan areas.

The Chicago NAA, which includes Lake and Porter Counties in northwest Indiana, was originally designated as n onattainment in 2004 pursuant to the 199 7 revisions to the

ozone N AAQS. Several counties in eastern Wisconsin , and one county in western Michigan adjacent to Lake Michi gan were also designated as nonattainment of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS , although these areas are separate from the Chicago NAA. Figure 1.1 depicts the current NAA s in the Lake Michigan region.

Figure 1.1 Map of the Lake Michigan Ozone Nonattainment Areas

The following is a list of the counties, and portions thereof, contained in the Chicago 8

- hour ozone severe nonattainment area:

Cook County, IL Lake County, IL DuPage County, IL McHenry County, IL8 Kane County, IL Will County, IL Grundy County, IL (Aux S able and Goose Lake Townships) Kendall County, IL (Oswego Township) Lake County, IN Porter County, IN

As a result of the designation as nonattainment and the accompanying classification as

moderate , these areas were subject to new requirements, including development of a plan demonstrating that the area would meet the federal 8

- hour NAAQS for ozone by June 15,

20 10

.

Recognizing the need for a regional solution, the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin worked cooperatively, under the auspices of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)

, to jointly develop a nd evaluat e an effective regional attainment strategy to enable the Lake Michigan region to attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The attainment strategy recognize s the importanc e of both locally generated ozone precursor emissions and the need for significant reductions of incoming (transported) ozone and ozone precursor emissions (including oxides of nitrogen, or NOx) to allow the States to attain the NAAQS. The emission reduct ions needed to attain

the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS include both State and Federal measures that have reduced ozone precursor emissions both locally and regionally. These measures have allowed the Chicago nonattainment area to attain the 8

- hour ozone standard by the attainment deadline established by the U.S. EPA.

1.2 Status of Air Quality

Ozone monitoring data for the most recent three

- year period, 2006 through 200 8

, demonstrates that air quality has met the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the entire Lake Michigan region, including the Chicago nonattainment area , with the exception of Holland, Michigan

. Modeling performed by LADCO shows that Holland, MI will attain

the 1997 ozone NAAQS by 2012.9

2.0 REDESIGNATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Sections 107 a nd 110 of the CAA list a number of requirements that must be met by nonattainment areas prior to consideration for redesignation to attainment. One of those requirements is the maintenance plan, which describes a state’s plan for maintaining the NAAQS for a ten

- year period after redesignation to attainment. U.S. EPA has published guidance for the preparation of maintenance plans and redesignation requests. This guidance is contained in a document entitled ―Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignat e Areas to Attainment‖ (September 4, 1992).

Before a redesignation to attainment can be promulgated, U.S. EPA must:

Determine that the NAAQS for ozone, as published in 40 CFR 50.4, has been attained. Ozone monitoring data must show that violations of th e ambient NAAQS are no longer occurring. This showing must rely on three consecutive years of data. The ambient air monitoring data must be quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, recorded in U.S. EPA’s Air Quality System (A Q S) data base, and is available to the public.

Approve the state’s plan for demonstrating attainment. The attainment plan, which is based on air quality modeling, must contain enforceable control measures and must be submitted as a revision to the state’s SIP after a public hearing.

Determine that the improvement in air quality between the year violations occurred and the year that attainment was achieved is based on permanent and

enforceable emission reductions

.

Approve the state’s maintenance plan. The requirements for t he maintenance plan

are discussed below.

Determine that all other requirements applicable to nonattainment areas have been

met.

A maintenance plan provides for the continued attainment of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for a nonattainment area for a period of te n years after U.S. EPA has formally redesignated the area to attainment. The plan also provides assurances that even if a subsequent violation of the NAAQS occurs, provisions in the plan will prevent any future occurrences through contingency measures tha t would be triggered upon such occurrence. To be approvable, the state is required to have a public hearing on the maintenance plan prior to adoption. The maintenance plan must contain the following elements:

A comprehensive emission inventory of the pr ecursors of ozone completed for the ―attainment year‖ ;10 A projection of the emission inventory forward to a year at least ten years after redesignation and a demonstration that the projected level of emissions is sufficient to maintain the ozone NAAQS ;

A commitment that, once redesignated, the state will continue to operate an appropriate monitoring network to verify maintenance of the attainment status ;

A demonstration of legal authority to implement and enforce all control measures

contained in the SIP ;

Provisions for future updates of the inventory to enable tracking of emission levels, including an annual emission statement from major sources ;

Motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity for the ten

- year maintenance period ;

A commit ment to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years after redesignation ;

A commitment to enact and implement additional contingency control measures expeditiously in the event that future violations of the NAAQS occur ;

A list of potential contingency m easures that would be implemented in such an

event.

Illinois’ Maintenance Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements specified in U.S. EPA’s guidance document and additional guidance received from U.S.

EPA staff.

The following sections of this document describe how U.S. EPA’s requirements have

been met.11

3.0 OZONE MONITORING

U.S. EPA’s published guidance document, ―Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment‖ (September 4, 1992), details specific requirements

re garding the collection and use of ambient air monitoring data needed to support a redesignation request. Before the Chicago NAA can be redesignated, Illinois must demonstrate that the NAAQS for ozone, as published in 40 CFR 50.4, has been attained.

Ozone monitoring data must show that violations of the NAAQS are no longer occurring

within the nonattainment area . This showing must rely on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality assured data. Further, the air monitoring data must be quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, recorded in U.S. EPA’s AQS data base, and made available to the public. Finally, Illinois must commit to continue to operate an appropriate monitoring network to verify the maintenance of the attainment status, onc e the area has been redesignated.

The following subsections describe how each of these requirements has been addressed.

3.1 Monitored Design Values

Currently there are 55 ozone monitors located in the nonattainment counties in the Lake Michigan region; 9 are located in northwestern Indiana, 17 in northeastern Illinois, 13 in western Michigan, and 16 in eastern Wisconsin.

Figure 3.1 Ozone Monitors in the Lake Michigan Area12

To determine whether the NAAQS is b eing exceeded, the design value must be calculated. The current U.S. EPA method for calculating the ozone design value is to

average the 4 th highest daily maximum 8

- hour value for each year over the 3

- year period.

The calculated 8

- hour ozone design values for the monitors in the Lake Michigan region

for 2006

- 2008 are included as Appendix A of this report. Figure 3. 2 compares the design

values for the 2001

- 2003 period for monitoring stations in the Lake Michigan region to the corresponding design values fr om 2006

- 2008 . The data demonstrate that ozone air quality has improved dramatically throughout the Lake Michigan region and that the NAAQS for ozone has been attained for the 2006

- 2008 period at all locations except Holland, Michigan

.

Figure 3. 2 Compa rison of 8

- Hour Ozone Design Values for the Lake Michigan Region

Between 2001

- 2003 and 2006

- 2008

2001

- 2003 2006

- 200813

3.2 Quality Assurance

Illinois EPA has quality assured all data shown in Appendix A for all sites located in

Illinois in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 and the Illinois EPA ’s Quality Assurance Plan,

which describes Illinois EPA ’s standard operating procedures for operating the ambient

mo nitoring network and validating the data. The other states in the Lake Michigan region have similar quality assurance plans. Illinois EPA has recorded the data in the U.S.

EPA’s A QS database, as have the other Lake Michigan states. U.S. EPA’s AQS databa se is available to the public.

3. 3 Continued Monitoring

Illinois commits to continue monitoring ozone levels according to a U.S. EPA approved monitoring plan, as required to ensure maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Should changes in the location of an ozo ne monitor become necessary, Illinois EPA will work with U.S. EPA to ensure the adequacy of the monitoring network. Illinois EPA will continue to quality assure the monitoring data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.

Illinois EPA will continue to ente r all data into A QS on a timely basis in accordance with federal guidelines.14

4.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

A redesignation request must contain a demonstration that the improvement in air quality between the year that violations occurred and the year that at tainment was achieved is based on permanent and enforceable emission reductions . As described previously in Section 3.0, a three

- year monitoring period is used to evaluate whether attainment has been achieved. In this Section, the ―attainment year‖ refer s to the first year ( 2006 ) of the

three

- year period ( 2006

- 2008 ) used to demonstrate attainment. The request should also include a projection of the emission inventory to a year at least 10 years following redesignation, a demonstration that the projected level of emissions is sufficient to maintain the ozone NAAQS, and a commitment to provide future updates of the inventory to enable tracking of emission levels during the 10

- year maintenance period.

4.1 Attainment Year Inventory, 2006

Illinois EPA has pr epared a comprehensive emissions inventory for the Illinois portion of

the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, including point, area, and on

- road and off

- road mobile sources for precursors of ozone ( VOM and NOx) for the attainment year, 2006

. This inventory is based on Illinois EPA’s SIP submittal entitled, ―Illinois Base Year Ozone Inventory for 2002‖ , ( June 2006 ). Point source information was compiled from 2006 annual emission reports submitted to the Illinois EPA by emission sources and the

U.S. EPA’s Cl ean Air Markets Division database for electric utilities . Area source

emissions were ―grown‖ from 2002 activity levels appropriate for each source category. Biogenic emissions are not included in these summaries. On

- road mobile source

emissions were cal culated using U.S. EPA’s MOBILE 6 emissions model with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)

. Off

- road mobile source emissions were calculated using U.S. EPA’s NONROAD

emissions model.

Table 4.1 sum marizes the 2006 e missions estimates for the Chicago ozone nonattainment

area.

Table 4.1

2006 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions (Emissions stated in tons per ozone season weekday)
Source Category VOM NOx

Point Sources 61.20 194.03

Area Sources 281.43 35.64

On

- Road Mobile Sources 130.03 302.43

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 152.90 279.95

Total 625.56 812.0515

4.2 Air Quality Improvement s and Emission Controls

The Chicago area was designated nonattainment in 2004, based on ozone air quality monitoring data collected between 2001 and 2003 . Since that time, permanent and

enforceable reductions of ozone precursor emissions have contributed to improvements in ozone air quality and to the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Some of these emi ssion reductions were due to the application of tighter federal emission standards on motor
vehicles and fuels, and some due to the requirements of the federal NOx SIP Call. Section 5.0 of this report describes these reductions in more detail, along with an explanation of their regulatory status. In this subsection, the emission levels from 2006 are compared to emission levels estimated in 2002 when the Chicago area was first proposed for a nonattainment designation for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard.

U. S. EPA’s 8

- hour ozone Implementation Rule required that states with ozone nonattainment areas prepare and submit a 2002 base year anthropogenic inventory of sources of ozone precursor emissions. The base year inventory included emissions from point, area, on

- road mobile and off

- road mobile emissions. Illinois EPA prepared and submitted this inventory i n June 2006. Table 4.2 summarizes 2002 emissions by major source category and by pollutant for the Illinois portion of the Chicago nonattainment

area.

