[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42491-42494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20253]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL132-1-7104; FRL-5278-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
proposes to approve Illinois' request to grant an exemption for the
Chicago ozone nonattainment area from the applicable oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) transportation conformity requirements. On June 20, 1995,
Illinois submitted to the USEPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision request for an exemption under section 182(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act (Act) from the conformity requirements for NOX for the
Chicago ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as severe. The
request is based on the urban airshed modeling (UAM) conducted for the
attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS)
modeling domain. The rationale for this proposed approval is set forth
below; additional information is available at the address indicated
below.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
September 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended
that you telephone Patricia Morris at (312) 353-8656, before visiting
the Region 5 office.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois, 60604.
Written comments shall be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Regulation
Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois, 60604. (312) 353-8656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires, in order to
demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP, that transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) contribute to
emissions reductions in ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas
during the period before control strategy SIPs are approved by USEPA.
This requirement is implemented in 40 CFR 51.436 through 51.440 (and
93.122 through 93.124), which establishes the so-called ``build/no-
build test.'' This test requires a demonstration that the ``Action''
scenario (representing the implementation of the proposed
transportation plan/TIP) will result in lower motor vehicle emissions
than the ``Baseline'' scenario (representing the implementation of the
current transportation plan/TIP). In addition, the ``Action'' scenario
must result in emissions lower than 1990 levels.
The November 24, 1993, final transportation conformity rule does
not require the build/no-build test and less-than-1990 test for
NOx as an ozone precursor in ozone nonattainment areas where the
Administrator determines that additional reductions of NOx would
not contribute to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii),
which is the conformity provision requiring contributions to emission
reductions before SIPs with emissions budgets can be approved,
specifically references Clean Air Act section 182(b)(1). That section
requires submission of State plans that, among other things, provide
for specific annual reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
NOx emissions ``as necessary'' to attain the ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date. Section 182(b)(1) further states that its
requirements do not apply in the case of NOx for those ozone
nonattainment areas for which USEPA determines that additional
reductions of NOx would not contribute to ozone attainment.
For ozone nonattainment areas, the process for submitting waiver
requests and the criteria used to evaluate them are explained in the
December 1993 USEPA document ``Guidelines for Determining the
Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides Requirements Under Section 182(f),''
and the May 27, 1994, and February 8, 1995, memoranda from
[[Page 42492]]
John S. Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, titled ``Section 182(f)
NOx Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria.''
On July 13, 1994, the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin (the States) submitted to the USEPA a petition for an
exemption from the requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act
(Act). The States, acting through the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCo), petitioned for an exemption from the Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) and New Source Review (NSR)
requirements for major stationary sources of NOx. The petition
also asked for an exemption from the transportation and general
conformity requirements for NOx in all ozone nonattainment areas
in the Region.
On March 6, 1995, the USEPA published a rulemaking proposing
approval of the NOx exemption petition for the RACT, NSR and
transportation and general conformity requirements. A number of
comments were received on the proposal. Several commenters argued that
NOx exemptions are provided for in two separate parts of the Act,
in sections 182(b)(1) and 182(f), but that the Act's transportation
conformity provisions in section 176(c)(3) explicitly reference section
182(b)(1). In April 1995, the USEPA entered into an agreement to change
the procedural mechanism through which a NOx exemption from
transportation conformity would be granted (EDF et al. v. USEPA, No.
94-1044, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit). Instead of a petition
under 182(f), transportation conformity NOx exemptions for ozone
nonattainment areas that are subject to section 182(b)(1) now need to
be submitted as a SIP revision request. The Chicago ozone nonattainment
area is classified as severe and, thus, is subject to section
182(b)(1).
The transportation conformity requirements are found at sections
176(c) (2), (3), and (4). The conformity requirements apply on an
areawide basis in all nonattainment and maintenance areas. The USEPA's
transportation conformity rule 1 and general conformity rule
2 currently reference the section 182(f) exemption process as a
means for exempting any nonattainment area from NOx conformity
requirements. The USEPA intends to amend the transportation conformity
rule to instead reference section 182(b)(1) as the means for exempting
areas subject to section 182(b)(1) from the transportation conformity
NOx requirements. After the USEPA amends the transportation
conformity rule to reference section 182(b)(1) for granting NOx
waivers, the USEPA will take final action on today's proposal.
\1\ ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to
State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans,
Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of
the Federal Transit Act'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
\2\ ``Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State
or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule'' November 30, 1993 (58
FR 63214).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 20, 1995, SIP revision request from Illinois, has been
submitted to meet the requirements of a formal SIP revision submittal
in accordance with the 182(b)(1) requirements. A public hearing on this
SIP revision request was held on July 17, 1995. The Chicago severe
ozone nonattainment area includes the Counties of Cook, DuPage, Grundy
(Aux Sable and Gooselake Townships), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township),
Lake, McHenry, and Will.
Section 182(b)(1) requires submittal of a plan revision that
provides for reasonable further progress (RFP) reductions for moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas. The plan must provide for specific
annual reductions in emissions of VOCs and NOx as necessary to
attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by
the attainment date applicable under the Act. Further, the requirement
shall not apply in the case of NOx for those areas for which the
Administrator determines that additional reductions of NOx would
not contribute to attainment. In evaluating the 182(b) SIP revision
request, the USEPA considered whether additional NOx reductions
would contribute to attainment of the standard in the Chicago area and
also in the downwind areas of the LMOS modeling domain.
As outlined in relevant USEPA guidance, the use of photochemical
grid modeling is the recommended approach for testing the contribution
of NOx emission reductions to attainment of the ozone standard.
This approach simulates conditions over the modeling domain that may be
expected at the attainment deadline for three emission reduction
scenarios: (1) Substantial VOC reductions, (2) substantial NOx
reductions, and (3) both VOC and NOx reductions. If the areawide
predicted maximum one-hour ozone concentration for each day modeled
under scenario (1) is less than or equal to those from scenarios (2)
and (3) for the corresponding days, the test is passed and the section
182(f) NOx emissions reduction requirements would not apply.
In making this determination under section 182(b)(1) that the
NOx requirements do not apply, or may be limited in the Lake
Michigan area, the USEPA has considered the national study of ozone
precursors completed pursuant to section 185B of the Act. The USEPA has
based its decision on the demonstration and the supporting information
provided in the SIP revision request.
II. Summary of Submittal
On June 20, 1995, the State of Illinois submitted as a revision to
the SIP, a request for a waiver from the transportation conformity
NOx requirements. The submittal included the LMOS UAM modeling for
the attainment demonstration for 3 ozone episodes during 1991. The
modeling supported the request by documenting that NOx reductions
in the Chicago nonattainment area would not contribute to attainment
and, in fact, would be detrimental to the goal of reaching attainment.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) discussed the
NOx waiver in the context of the public hearing on the attainment
demonstration held on December 21, 1994. To assure that the public was
fully informed and given appropriate opportunity for comment, the IEPA
committed to hold a further hearing specifically to address the section
182(b)(1) transportation conformity waiver. This public hearing was
held on July 17, 1995.
Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, 40 CFR part 51, subpart T,
the SIP revision request seeks an exemption from the transportation
conformity requirements for NOx in the Chicago ozone nonattainment
area. The States' have utilized the UAM to demonstrate that reductions
in NOx in the LMOS modeling domain will not contribute to
attainment of the standard. To conduct the modeling analysis, the
following steps were followed: (a) Emissions were projected to 1996
(the deadline for implementation of the 15 percent reasonable further
progress reduction) and 2007 (the attainment deadline for the severe
nonattainment areas) from the 1990 base year, (b) it was assumed that a
40 percent VOC emission reduction beyond that achieved as a result of
emission controls mandated by the Act would be necessary to attain the
ozone standard in the LMOS modeling domain, (c) a 40 percent NOx
emission reduction in grid B (that portion of the LMOS modeling domain
that is essentially composed of the ozone nonattainment areas within
the modeling domain) beyond the projected emission levels was assumed
for all
[[Page 42493]]
anthropogenic NOx emissions, (d) a 40 percent VOC emission
reduction and a 40 percent NOx reduction in grid B beyond
projected emission levels were assumed for all anthropogenic VOC and
NOx emissions and (e), the ozone modeling results for (b), (c),
and (d) were compared considering the modeled domain-wide peak ozone
concentrations and temporal and spatial extent of modeled ozone
concentrations above 120 parts per billion (ppb).
For all modeled days using 1996 and 2007 conditions, domain-wide
peak ozone concentrations for ``VOC-only'' controls were found to be
lower than or equal to those for ``NOx-only'' controls or those
for ``VOC plus NOx'' controls. In addition, consideration of daily
peak ozone isopleth maps (these maps are included in the documentation
of the section 182(b) SIP revision request) shows that the ``VOC-only''
control scenario leads to the smallest areas with predicted peak ozone
concentrations exceeding 120 ppb.
Additional sensitivity tests were conducted for a 40 percent
NOx emission reduction that was applied only to point sources in
Grid B for episode 2 and 1996 conditions for both an assumed NOx
reduction alone and a 40 percent reduction in both VOCs and NOx.
These sensitivity tests compared to the scenarios with across the board
anthropogenic NOx reductions demonstrated that control of ground
level NOx sources (such as transportation sources) did not
contribute to attainment of the standard and in fact increased the
domain wide peak ozone concentrations exceeding 120 ppb and the number
of hours that exceeded 120 ppb. This result was more pronounced than
with the point source only NOx control.