Ta ble 4.2

2002 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions (Emissions stated in tons per ozone season weekday)
Source Category VOM NOx

Point Sources 76.62 307.73

Area Sources 2 7 3.33 42.93

On

- Road Mobile Sources 168.63 408.88

Off

- Road M obile Sources 233.77 326.65

Total 752.35 1086.19

Comparing the 2002 inventory to that for 2006 indicates that total VOM emissions in the Chicago area decreased by about 126 tons per day (tpd), due largely to reductions from

on

- road and off

- road mobi le source s. NOx emissions in the Chicago NAA decreased significantly, about 274 tpd, during the same time period

. These sizeable emission reductions in ozone precursor emissions , plus reductions in upwind areas in Illinois and other nearby states, resul ted in a substantial improvement in ozone air quality in the Chicago area, ultimately resulting in attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS.16

4.3 Emission Projections

A maintenance plan must contain a demonstration that the level of emissions projected

for the ten

- year period following redesignation are sufficient to maintain the ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, Illinois EPA has projected VOM and NOx emissions for the Illinois portion of the Chicago nonattainment area for 20 20

. Illinois EPA has also projecte d emissions to 20 13 , to represent a midpoint during the ten

- year maintenance period. Emissions for these two projection years are compared to emission levels in 2006 to determine if emissions are sufficient to maintain the NAAQS during this period.

Chica go area point source emissions for 20 13 and 20 20 were estimated using the 2002 base year inventory and growth factors appropriate for each source category . Area source emissions were projected by applying category

- specific growth factors to estimates

cont ained in the 2002 base year inventory. County population projections for 20 13 and

20 20 were used to estimate emissions for categories which rely on a per capita emissions

factors. Off

- road emissions projections were also developed using the 2002 inventor y and growth factors contained in U.S. EPA’s NONROAD model. On

- road motor vehicle emissions were estimated using U.S. EPA ’s MOBILE 6 motor vehicle emissions model. The figures assume the continued use of reformulated gasoline , the continued phase

- in of

th e Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards, and operation of an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program. Total vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for 20 13 and

20 20 w ere assume d to increase at a rate of 1.27 percent per year from 2002.

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 include the VOM and NOx emissions estimates for the years 20 13 and

20 20 , respectively, for the Illinois portion of the Chicago nonattainment area.

Table 4.3

20 13 Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions (Emissions stated in tons per ozone season weekday)
Source Category VOM NOx

Point Sources 70.27 155.02

Area Sources 266.33 37.58

On

- Road Mobile Sources 94.16 179.14

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 122.82 249.28

Total 553.58 621.0217 Table 4.4

20 20 Chicago Ozone Nonattain ment Area

VOM and NOx Emissions (Emissions stated in tons per ozone season weekday)
Source Category VOM NOx

Point Sources 81.43 153.12

Area Sources 293.25 39.62

On

- Road Mobile Sources 73.68 88.17

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 129.15 246.54

Total 577.51 527 .45

4.4 Demonstration of Maintenance

Table 4.5 demonstrates that the level of emissions projected for the ten

- year period following redesignation is sufficient to maintain the ozone NAAQS. As shown in the table, both VOM and NOx emissions within the n onattainment area are expected to

dec rease significantly between 2006 and 2020. P rojected VOM and NOx emissions for

the mid

- point year, 20 13 , are also less than the emission levels in 2006

. Based on these emission trends it is expected that air quality w ill continue to meet the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS throughout the maintenance period.

In addition to the overall emission reductions projected to occur within the nonattainment area, significant reductions of statewide NOx emissions resulting from implementation of
Illinois’ multi

- pollutant standards affecting electric utilities by 20 12 , will also help to

ensure continued attainment of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Table 4.6 provides a summary of the expected reductions of NOx emissions resulting from implementation o f Illinois’

multi

- pollutant standards

.

TABLE 4.5

Comparison of 2006, 2013 and 20 20 Emission Estimates

Chicago Nonattainment Area (Emissions stated in tons per ozone season weekday)

2006 2013 Difference

(20 06

– 20 13 ) 2020 Difference (20 06

– 20 20 )18 V OM 625.56 553.58 71.98 577.51 48.05

NOx 812.05 621.02 191.03 527.45 284.60

Table 4.6 Estimated NOx Emission Reductions From Utility Boilers Resulting from Implementation of Illinois’ Multi

- Pollutant Standards

(Emissions stated in tons per day)

2 006 NOx Emissions 256.0

2012 NOx Emissions 130.5

Net reduction 125.5

4.5 Provisions for Future Updates

As required by Section 175A(b) of the CAA, Illinois commits to submit to U.S. EPA, eight years after redesignation, a revised version of this Mainte nance Plan. The revision will contain Illinois’ plan for maintaining the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for ten years beyond

the first 10

- year period after redesignation

.19

5.0 CONTROL MEASURES AND REGULATIONS

This section provides specific information on the contro l measures implemented in the Chicago nonattainment area, including the measures that were part of Illinois’ Attainment Demonstration, R easonable Further Progress (R F P) demonstration , CAA requirements,

and other state and federal measures. The control mea sures required in past ozone SIP revisions have been fully implemented, and other, more recent control programs will continue to provide emission reductions in future years. Illinois EPA commits to keep these measures in effect after redesignation, or to provide equivalent emissions levels using alternate measures. Illinois’ SIP contains acceptable provisions to provide for preconstruction review of new emission sources. After redesignation to attainment

, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) req uirements will apply to the construction of new major sources and to significant modifications of existing sources. Illinois has accepted delegation from U.S. EPA of this program. Illinois further commits to continue to require that all future transporta tion plans in the Chicago area conform with the SIP.

5.1 Attainment Demonstration Control Measures

Illinois’ attainment demonstration for the Chicago nonattainment area identifies control

measures that have been promulgated at either the state or federal level that are sufficient

to allow the Lake Michigan region, with the exception of Holland, MI, to meet the 1997

8

- hour ozone NAAQS by the required attainment date. The attainment demonstration

, which was submitted to U.S. EPA after a public hearing and public comment period, is
described in the Illinois EPA’s document: ―Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality for the Chicago Nonattainment Area‖ (Report

Number AQPSTR 09

- 03

, March 18, 2009 ). The primary emission re duction measures for demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard are as follows:

NOx SIP Call

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)/Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MAC T) Standards

VO M Solvent Categories: Aerosol Coatings, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings, Consumer Solvents

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance Program

Reformulated Gasoline

Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards an d Gasol ine Sulfur Control Requirements20 On

- Highway Heavy

- Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements

Federal Control Programs Incorporated into NONROAD Model (e.g., Nonroad Diesel Rule), plus Evaporative Large Sp ark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle

Standards

Tier 4 Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards and Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content

Restrictions

Marine Compression

- Ignition Engine Standards and Locomotive Engine

Standards

Consent Decrees

--- Dynegy Midwest Generati on, ConocoPhillips, CITGO , Exxon

Mobil, Marathon Ashland , Archer Daniels Midland

5.2 Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

Since the Chicago region is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8

- hour ozone standard, a 15 percent net reduction in VOM emissions from 2002 levels is required by 2008 in order to meet the RFP requirement. The Illinois EPA has not relied

on NOx substitution to meet its 15 percent RFP reduction, relying solely on VOM

emission reductions.

Reductions in VOM emissions ar e primarily achieved through implementation of the

contro l measures listed in Section 5.1.

The RFP demonstration is contained in Illinois EPA’s document: ―Chicago

Nonattainment Area 8

- Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration‖

, (Report

Number A QPSTR 09

- 05

, March 18, 2009 )

. The control measures identified in the RFP

document , including those listed above, will result in a 15.7 percent reduction in VOM

emissions from 2002 emissions levels by the year 2008. In addition, continuing

reductions in 2 009 and 2010 are estimated to result in year 2010 VOM emissions at 21.0 percent below 2002 levels. These emission reductions achieve the 15% RFP target for the Chicago nonattainment area.

5.3 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

Pursuant to Se ctions 172, 182(b) and (f) of the CAA, RACT is required for all existing major sources of the applicable criteria pollutant and its precursors (VOM and NOx)

located in NAAs. U.S. EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological feasibility and economic reasonableness (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005). The major source threshold for moderate NAAs is21

defined as 100 tpy. A source generally consists of several units that emit pollutants. The sum of emissions from all units at the source determines if a unit is major and thus subject to RACT requirements.

RACT is not a new requirement under the CAA. Illinois previ ously addressed RACT requirements in the Chicago area in developing attainment plans for the 1

- hour ozone standard. The RACT requirement for NOx was previously waived under the 1

- hour ozone standard, and Illinois must adopt new regulations to implement NO x RACT in the NAA. However, Illinois has previously adopted RACT requirements for VOM emissions in the NAA. ( See 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219) T he Illinois EPA has evaluated the previously adopted regulations to determine if the RACT requirement is still being met

for 8

- hour ozone.

Sections 172, 182(b)(2)

, and 182(f) of the C AA require implement ation of RACT for sources that are subject to Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) that are promulgated by U

. S

. EPA. The U.S. EPA has issued CTGs defining RAC T for those categories of sources that emit the greatest amounts of VOM emissions

. Illinois EPA will soon be proposing regulations to implement the revised CTG s issued by the U.S. EPA in 2006. Other than the 2006 CTGs, Illinois has adopted applicable rul es addressing all CTG s published by U.S. EPA for which there are existing sources in the Chicago NAA.

Non

- CTG sources are defined as major VOM sources which are not subject to CTGs, but for which RACT is required. All major sources of ozone precursors l ocated in the ozone NAA that are not subject to individual RACT rules are subject to a generic RACT rule. These rules apply to non

- CTG sources that have the potential to emit 100 tons or more per year of VOM. Thus, Illinois has met the obligation to impl ement RACT on non

- CTG

VOM sources in the NAA.

It should be noted that other regulatory requirements also affect VOM emission sources within the Chicago ozone NAA. These include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) . T hese programs satisfy the RACT requirements for specific source categories because these rules are more stringent than RACT. It is concluded from this review that Illinois ’ existing VOM RACT

rules f ulfill U.S. EPA’s RACT requirements for VOM sources in the NAA.

As mentioned previously, the RACT requirement for NOx was previously waiv ed under

the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS

. With respect to the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, t he I l linois Pollution Control Board (Illinois PCB) is now considering two regulatory propos als prepared by the Illinois EPA. The Illinois EPA will submit Illinois’ NO

x RACT r ules as a

SIP revision once these requirements have been adopted by the Illinois PCB

. It should be noted however that the attainment demonstration for the Chicago NAA for the 1997 ozone NAAQS does not rely on emission reductions from the Illinois EPA’s NOx RACT proposal. The reductions resulting from this program, when implemented, will h elp the22

area to maintain the NAAQS in future years.

5.4 Controls to Remain in Effect

Illinois will maintain all of the control measures listed in this Section to ensure

maintenance of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Any revisions to the control measures

include d as part of the Maintenance Plan will be submitted as a SIP revision to U.S. EPA for approval, and will be accompanied by a showing that such changes will not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS.

Illinois EPA has the necessary resources to enforce an y violations of its rules or permit provisions. After redesignation, it intends to continue enforcing all rules that relate to the emission of ozone precursors in the Chicago nonattainment area.

5. 5 Provisions for Permitting New or Modified Emission Sour ces

Illinois has longstanding and fully implemented programs for the review of new major sources and significant modifications of existing sources. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program

, which include s requirements for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on major new sources or significant modifications of existing sources, will be applicable in the Chicago area once the area has been redesignated to
attainment . Illinois has been delegated full authority to implement the PSD prog ram by

U.S. EPA.

5. 6 Transportation Conformity

The purpose of this section is to describe and establish the Chicago nonattainment area motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the 8

- hour ozone Maintenance Plan S IP.

A verage summer weekday motor ve hicle emissions budgets are being proposed for the final year of the Maintenance Plan, 20 20, and for the precursor pollutants VOM and NOx

. These budgets were developed consistent with the motor vehicle activity assumptions and emissions control strategies incorporated into the 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration analysis. The budgets reflect an emissions level determined using motor vehicle VMT and fleet mix provided by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and are consistent with the emis sion levels used in the attainment

demonstration

.

A motor vehicle emissions budget is that portion of the total allowable emissions allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that are defined in the SIP for a certain year. The rules governing transpo rtation conformity require certain transportation activities to be consistent with motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in control strategy implementation plans (40 CFR § 93.118). Section 93.101 of the rule defines a ―control strategy [State] impleme ntation plan revision‖ as a ―plan which contains specific strategies for controlling the emissions and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA requirements of reasonable further progress and attainment.‖ In order to23

demonstrate confo rmity to the motor vehicle emissions budget, emissions from the implementation of a transportation plan or a transportation improvement program must be less than or equal to the budget level (40 CFR § 93.118(a)).

The motor vehicle emissions budgets establ ished and described herein were developed consistent with the methodology and control strategy assumptions used in the 8

- hour

ozone a ttainment d emonstration. The effects of motor vehicle control measures are incorporated into the emissions factors produce d by the U

. S

. EPA’s MOBILE6 model. These control measures include motor vehicle emissions standards, the operation of a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and the required use of reformulated gasoline and low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel

.

The budgets also incorporate responses to c omments raised during the public comment period. These comments concerned the use of an updated vehicle registration distribution dataset and the incorporation of a ―safety margin‖ into the year 2020 motor veh icle emissions budgets. Discussion of these comments is included in Appendix B of this report as well as the Responsiveness Summary prepared by the Illinois EPA subsequent to the public hearing and comment period

. The motor vehicle emissions budgets, wh ich

reflect the VMT and control program assumptions and methodology described here

, are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5 .1 Proposed Chicago NAA Year 2020 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

For the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS (tons per ozone season weekday)

VOM 73 .68

88.17 NOx

Complete detail s on the derivation of the motor vehicle emissions budgets, including discussion of the MOBILE6 model inputs and assumptions are included in Appendix B of this report

.24

6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

6.1 Contingency Measures

Sect ion 175(A) of the CAA specifies the requirements for maintenance plans, including provisions for contingency measures that will be implemented if violations of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS are measured after redesignation to attainment. A list of potential

cont ingency measures that would be implemented in such an event should also be included in the Maintenance Plan. Finally, the plan should provide a commitment to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to ensure continued

maintenance for the next ten

- year maintenance period.

Contingency measures are intended to provide further emission reductions in the event

that violations of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS occur after redesignation to attainment.

While these measures do not need to be ful ly adopted by the I PCB prior to the occurrence of NAAQS violations, the contingency plan should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered. The Maintenance Plan must identify the triggers that determine when con tingency measures will be adopted

, and the measures that the state will consider.

Illinois EPA ’s contingency plan for the Chicago NAA is described in Table 6.1

. Consistent with this plan, Illinois agrees to adopt and implement, as expeditiously as is

pra cticable, the necessary corrective actions in the event that violations of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS occur within the Chicago maintenance area after redesignation to

attainment. Further, Illinois commit s to continue to implement the control measures

identifi ed in the attainment demonstration and R FP demonstration . As described in Section 5.0 of this report, Illinois has adopted and is continuing to implement a range of control measures that will greatly reduce precursor emissions, both locally and statewide. The contingency plan anticipates that these emission reductions will be sufficient to mitigate exceedances or violations of the NAAQS that may occur in the coming years without further regulatory action.

The contingency plan provides for different leve ls of corrective responses should ambient

8

- hour ozone levels exceed the NAAQS in any year , if emissions in the NAA increase significantly above current attainment levels, or if the NAAQS is violated. A Level I response would occur in the event that: 1) t he fourth highest 8

- hour ozone concentration at any monitoring site in the Chicago NAA exceeds 84 ppb in any year, or 2) if VOM or NOx emissions increase more than 5% above the levels contained in the attainment year (2006) emissions inventory. It should be noted that U.S. EPA does not require a state to implement contingency measures when occasional exceedances are recorded. IEPA’s voluntary commitment to initiate a Level I response is intended to prevent future violations of the NAAQS from ever occurrin g.

Illinois commits to compiling VOM and NOx emissions inventories every three years for the duration of the Maintenance Plan to facilitate the emissions trends analysis included25 Table 6.1

Contingency Plan for the Chicago 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Contingency Measure Trigger Action to be Taken List of Potential Contingency Measures

Level I Trigger

Fourth highest

m onitored 8

- hour

average ozone concentration exceeding 84 ppb in
any year at any monitoring station in the Chicago

maintenance area

.

The Chicago
maintenance area’s

NOx or VOM

emissions inventories

increase more than

5% above the levels

included in the 2006

emissions inventories. IL will evaluate air quality , or determine if adverse emissions trends are likely to continue. If so, IL will determine what and where controls may be required, as well as level of emissions reductions needed, to avoid a violation of the NAAQS. The study shall be completed within 9 months. If necessary, control measures shall be adopted within 18 months of determination and implemented as expeditiously as practicable, taking into

consideration the ease of implementation and the technical and economic feasibility of the selected

measures. Point Source Measures

IL Multi

- Pollutant Program for electric gene rating units Reinstate requirements for Offsets

and/or LAER Apply RACT to smaller existing

sources Tighten RACT for existing sources covered by US EPA

CTGs. Expanded geographic coverage of

NOx RACT

MACT controls for industrial

sources Other measures to b e identified

Mobile Source Measures

Tier 2 Vehicle Standards and Low

Sulfur Fuel Heavy Duty Diesel Standards and

Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel High

- enhanced I/M (OBDII) California Engine Standards

Other measures to be identified

Area Source Measures

Architectu ral/Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings

Commercial and Consumer

Products Aerosol coatings Broader geographic applicability of existing measures

Other measures to be identified Level II Trigger

A violation of the NAAQS at any monitoring station in

the Chicago

maintenance area. IL will conduct a thorough analysis to determine appropriate measures to

address the cause of the violation. Analysis shall be completed within 6

months. Selected measures shall be implemented within 18 months of a

violation.

in the contingency plan under Level I. Illinois will coordinate with LADCO and other Lake Michigan states to evaluate the causes of high ozone levels or the emissions trends and to determine appropriate control measures needed to assure continued att ainment of

8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Under Level I, measures that could be implemented in a short time would be selected so as to be in place quickly after the Illinois EPA is aware that corrective measures have been triggered. Control measures selected under Level I will be adopted in most cases within 18 months after a determination is made, and implemented, generally, within 24 months of adoption by the IPCB.26

A Level II response would be implemented in the event that a violation of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS we re to be measured at a monitoring site within the Chicago maintenance

area

. In order to select appropriate corrective measures, Illinois will work with LADCO and other Lake Michigan States to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the

causes of the vi olation and the control measures necessary to mitigate the problem. The analysis will examine the following factors:

the number, location, and severity of the ambient ozone concentrations; the weather patterns contributing to ozone levels; potential, con tributing emissions sources; the geographic applicability of possible contingency measures; emissions trends, including timeliness of implementation of scheduled control

measures; current and recently identified control technologies; air quality contributi ons from outside the maintenance area.

Contingency measures will be selected from those listed in Table 6.1 or from any other measure deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made. This list of contingency measures is comprehensive, and it is expected that only a few of these measures would be required. The selection between measures will be based upon cost

effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, ease and timing of implementation, or other app ropriate factors. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Level II trigger will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 18 months after Illinois makes a determination, based on quality

assured ambient data, that a violation of the NAAQS has occurred.

Adoption of additional control measures is subject to necessary administrative and legal

processes. I llinois EPA will solicit input from all interested and affected persons in the area prior to selecting appropriate control measures. No contingency measure will be implemented without providing the opportunity for full public participation. This process will include publication of notices, an opportunity for public hearing, and other measures required by Illinois law

.

6.2 Commitment to Revise Plan

As noted in Section 4.5 above, Illinois commits to review its Maintenance Plan eight years after redesignation, as required by Section 175(A) of the CAA

. The Maintenance

Plan revision is intended to ensure continued attai nment of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for

an additional ten

- year period.

6.3 Public Participation

In accordance with Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, Illinois is required to hold a public hearing prior to adoption of this Maintenance Plan and submittal to U.S. EP A. Public participation in the SIP process is provided for as follows:27 Notice of availability of the Maintenance Plan document and the time and date of the public hearing was published in the local papers for the Chicago

nonattainment area on November 15 , 2008

.

The public hearing to receive comments on the Maintenance Plan was held on December 16, 2008

.

A 30

- day public comment period was also available after the public hearing to

receive comments on the Maintenance Plan. A summary of the comments

rece ived and Illinois EPA’s responses thereto is included as part of the submittal

to U.S. EPA.

6.4 Legal Authority to Implement and Enforce

The Maintenance Plan must contain a demonstration that the State of Illinois has the necessary legal authority to imp lement and enforce the measures relied upon to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Illinois has the legal authority to implement and enforce the requirements of this SIP submittal pursuant to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.28

7 .0 CONCLUSIONS

The Ch icago nonattainment area has attained the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS established in

1997 and has complied with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act required of

moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Illinois has submitted an attainment demonstration

that w as based on air quality modeling and contains enforceable control measures. Illinois has performed an analysis that demonstrates that the Chicago NAA has attained

the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and believes the air quality improvements are due to
permanent a nd enforceable control measures. Supporting documentation is contained

herein.

Illinois has prepared a Maintenance Plan that meets the requirement of the Clean Air Act. This Maintenance Plan provides for the continued attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for a period of ten years after U.S. EPA has formally redesignated the area to attainment. This Maintenance Plan provides adequate contingency measures for potential, additional emission reductions in the event that future violations of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS are observed in the area.

Illinois has prepared a comprehensive emission inventory of the precursors of ozone completed for the ―attainment‖ year 2006 , and has prepared a projection of the emission inventory to a year at least 10 years follo wing redesignation. These projections indicate

that emissions levels in the Chicago nonattainment area will continue to decrease, thereby maintaining the ozone NAAQS in future years. Illinois commits to continue to operate an appropriate monitoring netwo rk to verify the maintenance of the attainment status once the area has been redesignated. Illinois EPA has the legal authority to implement and

enforce all control measures.

Finally, the Maintenance Plan includes on

- road motor vehicle emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations to assure that any increases in emissions from this sector do not jeopardize continued attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard during the

ten

- year maintenance period. This Maintenance Plan has been prepa red in accordance with the requirements specified in U.S. EPA’s guidance document, and additional guidance received from U.S. EPA staff.29 

## APPENDIX A

Summary of Ambient Air Monitoring Data

( 2006

- 2008 )30 

### Table A.1

2006

- 2008 8

- hour Ozone Design Values

for M onitors in the Lake Michigan Region

State of Illinois
County AQS Code Site Name Design Value 4th High 2006 4th High 2007 4th High 2008
Cook 170310001 Alsip 76 78 85 66 Cook 170310032 Chicago (SWFP) 74 75 82 67 Cook 170310064 Chicago (U. of Chicago) 70 70 79 63 Cook 170310072 Chicago (Jardine) 67 65 75 63 Cook 170310076 Chicago (ComED) 73 75 80 66 Cook 170311003 Chicago (Taft) 73 77 79 64 Cook 170311601 Lemont 75 70 85 71 Cook 170314002 Cicero 62 60 68 60 Cook 170314007 Des Plaines 66 65 78 57 Co ok 170314201 Northbrook 69 68 76 65 Cook 170317002 Evanston 70 72 80 58 DuPage 170436001 Lisle 63 62 72 57
Kane 170890005 Elgin 66 62 75 61
Lake 170971002 Waukegan 71 71 81 63
Lake 170971007 Zion 72 68 80 69 McHenry 171110001 Cary 65 57 74 65
Will 1 71971011 Braidwood 66 68 71 60

State of Indiana
County AQS Code Site Name Design Value 4th High 2006 4th High 2007 4th High 2008
Elkhart 180390007 Bristol 72 67 82 68
Lake 180890022 Gary 73 73 85 62
Lake 180890030 Whiting 77 81 88 62
Lake 180892008 Hammond 73 75 77 68
La Porte 180910005 Michigan City 69 75 73 59
La Porte 180910010 La Porte 70 69 78 65
Porter 181270026 Valparaiso 70 71 80 61 St. Joseph 181410010 Potato Creek St Park 69 69 75 63 St. Joseph 18141001 5 South Bend 6 1 58 67 58 St. Jos eph 181411007 Granger 73 70 82 6931

State of Michigan
County AQS Code Site Name Design Value 4th High 2006 4th High 2007 4th High 2008 Allegan 260050003 Holland 86 91 94 73
Benzie 260190003 Frankfort/Benzonia 76 80 82 66
Berrien 260210014 Coloma 7 8 76 86 73 Cass 260270003 Cassopolis 75 73 83 71
Kalamazoo 260770008 Kalamazoo 73 68 81 70
Kent 260810020 Grand Rapids 77 82 84 66
Kent 260810022 Evans/Oakfield 78 81 85 69
Leelanau 260890001 Peshawbestown 71 73 79 62
Ma nistee 2610 1 0 922 Manistee 77 8 3 83 6 5
Mason 261050007 Scottville 75 76 83 68
Missaukee 261130001 Houghton Lake 71 73 76 66 Muskegon 261210039 Muskegon 82 90 86 72 Ottawa 261390005 Jenison 79 83 88 67 Schoolcraft 261530001 Seney 75 76 85 64

State of Wisconsin
County AQS Code Sit e Name Design Value 4th High 2006 4th High 2007 4th High 2008
Brown 550090026 Green Bay 70 66 82 63
Door 550290004 Newport Beach 80 79 92 69
Kenosha 550590019 Chiwaukee 78 79 85 72
Kewaunee 550610002 Kewaunee 75 77 85 65
Manitowoc 550710007 Manitowoc (Two Rivers) 7 5 78 85 6 4
Milwaukee 550790010 Milwaukee (16th St.) 63 64 67 60
Milwaukee 550790026 DNR SE Region 68 68 75 63
Milwaukee 550790041 Milwaukee (UWM

- North) 72 73 78 65
Milwaukee 550790085 Milwaukee (Bayside) 75 73 83 69 Ozaukee 550890008 Gra fton 72 71 82 64 Ozaukee 550890009 Harrington Beach 74 72 84 67
Racine 551010017 Racine 71 71 77 65 Sheboygan 551170006 Sheboygan 82 83 88 75
Walworth 551270005 Lake Geneva 70 72 75 64 Washington 551310009 Slinger 65 66 71 60
Waukesha 551330027 Wauke sha 66 67 72 6032 

## APPENDIX B

Transportation Conformity33

T RANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

Th is section describe s the development of the Chicago nonattainment area motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8

- hour NAAQS

. An average summer weekday motor vehicle emissions budget is being proposed for the year 20 20 for the precursor pollutants VO M and NOx . These budgets were developed consistent with the motor vehicle activity assumptions (e.g., fleet mix, registration

distr ibution,...) and emissions control strategies incorporated into the 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration analysis.

Background

Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects which are f unded or approved under Title 23 USC must be determined to conform with State or Federal air implementation plans. A motor vehicle emissions budget is that portion of the total allowable emissions allocated to highway and

transit vehicle use that are defi ned in the SIP for a certain year. Section 93.101 of the rule defines a ―control strategy [State] implementation plan revision‖ as a ―plan which contains specific strategies for controlling the emissions and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy Clean Air Act (―CAA‖) requirements of reasonable further progress and attainment.‖ In order to demonstrate conformity to the motor vehicle emissions budget, emissions from the implementation of a transportation plan or a transportation improvem ent program (―TIP‖) must be less than or equal to the budget level (40 CFR § 93.118(a)).

Transportation conformity will be based on these submitted on road motor vehicle emissions budgets after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( ― U

. S

. EPA ‖ )

determi nes that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria of the transportation conformity rule under §93.118(e). The motor vehicle emissions budgets in this submittal are adequate as each of the si x criteria under §93.118(e) is satisfied. These six criteria

inclu de:

1. The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee) and was subject to a State public hearing.

2. Before the control strategy implementation plan or maintenance plan was s ubmitted to

U.S. EPA, consultation among federal, State, and local agencies occurred ; full implementation plan documentation was provided to U

. S

. EPA; and U

. S

. EPA’s stated concerns, if any, were addressed;

3. The motor vehicle emissions budgets(s) is cle arly identified and precisely quantified;34

4. The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with all applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whicheve r is relevant to the given implementation plan submission);

5. The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan, and

6. Revisions to previously submitted control strategy implementation plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures, impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established saf ety margins; and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).

This State Implementation Plan and the associated motor vehicle emissions budgets have been developed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), the designated air quality agency for the State of Illinois. The required public hearing to accept public comment on the proposed motor vehicle emissions inventory was held on December 16, 2008 in Room 9

- 031 of the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. Notification of this hearing was printed in the Chicago Sun Times on November 15, 2008 . Comments on the proposed attainment demonstration and motor vehicle emissions budgets were accepted f or 30 days after the public hearing. A ―Responsiveness Summary‖ which addresses the written comments received has been prepared and is included in the final submission

.

Two comments pertinent to the proposed motor vehicle emissions budgets were receive d after the public hearing. The first comment, from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), pointed out that that the vehicle Registration dataset incorporated into the proposed budgets was from the 2003

- 2004 time frame and recommended that i t be updated in order to comply with the transportation conformity requirement for the use of ―updated planning assumptions.‖ An updated vehicle registration distribution dataset, representative of the Chicago area’s 2008 vehicle fleet was developed and ha s been incorporated into the motor vehicle emissions budgets estimation. The CMAP also requested the inclusion of a ―safety margin‖ within the Maintenance Plan’s motor vehicle emissions budgets. As the total emissions for the region were well below the a ttainment year emissions level, an additional 10% of the total of both the 2020 VO M and NOx

emissions was included.

In compliance with criterion #2 above

, a Tier 2 Conformity Consultation Team meeting35

was held on January 30, 2009 to discuss the propos ed Maintenance Plan and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets. The C onsultation Team includes representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Authority, U.S. EPA, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Illinois Department of Transportation, Regional Transportation Authority, and the Illinois EPA. In addition, the development of the Maintenance Plan was discussed at length by the LADCO Project Team, which includes a representative from the U.S. EPA Region V office. The dr aft Maintenance Plan was also forwarded to the Region V representative for his review and comment.

The motor vehicle emissions budgets established and described herein were developed consistent with the methodology and control strategy assumptions used i n the 1997 8

- hour ozone a ttainment d emonstration as well as the 8

- hour ozone RFP plan . The effects of these controls are incorporated into the emissions factors produced by the U

. S

. EPA’s

MOBILE6 model. Following is a discussion of the inputs and assump tions incorporated into the development of the proposed Maintenance Plan motor vehicle emissions budgets.

Vehicle Miles Traveled The RFP plan described in a ttainment d emonstration incorporates county

- level base year 2002 average daily vehicle miles travel ed (ADVMT) levels from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The 2002 ADVMT total for the 6

- county

- 3

- township Chicago NAA was approximately 160.8 million miles. This total was projected to the modeled attainment year

, 2009

, using an area

- wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth rate of 1.27 percent per year, determined through consultation between the Illinois EPA, CMAP,

and LADCO. This growth rate has also been applied to project year 2020 VMT. Using this growth rate, t he projected 20 20 ADV MT level for the Chicago NAA was 201.8 million miles. To account for ozone season weekday traffic, the average daily VMT estimates were multiplied by Chicago area and facility type

- specific Average

- Daily

- to

Average Summer Weekday conversion factors suppl ied by IDOT. Applying these factors resulted in an average summer weekday VMT *(ASWVMT) that is 11.3 percent greater than the average daily VMT. Applying this 11.3 percent factor yields a year 2020 ASWVMT total of 224.6 million. Following is a summary o f the information and MOBILE6 model assumptions used included in the development of the draft motor vehicle emissions budgets.

Year: VMT estimates and motor vehicle emissions factors were developed representative of summer 2020

Typical Ozone Season Weekday: The 2002 Chicago NAA ozone emissions inventory

, which established the baseline for the CAA

- required RFP emissions reductions, is based on activity on a typical ozone season weekday. The primary parameters affected by this choice of temporal time frame are the temperature and the adjustment of VMT to account for increased travel during the summer.

Temperature: U.S. EPA guidance f or the use of the MOBILE6 model calls for the use of representative summer daily temperatures. For future years, the representative36

summer temperatures are the climatological average minimum and maximum temperatures at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport for the sum mer months of June, July, and August. Those are 61 o F and 81 o F, respectively.

Absolute Humidity: U.S. EPA guidance calls for the use of the lowest absolute humidity on days corresponding to the summer climatological temperatures in the region

as calcu lated from local climatological data published by the National Weather Service. A climatological average summer weekday absolute humidity value of 97 grains of water (vapor) per pound of dry air was calculated for O’Hare Airport.

Motor Vehicle Emission C ontrols: The primary motor vehicle emission control programs that will be in place in the Chicago NAA in 20 20 are (1) an OBD

- II

- based vehicle emissions testing program, and the requirement that gasoline sold in the area be ―reformulated gasoline‖, which is specially formulated to reduce emissions.

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M): The I/M program in effect since 2007 requires biennial On

- Board Diagnostics (OBD) testing on all model year (MY) 1996 and newer (MY96+) light duty gasoline vehicles, and bienni al exhaust idle and gas cap testing on MY96+ heavy duty gasoline vehicles including gasoline

powered buses, registered in the I/M area (the ―testable area‖). The program includes a 4 year grace period for new vehicles

. This post

- 2007 I/M program was

esta blished after the Illinois legislature amended the Illinois Vehicle Inspection law in 2005 to (a) drop dynamometer testing of vehicles, (b) require an OBD

based program beginning in February 2007, and (c) remove the requirement for testing compliant pre

- MY

- 1996 vehicles. (Motorcycles and diesel vehicles are not subject to I/M.)

The Chicago testable area is based upon urbanized areas and includes all of Cook, DuPage, and Lake Counties, and parts of Kane, McHenry, Will, and Kendall

Counties. Some of the V MT in the Chicago testable area is generated by vehicles that come from outside the testable area and are therefore not required to undergo I/M testing. Conversely, some VMT in an area without I/M (such as Grundy County’s NAA townships) may be generated b y I/M vehicles from a neighboring testable area. The VMT estimates used when calculating I/M emission credits for a county or township must be adjusted to reflect VMT from vehicles subject to I/M only. This is done using I/M coverage factors derived ulti mately from transportation modeling outputs. (I/M Credits are subtracted from emissions calculated assuming no I/M to give Net Emissions with I/M.) The coverage factors are 98% for Cook and DuPage Counties (that is, 98% of the gasoline

vehicle VMT in the county is from vehicles subject to I/M) , 95% for Lake County, 81% for Kendall County’s NAA township, 65% for Will County, 60% for Kane County, 50% for McHenry County, and 25% for Grundy County’s NAA townships.37

Fuels: Reformulated gasoline (RFG) ha s been required in the Chicago NAA since 1995. The attainment demonstration and RFP plan both assume all gasoline sold in the Chicago NAA since 1995 is ―Northern‖ RFG, and that this will continue through and beyond 2008 and 2009. Although a small amount of non

- RFG fuel come s into the NAA in the fuel tanks of vehicles from outside the area, it is assumed that the use of non

reformulated gasoline fuel in the Chicago area is negligible.

Gasoline Sulfur: Gasoline sulfur levels were assumed to be 30 parts per million (ppm) in 2020 in accordance with the federal Tier 2 gasoline regulations which required the 30 ppm level beginning in 2006.

Diesel Sulfur: Diesel sulfur levels were assumed to be 15 parts per million in
2020 in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s Highway Diesel Rule which was finalized in January 2001 . This regulation required the sale of on

- road diesel fuel with no greater than 15 ppm of sulfur beginning in June 2006.

Speeds: For the Chicago area, the Illinois EPA assumed an area

- specific veh icle speed distribution that appears in the VMT

- by

- Speed

- Bin external file SVMTCH07.DEF, which is described in more detail later in this document. The speed distribution in this file is for freeways and arterials only (local roads and ramps have a fixed s peed in MOBILE6), and was based on transportation model output (modeled speeds on links of various classes of roads by modeling period) from CMAP (CATS) for the year 2007 (the most recent available). This speed distribution is assumed valid for 20 20 as we ll.

VMT Mix: The regional VMT mix inputs used for 20 20 were based on Chicago

- area

specific 2005 VMT

- by

- vehicle

- type data supplied by IDOT, modified to reflect expected changes in the ratio of cars to light trucks. This information is used in the MOBIL E model to compute the average emission factors for certain combined vehicle classes, and

the all

- vehicle emission rate.

Registration Distribution: A Chicago

- area

- specific vehicle registration distribution profile based upon 2008 information data was de veloped by Illinois EPA’s Division of Mobile Source Programs from data provided by the Illinois Secretary of State’s Department of Motor Vehicles.

Emissions Computation: Illinois EPA calculates emissions budgets using the following

formula:

1. No

- I/M County Emissions by vehicle type (VT) and functional class (FC) = (County ASWVMT by FC) * (VMT Mix by VT and FC) * No

- I/M emission factors (EF) by pollutant, VT, and FC) * 1.102 (grams to ton conversion factor). For areas without I/M, this i s the only calculation.

2. I/M Credits by VT and FC = (County ASWVMT by FC) * (VMT Mix by38

VT and FC) * (No

- I/M EF

– I/M EF [both by pollutant, VT, and FC]) * I/M coverage factor * 1.102. This is for areas with I/M only.

3. Net County Emissions by VT a nd FC = (I/M County Emissions by VT and FC)

– ( I/M Credits by VT and FC ) . This is for areas with I/M only.

The Illinois EPA performs these above calculations on a multi

- page spreadsheet which automatically calculates emissions and I/M credits by county or township for each pollutant, VT, and FC, sums them by VT and FC, and aggregates them into area totals. Attachment A of this section provides additional details on the MOBILE6 model inputs used in the development of the 2020 Chicago NAA motor vehicle e missions budgets.

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Using the above VMT and control program assumptions and methodology, following are

the 8

- hour ozone motor vehicle emi ssions budgets for the Chicago area for use in determining transportation conformity.

Proposed Chicago Area Maintenance Plan 2020 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (tons per ozone season weekday)

P ollutant Emissions

VO M 73.68

NOx 88.1739 

### Transportation Conformity

External M OBILE 6.2 Inputs:

In the examples of external files sho wn below, the actual command lines are boldfaced ; the unbolded lines represent comments. The actual text files have no such distin ction in typefaces. The unbold ed lines have been ―commented out‖ and have no effect on the MOBILE model. They may therefore be omitted, but it is suggested that they remain in the files for documentation, and to make the files easier for the user to read and

understand.

The comments and other text in the External Files have been shown in the Courier

New typeface. Act ual co mmand lines

— the inputs that MOBILE actually uses

— are shown in Courier New Bold

In certain cases (especially the VMT

- by

- Speed

- Bin files) the typeface has been reduced in size so that the lines would fit within the margins of the page. This makes them eas ier to

read.



### Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

The External I/M file s giving the inputs used in the MOBILE6 model in this exercise were ILLOBDIM.D (for 2002 and through 2006) and IM07ON.D (for 2007 and later years). When evaluating I/ M credits for 2008, the residual effect of the ILLOBDIM program in the summer of ’08 is taken into account by assuming that 75% of the vehicle fleet subject to I/M has been tested under the IM07ON program by that time, and that the

other 25% have been test ed under the ILLOBDIM in late 2006 and have not yet come up for retesting under IM07ON by summer 2008 (both programs are biennial). By summer 2009, all vehicles subject to I/M will have been tested under IM07ON, so this question

does not arise: the I/M em ission rate is simply that for the IM07ON program.

The IM07ON.D File , used for the 20 20 target year inventory

The external I/M file IM07ON.D is described below. It represents an I/M program with four components , chief of which is an OBD (on

- board diagn ostics) test for vehicles of model year (MY) 1996 and newer. The order in which the components appear in the external file is not significant, but they must be numbered consecutively. Illinois EPA begins IM07ON.D with identifying comments, and adds other comment lines or blank lines to make the file easier to read and understand. Programs after the first need comparatively few comments because the commands are largely self

- descriptive.40 * ILLINOIS ENHANCED I/M DESCRIPTION

* Filename: IM07ON.D

* Exte rnal input file for Illinois' OBD

- only I/M program

* from 2007 on.

* OBD

- only applies to light

- duty vehicles only; HDVs still get * an Idle Test & Gas Cap Check. * All program start years set to 1986 per U.S. EPA guidance in * "Frequently Asked Q uestions on MOBILE6" from U.S. EPA/OTAQ.

* This represents the NEW I/M program in which only 1996 &
* newer vehicles are tested with an OBD test; and the OBD test * applies only to LDVs. * This program came into effect in February 2007.

*

----- -------------------------------------------- * Program description for post MY'96 LDV OBD I/M

*=================================================

* FIRST I/M program

-- "Evaporative]" OBD for MY 1996+ LDVs

*

------------------------------------------------ - I/M PROGRAM : 1 1986 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 95.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.5 2.2 '01 data I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 I/M GRA CE PERIOD : 1 4

In each case, the first number after the colon refers to the I/M program’s component number.

I/M PROGRAM : 1 1986 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD Testing began in 1986 and runs into the indefinite future ( 2050 ). The program is

a biennial test

- only ( 2 T/O , here and in other program components) program, in

this case an Evap orative On

- Board Diagnostics ( OBD ) test. The On

- Board Diagnostic program in a vehicle’s engine computer records information from sensors in the engine and fuel system. Indications of malfunctions or out

- of

specification operations of the engine or fuel and evaporative emission control systems are stored in the engine computer as ―fault codes‖. An OBD test consists of plugging a special scanner into an output jack from v ehicle’s engine computer. The scanner queries the computer and records any fault codes that the computer’s OBD system has saved. OBD tests are quick, dependable, and clean, and, if a vehicle fails an OBD test, the fault codes that the scanner displays he lp mechanics diagnose the problem.41

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2050 This program component covers only vehicles manufactured between model year (MY) 1996 (start year) and the indefinite future (MY 2050, the end year). More

and more vehicles are becom ing subject to this test as new vehicles are bought and older (pre

- MY

- 1996) ones are scrapped vehicles.

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 Only the five light

- duty vehicle types (cars [LDGVs], and light trucks [LDGTs 1, 2, 3, and 4]) are covered by this program component ( 22222 ). Heavy

- duty gasoline trucks (eight types) and gasoline buses are not covered by this program component ( 11111111 1 ), but rather by Programs 3 and 4, described below.

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0 Stringency (exhaust inspectio n failure rate) is 20%. A Stringency entry is necessary for an Exhaust test, but not an Evaporative test, so this entry can be omitted or ―commented out‖. In this Evap test case, it will be ignored by the model, but is included for

reference.

I/M COMPLI ANCE : 1 95.0 Compliance rate (tested vehicles as percent of all vehicles subject to I/M) is 95%

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.5 2. 2 '01 data The Waiver Rate is the fraction of tested vehicles that get a waiver

— i.e., do not pass the I/M test but, becau se repairs cost more than a specified amount, get a certificate of compliance. Waiver rate is 0.5% for MY 1980 and earlier vehicles (irrelevant now that pre

- MY

- 96 vehicles are not tested), and 2.2% for MY 1981 and later vehicles. These figures are from V IM’s actual 2001 waiver statistics, and have been representative of the last few years

.

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 25 Vehicles older than 25 years are not subject to this program. This will not happen until at least 2021. The default is 25, and the model do es not calculate benefits for vehicles older than 25 years, so in essence this command has no effect. It could be omitted, but is included for completeness.

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 4 Vehicles less than 4 model years old are exempt from I/M testing.

M ost of the inputs to the second and subsequent program components are the same as those for the first program, so the description of the components will be abbreviated and summarized as below, rather than after each command line as

above.

* Second I/M pr ogram

-- "Exhaust" OBD for MY 1996+ LDVs42

*

---------------------------------------------------- I/M PROGRAM : 2 1986 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 1996 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 95.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 0.5 2.2 '01 data I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 4

*

The second program component is a biennial, test

- only Exhaust OBD test for MY 1996 and later LDGVs and LDGTs. In this OBD test, the scanner quer ies the vehicle’s computer for fault codes concerning exhaust emissions. Stringency, Compliance, Waiver Rates, Exemption Age, and Grace Period are the same as in the first program. An entry for I/M STRINGENCY (20%) is required for an Exhaust I/M program.

*

------------------------------------------------------ * Program description for post MY'96 HDV Idle & GC I/M

*======================================================

* Third I/M program

-- HDV IDLE for MY 1996+ HDVs

*

----------------------------------- ------------- I/M PROGRAM : 3 1986 2050 2 T/O IDLE I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 3 11111 22222222 2 I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 95.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 1.2 1.5 '01 data I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 4

The third program component is a biennial, test

- only Idle test for MY 1996 and later HDGVs and Gas Buses ( 22222222 2 ). Light

- duty vehicles are not subject to this component ( 11111 ), but rather to components 1 and 2. Stringency, Compliance, Exemption Age, and Grace Period are the same as in component 1, but the pre

- and post

- MY 1981 Waiver Rates (1.2% and 1.5%, respectively), are slightly different from those in components 1 and 2. HDGVs are few in number, and most of them are c ommercial vehicles

.

* Fourth I/M program

-- Gas Cap Check for MY 1996+ HDVs

*

---------------------------------------------------- I/M PROGRAM : 4 1986 2050 2 T/O GC I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 1996 205043

I/M VEHICLES : 4 11111 22222222 2 I/M COMPL IANCE : 4 95.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 1.2 1.5 '01 data I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 25 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 4

The fourth program component is a biennial, test

- only Gas Cap Check for MY 1996 and later HDVs. Compliance, Waiver Rates, Exemption Age, and Grace Period are the same as in the third program. Since a Gas Cap Check is an evaporative I/M test, the I/M STRINGENCY command is not necessary and is

not included here.

Illinois EPA includes further notes and comments in the I/M file to document it

fu rther, as shown below:

* NOTES

* This is a standard Illinois I/M input, describing the I/M * program with OBD Only as it is supposed to exist after * January 2007. It is the file to be used for regular M6 * I/M runs for 2007 and future years.

* * This file was originally SB397.D, supplied 24.viij.05

. * O riginal SB397.D has been slightly revised by

* the addition of comments such as this one. The actual * inputs have not been changed. This was done to put the two * LDV OBD programs (exhaust and evaporative) together, and the * two HDV programs together too. The order of the programs in * the I/M file is not significant and has no effect in M6, but * the programs must be numbered sequentially.

* DVIM verified that this file as shown is correctly describes the * I/M program planned for introduction in January '07.

*

---------------- * COMPARISON WITH ILLOBDIM.D: * The first three programs in ILLOBDIM.D, covering the idle

* test for MY'68

- '81 LDVs, IM240 for '81

- '95 LDVs, a nd gas * cap check for MY'68

- '95 LDVs have been eliminated from * IM07ON; and the two HDV programs now refer only to MY'96

* and later.

There is no ―MYCUTS.D ‖ file associated with IM07ON.D , as there was in the previous

ILLOBDIM.D file. The old ILL OBDIM.D file is not included here.

The Registration Distribution (RD) for a vehicle type is an indication of the fraction of the vehicle fleet of that type that is made up of vehicles of a given age.

The following is based on 200 8 registration data from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office (ISOS). It and its contents are described in detail in the comments to the file. This file contains data (commented out so not used) from the 2001 RD file (CHIRD01) for historical and reference purposes. As note d above, tho se data may be deleted.44 REG DIST

* CNAA M6 LDV RD = SOSLDV (Light

- duty Vehicles

-- passenger cars) RD from * 08VADbyCounty.xls for Chicago omitting '09 counts & '08 = 75% of '07

1 0.0550 0.0733 0.0675 0.0656 0.0649 0.0666 0.0698 0. 0665 0.0680

0.0598

0.0524 0.0500 0.0415 0.0421 0.0325 0.0263 0.0218 0.0166 0.0134

0.0103

0.0074 0.0057 0.0043 0.0033 0.0154

* CNAA M6 LDT1 RD = SOSLDT1 (ISOS "light" or type 1 LD trucks) RD from * 08VADbyCounty.xls for Chicago omitt ing '09 counts & '08 = 75% of '07

2 0.0526 0.0702 0.0769 0.0872 0.0796 0.0729 0.0835 0.0670 0.0669

0.0586

0.0583 0.0478 0.0385 0.0342 0.0294 0.0219 0.0148 0.0118 0.0076

0.0065

0.0051 0.0031 0.0020 0.0012 0.0024

* CNAA M6 LDT2 RD = Same as M6 LDT1 RD; see above.

3 0.0526 0.0702 0.0769 0.0872 0.0796 0.0729 0.0835 0.0670 0.0669

0.0586

0.0583 0.0478 0.0385 0.0342 0.0294 0.0219 0.0148 0.0118 0.0076

0.0065

0.0051 0.0031 0.0020 0.0012 0.0024

* CNAA M6 LDT3 = SOSLDT21 (ISOS "heavy" or type 2 LD trucks) RD from * 08VADbyCounty.xls for Chicago omitting '09 counts & '08 = 75% of '07

4 0.0457 0.0609 0.0635 0.0720 0.0854 0.0843 0.0729 0.0689 0.0705

0.0800

0.0517 0.0472 0.0349 0.0375 0.0294 0.0203 0.0162 0.0095 0.0104

0.0099

0.0075 0.0049 0.0041 0.003 0.0094

* CNAA M6 LDT4 = same as LDT3 RDs; see above.

5 0.0457 0.0609 0.0635 0.0720 0.0854 0.0843 0.0729 0.0689 0.0705

0.0800

0.0517 0.0472 0.0349 0.0375 0.0294 0.0203 0.0162 0.0095 0.0104

0.0099

0.0075 0.0049 0.0041 0.003 0.0094

* Above from 2008 Chicago

- area data from DVIM (Gebhardt), as modified by * OTAQ (16.j.09) from SL's CRD08X09.d file, & renamed CHRD08AA.d.

* * Heavy

- Duty & MC RDs below are all assumed same as M6 default RD.

* * HDV2B (Heavy

- duty vehicles 2B

-- M6 Default RDs)

6 0.0503 0.0916 0.0833 0.0758 0.0690 0.0627 0.0571 0.0519 0.0472 0.0430

0.0391 0.0356 0.0324 0.0294 0.0268 0.0244 0.0222 0.0202 0.0184 0.0167

0.0 152 0.0138 0.0126 0.0114 0.0499 * HDV3 (Heavy

- duty vehicles3, same RD as HDV2B, M6 Default RDs)

7 0.0503 0.0916 0.0833 0.0758 0.0690 0.0627 0.0571 0.0519 0.0472 0.0430

0.0391 0.0356 0.0324 0.0294 0.0268 0.0244 0.0222 0.0202 0.0184 0.0167

0.0152 0.01 38 0.0126 0.0114 0.0499 * HDV4 (Heavy

- duty vehicles 4, M6 default RDs)

8 0.0388 0.0726 0.0679 0.0635 0.0594 0.0556 0.0520 0.0486 0.0455 0.0425

0.0398 0.0372 0.0348 0.0326 0.0304 0.0285 0.0266 0.0249 0.0233 0.0218

0.0204 0.0191 0.0178 0.0167 0.0797

* HDV5 (Heavy

- duty vehicles 5, same RD as HDV4, M6 Default)45 9 0.0388 0.0726 0.0679 0.0635 0.0594 0.0556 0.0520 0.0486 0.0455 0.0425

0.0398 0.0372 0.0348 0.0326 0.0304 0.0285 0.0266 0.0249 0.0233 0.0218

0.0204 0.0191 0.0178 0.0167 0.0797 * HDV6 (Heavy

- duty vehicles 6, same RD as HDV4, M6 Default)

10 0.0388 0.0726 0.0679 0.0635 0.0594 0.0556 0.0520 0.0486 0.0455 0.0425

0.0398 0.0372 0.0348 0.0326 0.0304 0.0285 0.0266 0.0249 0.0233 0.0218

0.0204 0.0191 0.0178 0.0167 0.0797 * HDV7 (Heavy

- duty vehicl es 7, same RD as HDV4, M6 Default)

11 0.0388 0.0726 0.0679 0.0635 0.0594 0.0556 0.0520 0.0486 0.0455 0.0425

0.0398 0.0372 0.0348 0.0326 0.0304 0.0285 0.0266 0.0249 0.0233 0.0218

0.0204 0.0191 0.0178 0.0167 0.0797 * HDV8A (Heavy

- duty vehicles 8A same RD as HDV4, M6 Default)

12 0.0388 0.0726 0.0679 0.0635 0.0594 0.0556 0.0520 0.0486 0.0455 0.0425

0.0398 0.0372 0.0348 0.0326 0.0304 0.0285 0.0266 0.0249 0.0233 0.0218

0.0204 0.0191 0.0178 0.0167 0.0797 * HDV8B (Heavy

- duty vehicles 8B,same RD as HDV4, M6 Default)

13 0.0388 0.0726 0.0679 0.0635 0.0594 0.0556 0.0520 0.0486 0.0455 0.0425

0.0398 0.0372 0.0348 0.0326 0.0304 0.0285 0.0266 0.0249 0.0233 0.0218

0.0204 0.0191 0.0178 0.0167 0.0797 * HDBS (HDV School buses; this M6 RD default is assumed)

14 0.0393 0.0734 0.0686 0.0641 0.0599 0.0559 0.0522 0.0488 0.0456 0.0426

0.0398 0.0372 0.0347 0.0324 0.0303 0.0283 0.0264 0.0247 0.0231 0.0216

0.0201 0.0188 0.0176 0.0165 0.0781 * HDBT (HDV Transit buses; this M6 RD default is assumed)

15 0.0307 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0614 0.0613

0.0611 0.0607 0.0595 0.0568 0.0511 0.0406 0.0254 0.0121 0.0099 0.0081

0.0066 0.0054 0.0044 0.0037 0.0114 * MC (Motorcycles; this M6 default RD is assumed)

16 0.1440 0.1680 0.1350 0.1090 0.0880 0.0700 0.0560 0.0450 0.0360 0.0290

0.0230 0.0970 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

T his C H RD08 AA .d file is derived ultimately from REGDATA.D, the default MOBILE6

RD file , but more immediately derived from an origin al CHIRD08.D file calculated using 2008 registration counts by age for light

- duty vehicles (LDVs) supplied to SL by Chuck

Gebhardt (IEPA/BOA/DMSP) in his spreadsheet VehicleAgeDistributionByCounty.xls

and rendered into RD form in SL' s spreadsheet 08VADbyCounty.xls

, with counts for

MY '09 vehicles omitted as non

- representative, and counts for MY’08 vehicles set to 75% of those for MY’07 vehicles, in accordance with USEPA practice as given in MOBILE6 training materials available from OTA Q on line. This file was created in January 2009.

This data is ultimately derive d from ISOS registration data for LDVs subject to I/M in the Chicago

- area counties. Since more than 90% of the light

- duty gasoline vehicles in the Chicago NAA are subject to I/M, we assume the RD for Chicago

- area LDVs subject to I/M is representative of that for all Chicago

- area LDVs.

The ISOS data were counts for what ISOS calls "LDVs", LDT1s", and "LDT2s" by model year (MY)

. Those appear be low as SLDV, SLDT1, and SLDT2 t o distinguish them from M6 vehicle types

. SLDVs correspond to passenger cars, so SLDV s = M6 LDVs.

S LDT1s correspond to M6 LDT1s and LDT2s

. ISOS data do not distinguish between the two M6 categories. For this reason, the RDs for M6 LDT1 and LDT2

are ass umed to be the same.46 S imilarly, SLDT2s correspond to M6 LDT3s and LDT4s, and ISOS data don't

distin guish between those two M6 categories either . Therefore, the RDs for M6

LDT3 and LDT4 are also assumed to be the same.

Of course the SLDT1 ( LDT12 ) and SLD T2 ( LDT34 ) RDs are not the same.

The age distribution fractions have been rounded to 4 decimal places, and where the rounded fractions do not add up to 1.0000 exactly, RD fractions for old (age 22 to 24 years) have at times been modified by +/

- 0.0001 s o as to make the RDs add up to 1.0000. (This is a requirement of the MOBILE6 model .)

See the default M6 RD file REGDATA.D and especially the M6 Users Guide Section

2.8.7.1 ( p. 63 ff) for more detailed information about RD files. See also the actual

MOB ILE6 source code \ SOURCE \BD20.FOR and IEPA’s previous local

- area RDs (e.g.,

CHIR D03.D and CHIRD01.D) for further information.

In this RD file, the first number in each distribution is an integer that indicates which of the 16 M6 vehicle classes are repres ented by the RD in question. That number is followed by 25 age fractions arranged in two rows of 10 values followed by a third row with the last 5 values. (This is similar to the format used in M5b for RDs, and is the same

format as the default REGDATA.D file.)

RDs for all vehicle classes are given in this file. This is for completeness even though only those vehicle classes whose RDs were changed from the REGDATA defaults need

to be included in this file. Those RDs that were not changed from default values are so noted.

It is assumed that the RDs for diesel vehicles are the same as the RDs for the corresponding gasoline vehicles; in particular, LDDV and LDDT RDs are assumed the same as LDGV and LDGT RDs. Since the (default) HDV RDs are based more on diesel vehicles to start with, and HDGVs are many fewer than HDDVs, especially in the higher weight classes, we feel the default HDV RDs represent both HDGV and HDDV reasonably well.

Default RDs are assumed for the various HDV classes. Good area

- specifi c HDV age

distri bution data are lacking

— the ISOS data covered only light

- duty vehicle s subject to

I/M

— and besides, much Chicago

- area HDV VMT is from vehicles registered outside the Chicago area and just passing through . The best choice, then, was to go w ith the HDV

defaults . Si milarly , accurate local

- area registration data for motorcycles are lacking, so

the default MC RD is used

.



### External M OBILE 6.2 Activity File Inputs: VMT by Facility Type, VMT by Hour, VMT by Speed Bin

.47

The following files wer e used in the 2002 base year and the 2008 and 2009 future year

estimates.

VMT by Facility Type

The M6.2 default file is FVMT.D, provided with the MOBILE6 model

. The Chicago

area

- specific VMT

- by

- facility

- type file is FVMTCH07.D, shown below. It based on the most recent complete data from CMAP on VMT by hour by vehicle class. This is a very long file

— about 750 lines

— so for the purposes of this Appendix, only the data for vehicle types 1, 6, 11, 13, 24 (LDGV, HDGV2b, HDGV7, HDGV13, and MC ) are shown ; t he others are omitted . See the second paragraph of the introduction to the file.

VMT BY FACILITY

* * This is [F: \ ]AREASPEC \ CHNAA \ FVMTCH07.DEF, an FVMT file, which was * developed from CATS 2007 transportation model output * as given in his MF13.XLS file as sent to and recalculated by * SL. 13.xj.02.

*
* VMT fractions are listed for 28 vehicle classes for each hour of * the day starting at 6AM, as follows

* Classes 1

- 5 (LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, and LDGT4), and * Classes 14, 15, and 2 8 (LDDV, LDDT12, LDDT34) were all assumed * to have the "Light

- duty Vehicle" distribution on page "SL VMT * by v ehicle type reedited" of the MF13 file.

* Classes 6

- 10 and 16

- 20 (HDGV2b

- HDGV6 and HDDV2b

- HDDV6) were assumed

* to have the "LT RK" (light HDV) distribution on that page. * Classes 11 & 12 and 21 & 22 (HDGV7 & HDGV8a, and HDDV7 & HDDV8a) were * assumed to have the "MTRK" (medium HDV) distribution on that page. * Classes 13 and 23 (HDGV8b and HDDV8b) were assumed to have the * "HTRK" (heavy HDV) distribution on that page

* Classes 24 and 25

- 27 (Motorcycles and the three bus classes [HDGB, * HDDBT and HDDBS]) were assumed to have the default distribution * for those types in FVMT.DEF.

*
* The four values in each li ne represent the VMT distribution on * freeway, arterial, local and ramps

-- in that order

-- as shown.

* * See M6UG 2.8.5.1.f., p. 49, or CLASLIST.TXT for further info. * (The CLASLIST file describes the vehicle classes.)

*

* Veh Int& Arts& Local

*Clas s Fwys Colls Rd/St Ramps

*

----- ---- ----- ----- ----- *
1 0.3341 0.5393 0.1105 0.0161

0.2604 0.6106 0.1160 0.0130

0.2604 0.6106 0.1160 0.0130

0.2669 0.5831 0.1365 0.0135

0.2576 0.5823 0.146 8 0.0133

0.2576 0.5823 0.1468 0.0133

0.2576 0.5823 0.1468 0.0133

0.2576 0.5823 0.1468 0.0133

0.2683 0.5830 0.1354 0.0133

0.2683 0.5830 0.1354 0.0133

0.2646 0.5911 0.1315 0.012848 0.26 46 0.5911 0.1315 0.0128

0.2825 0.5568 0.1468 0.0139

0.2825 0.5568 0.1468 0.0139

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0. 0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

0.3363 0.5122 0.1358 0.0157

. [Data for Vehi cle Types 2 through 5 omitted]

. 6 0.3836 0.5157 0.0827 0.0180

0.3045 0.5985 0.0822 0.0148

0.3045 0.5985 0.0822 0.0148

0.3589 0.5412 0.0829 0.0170

0.3791 0.5203 0.0826 0.0180

0.3791 0.5203 0.0826 0. 0180

0.3791 0.5203 0.0826 0.0180

0.3791 0.5203 0.0826 0.0180

0.3606 0.5397 0.0827 0.0170

0.3606 0.5397 0.0827 0.0170

0.3581 0.5432 0.0816 0.0171

0.3581 0.5432 0.0816 0.0171

0.4101 0.4884 0.0815 0.0200

0.4101 0.4884 0.0815 0.0200

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

0.4312 0.4663 0.0818 0.0207

. [Data for Vehicle Types 7 through 11 omitted]

. 11 0.4158 0.4904 0.0752 0.0186

0.3337 0.5763 0.0749 0.0151

0.3337 0.5763 0.0749 0.0151

0.3905 0.5165 0.0755 0.0175

0.4111 0.4952 0.0752 0.0185

0.4111 0.4952 0.0752 0.0185

0.4111 0.4952 0.0752 0.0185

0.4111 0.49 52 0.0752 0.0185

0.3928 0.5144 0.0753 0.0175

0.3928 0.5144 0.0753 0.0175

0.3896 0.5185 0.0742 0.0177

0.3896 0.5185 0.0742 0.0177

0.4423 0.4630 0.0743 0.0204

0.4423 0.4630 0.0743 0.0204

0. 4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.021149 0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

0.4619 0.4425 0.0745 0.0211

. [Data for Vehicle Types 7 through 12 omitted]

. 13 0.6106 0.3299 0.0430 0.0165

0.5563 0.3937 0.0367 0.0133

0.5563 0.3937 0.0367 0.0133

0.6241 0.3235 0.0376 0.0148

0.6260 0.3178 0.0403 0.0159

0.6260 0.3178 0.0403 0.0159

0.6260 0.3178 0.0403 0.0159

0.6260 0.3178 0.0403 0.0159

0.6561 0.2957 0.0340 0.0142

0.6561 0.2957 0.0340 0.0142

0.6029 0.3414 0.0401 0.0156

0.6029 0.3414 0.0401 0.0156

0.5776 0.3523 0.0508 0.0193

0.5776 0.3523 0.0508 0.0193

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0. 0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

0.5737 0.3512 0.0547 0.0204

. [Data for Vehicle Types 14 through 23 omitted]

. 24 0.392 0.457 0.117 0.034

0.344 0.497 0.129 0.030

0.338 0.497 0.135 0.029

0.349 0.492 0.129 0.030

0.346 0.497 0.127 0.030

0.333 0.509 0.129 0.029

0.324 0.516 0.132 0.028

0.334 0.506 0.131 0.029

0.334 0.506 0.131 0.029

0.320 0.519 0.134 0.028

0.330 0.506 0.135 0.029

0.312 0.521 0.140 0.027

0.295 0.538 0.141 0.026

0.310 0.527 0.137 0.027

0.329 0.510 0.133 0.029

0.343 0.497 0.131 0.030

0.381 0.460 0.126 0.033

0.405 0.437 0.123 0.03 5

0.426 0.418 0.118 0.037

0.443 0.403 0.115 0.039

0.457 0.394 0.110 0.040

0.461 0.391 0.107 0.040

0.453 0.400 0.108 0.039

0.418 0.434 0.112 0.036

[Data for Vehicle Types 25 thro ugh 28 omitted; the file ends after Vehicle Type 28.]50

VMT by Hour of the Day

The MOBILE6.2 default file is HVMT.D

. The most current Chicago

- area

- specific file is HVMTCH7R.SL, shown below, derived from 2007 modeling output from CMAP. Again, this file contains ―commented

- out‖ data from previous files for comparison

purposes.

VMT BY HOUR * Fraction of all vehicle miles traveled by hour of the day. * First hour is 6 a.m. These data are for the Chicago NAA for * 2007, derived from CMAP VbyHr0 7.def file based * upon his run iepa07 300_20070830, VMT for 2007.

* * This file is HVMTCH7R.SL representing SL's estimate of VMT by hour.

* IEPA estimates are based on CMAP data, but assume VMT in multi

- hour * modeling periods is distributed as the default is distributed across * the hours in question. Calculations made from VbyHr07.def * in accordance with USEPA guidance on the subject. See M6 Technical Guidance * Document (Jan '02) Section 4.3.3 for details.

0.03358 0.07039 0.06 240 0.07658 0.05870 0.06327

0.06609 0.06207 0.06693 0.07118 0.07991 0.07507

0.05924 0.04599 0.02160 0.01851 0.01360 0.01010

0.00757 0.00603 0.00568 0.00561 0.00687 0.01304

* Here are RP's original fractions from VbyHr07.def

* 0. 033579 0.066392 0.066392 0.076578 0.062532 0.062532

* 0.062532 0.062532 0.069056 0.069056 0.077490 0.077490

* 0.052616 0.052616 0.010861 0.010861 0.010861 0.010861

* 0.010861 0.010861 0.010861 0.010861 0.010861 0.010861

* These following are the defau lt values from HVMT.DEF * supplied for comparison.

* 0.0569 0.0740 0.0655 0.0555 0.0540 0.0582

* 0.0608 0.0571 0.0598 0.0636 0.0777 0.0730

* 0.0501 0.0389 0.0308 0.0264 0.0194 0.0144

* 0.0108 0.0086 0.0081 0.0080 0. 0098 0.0186

* * Following are SL's original HVMTCH07 fractions based upon DE's '07 model * runs made in 2002 (for information).

* 0.0443 0.0851 0.0755 0.0577 0.0541 0.0583

* 0.0609 0.0572 0.0659 0.0701 0.0818 0.0769

* 0.0576 0 .0447 0.0219 0.0188 0.0138 0.0102

* 0.0077 0.0061 0.0058 0.0057 0.0070 0.0132

All these Hourly

- VMT files show similar profiles, with morning and afternoon peaks, a noontime dip, and a minimum about 3AM

- 4AM, which is to be expected.

VMT by Speed Bin51

The MOBILE6.2 default file is SVMT.D. The Chicago

- area

- specific Speed

- bin file is SVMTCH07.DEF, shown below. It represents 2007 CMAP transportation model output.

SPEED VMT
1 1 0.0053 0.0044 0.0088 0.0299 0.0300 0.0484 0.0641 0.0632 0.0709 0.0801 0.0981 0.2160 0.1953

0.0857

1 2 0.0135 0.0570 0.0859 0.0790 0.0766 0.0954 0.0681 0.0704 0.0722 0.1018 0.0761 0.1084 0.0524

0.0432

1 3 0.0135 0.0570 0.0859 0.0790 0.0766 0.0954 0.0681 0.0704 0.0722 0.1018 0.0761 0.1084 0.0524

0.0432

1 4 0.0017 0.0054 0.0027 0.0159 0.0331 0.0451 0.0702 0.0761 0.0892 0.1259 0.1164 0.2390 0.0989

0.0805

1 5 0.0017 0.0047 0.0109 0.0329 0.0238 0.0300 0.0439 0.0582 0.0740 0.1160 0.1244 0.2584 0.1237

0.0975

1 6 0.0017 0.0047 0.0109 0.0329 0.0238 0.0300 0.0439 0.0582 0.0740 0.1160 0.1244 0.2584 0.1237

0.0975

1 7 0.0017 0.0047 0.0109 0.0329 0.0238 0.0300 0.0439 0.0582 0.0740 0.1160 0.1244 0.2584 0.1237

0.0975

1 8 0.0017 0.0047 0.0109 0.0329 0.0238 0.0300 0.0439 0.0582 0.0740 0.1160 0.1244 0.2584 0.12 37

0.0975

1 9 0.0072 0.0093 0.0142 0.0382 0.0420 0.0478 0.0654 0.0898 0.0849 0.1104 0.1195 0.2126 0.0722

0.0866

1 10 0.0072 0.0093 0.0142 0.0382 0.0420 0.0478 0.0654 0.0898 0.0849 0.1104 0.1195 0.2126 0.0722

0.0866

1 11 0.0081 0.0325 0.0434 0.0683 0 .0493 0.0530 0.0780 0.0803 0.0773 0.0953 0.1179 0.1443 0.0875

0.0648

1 12 0.0081 0.0325 0.0434 0.0683 0.0493 0.0530 0.0780 0.0803 0.0773 0.0953 0.1179 0.1443 0.0875

0.0648

1 13 0.0016 0.0013 0.0059 0.0137 0.0237 0.0247 0.0391 0.0556 0.0479 0.0729 0.090 4 0.2202 0.2979

0.1049

1 14 0.0016 0.0013 0.0059 0.0137 0.0237 0.0247 0.0391 0.0556 0.0479 0.0729 0.0904 0.2202 0.2979

0.1049

1 15 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 16 0.0011 0.0002 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 17 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 18 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 19 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 20 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 21 0.0 011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 22 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 23 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

1 24 0.0011 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0101 0.0178 0.0386 0.0660 0.0981 0.1509 0.5215

0.0919

2 1 0.0000 0.0004 0.0017 0.0041 0.0160 0.0461 0.1311 0.1952 0.1835 0.2385 0.0665 0.1170 0.0000

0.00 00

2 2 0.0021 0.0328 0.0517 0.0618 0.0924 0.1181 0.1447 0.1449 0.1170 0.1185 0.0457 0.0704 0.0000

0.0000

2 3 0.0021 0.0328 0.0517 0.0618 0.0924 0.1181 0.1447 0.1449 0.1170 0.1185 0.0457 0.0704 0.0000

0.0000

2 4 0.0001 0.0007 0.0025 0.0068 0.0232 0 .0572 0.1470 0.2077 0.1791 0.2034 0.0682 0.1041 0.0000

0.0000

2 5 0.0000 0.0008 0.0029 0.0074 0.0224 0.0565 0.1435 0.1985 0.1862 0.2044 0.0681 0.1093 0.0000

0.0000

2 6 0.0000 0.0008 0.0029 0.0074 0.0224 0.0565 0.1435 0.1985 0.1862 0.2044 0.0681 0.109 3 0.0000

0.0000

2 7 0.0000 0.0008 0.0029 0.0074 0.0224 0.0565 0.1435 0.1985 0.1862 0.2044 0.0681 0.1093 0.0000

0.0000

2 8 0.0000 0.0008 0.0029 0.0074 0.0224 0.0565 0.1435 0.1985 0.1862 0.2044 0.0681 0.1093 0.0000

0.0000

2 9 0.0002 0.0028 0.0064 0. 0149 0.0423 0.0779 0.1620 0.1879 0.1732 0.1734 0.0644 0.0947 0.0000

0.0000

2 10 0.0002 0.0028 0.0064 0.0149 0.0423 0.0779 0.1620 0.1879 0.1732 0.1734 0.0644 0.0947 0.0000

0.0000

2 11 0.0017 0.0151 0.0292 0.0423 0.0720 0.1030 0.1538 0.1654 0.1429 0.1415 0.0511 0.0821 0.0000

0.0000

2 12 0.0017 0.0151 0.0292 0.0423 0.0720 0.1030 0.1538 0.1654 0.1429 0.1415 0.0511 0.0821 0.0000

0.0000

2 13 0.0000 0.0003 0.0018 0.0039 0.0140 0.0369 0.1146 0.1939 0.1865 0.2383 0.0751 0.1348 0.000052 0.0000

2 14 0.0000 0.0 003 0.0018 0.0039 0.0140 0.0369 0.1146 0.1939 0.1865 0.2383 0.0751 0.1348 0.0000

0.0000

2 15 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 16 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 17 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 18 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 19 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 20 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 21 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0 .0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 22 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

2 23 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.000 0

0.0000

2 24 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0042 0.0749 0.1565 0.1661 0.3285 0.0786 0.1890 0.0000

0.0000

*

* Speed Bins:

* 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0+

* * Speed bins extend 2.5 mph on either side of the bin name (i.e., the 30 mph spe ed bin encompasses speeds from 27.5 to 32.5 mph), except for the 2.5 mph bin (0 to 2.5 mph) and the 65+ mph bin (62.5 mph or above)

*
* This is SVMTCH07.DEF.

*

* These data come from a spreadsheet page titled "[DE] spdvmt" in the Excel file MF13.XLS, supplied to IEPA by CATS, in October '02, being VMT
output from C ATS's transportation model aggregated into the various speed bins by county and M6 road type for the 8 CATS time periods. SL * slightly modified and reformatted the page, and verified that DE's

vmt

- by

- speed

- bin calculations were correct. See also CATS's file

titled VBYSPD.DEF

* * The information in this file strictly speaking represents a speed

dis tri bution for 2007, but this is assumed (after discussion with CATS) reasonably valid throughout the 2000

- 20 2 0 period.

* * The above data are for the Chicago NAA, and for Freeways and Arterials only.

*

* See M6 User's G uide Sec. 2.8.8.2.c and Appendix B, Table 5: "Average Speed Ranges for Speed Bins * (SPEED VMT Command)" for further information about this file and its

use.

* * The first number in each line is roadway type: 1 = Freeways ; 2 = Arterials. Locals and Ramps have a fixed speed in M6, and therefore are not affected by this file. * The second number is the hour of the day, hour 1 being [hour beginning at] 6 AM, and hour 24 being [hour beginni ng at] 5 AM the next day. * The third and subsequent numbers are the fractions of VMT in that hour that occur within the specified speed bins. These fractions were calculated from DE's file, w hich gave estimates of VMT assigned to each53

of the 8 CATS modeling periods.

* * Note that, for Freeways, most VMT is in the 45

- 50

- 55

- 60

- mph speed bins, with lower speeds more common during Peak hours (wh ich is

reasonable). Much the same holds for Arterials , where most VMT is in

the 30

- 35

- 40

- 45 mph speed bins (also reasonable).

*

* See also the default VMT

- by

- speed file SVMT.DEF for more information

and comments.

*

*

-- SL, 25.xj.02

* Revisions: * 7.ix.06...Small changes made to text of these comments by SL; no changes to numerical data.