III. Analysis of Submittal
Review of the modeling results show a very definite directional
signal indicating that application of NOx controls in the Chicago
ozone nonattainment area would exacerbate peak ozone concentrations not
only in the Chicago area but also in the LMOS modeling domain. The LMOS
modeling domain includes northern Indiana, western Michigan and eastern
Wisconsin. The States and LADCo have now completed the validation
process for the UAM modeling system to be used in the demonstration of
attainment for the LMOS modeling domain. Therefore, documentation
supporting the validity of the modeling results has been submitted with
the SIP revision request.
It is noted that the use of simple, area-wide emission projection
factors raises some uncertainty in the modeling results for 1996 and
2007. Some changes in modeling results may be expected if area-specific
and source category-specific projection factors are used instead of the
average factors used in these analyses. These more detailed projection
factors will be used in the final demonstration of attainment for the
LMOS domain. These changes, however, are not expected to reverse the
directional signal of the modeling done to date. Concluding that
NOx reductions will not contribute to attainment in Chicago and
throughout the LMOS domain.
Although ozone concentrations modeled further downwind from the
urban source areas increase as a result of increased NOx point
source emissions, this is not the case with the ground level NOx
sources. LADCo and the States view the potential increase in outflow
ozone concentrations with increasing NOx point source emissions to
be marginal. More importantly, the SIP revision request demonstrates
that additional reductions in NOx would not contribute to
attainment of the ozone standard in the LMOS domain. These results are
believed to be consistent with USEPA's section 185B report to Congress.
Therefore, based on its conformance with USEPA guidance, the USEPA
believes the State of Illinois' demonstration is adequate, and thus is
approving the transportation conformity waiver request. It is noted by
LADCo, however, that subsequent modeling analyses may lead to an ozone
attainment plan which includes, for specified portions of the LMOS
domain only, both NOx and VOC emission controls. The modeling
indicates that these NOx emission controls will most likely be
limited to rural areas, but would not be required in the Chicago
nonattainment area and will also not likely be applied to ground level
sources.
Monitoring data such as concentrations of non-methane hydrocarbons
and NOx and derived/monitored ozone production potentials of air
parcels, collected for the urban source areas during the 1991 field
study support the approval of the NOx waiver. It is noted,
however, that the primary basis for the approval of the NOx waiver
is the modeling results submitted in support of the waiver. The 1991
field data by themselves may not be an adequate support for the waiver
since these data are limited in nature and do not present a complete
picture of the impacts of NOx controls on LMOS modeling domain
peak ozone concentrations.
VOC and NOx emission reductions were found to produce
different impacts spatially. In and downwind of major urban areas,
within the ozone nonattainment areas, VOC reductions were effective in
lowering peak ozone concentrations, while NOx emission reductions
resulted in increased peak ozone concentrations. Farther downwind,
within attainment areas, VOC emissions reductions became less effective
for reducing ozone concentrations, while NOx emission reductions
were effective in lowering ozone concentrations. It must be noted,
however, that the magnitude of ozone decreases farther downwind due to
NOx emission reductions was less than the magnitude of ozone
increases in the ozone nonattainment areas as a result of the same
NOx emission reductions.
Analyses of ambient data by LMOS contractors provided results which
corroborated the modeling results. These analyses identified areas of
VOC- and NOx-limited conditions (VOC-limited conditions would
imply a greater sensitivity of ozone concentrations to changes in VOC
emissions; the reverse would be true for NOx-limited conditions)
and tracked the ozone and ozone precursor concentrations in the urban
plumes as they moved downwind. The analyses indicated VOC-limited
conditions in the Chicago/Northwest Indiana and Milwaukee areas and
NOx-limited conditions further downwind. These results imply that
VOC controls in the Chicago/Northwest Indiana and Milwaukee areas would
be more effective at reducing peak ozone concentrations within the
severe ozone nonattainment areas.
The consistency between the modeling results and the ambient data
analysis results for all episodes with joint data supports the view
that the UAM modeling system developed in the LMOS may be used to
investigate the relative merits of VOC versus NOx emission
controls. The UAM-V results for all modeled episodes point to the
benefits of VOC controls versus NOx controls in reducing the
modeled domain peak ozone concentrations.
For a more detailed analysis of the modeling analysis results,
please see the August 22, 1994 ``Technical Review of a Four State
Request for a Section 182(f) Exemption from Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New
Source Review (NSR) Requirements'' memorandum contained in the docket
for this action.
The USEPA believes LADCo's UAM application has adequately met the
requirement to demonstrate that NOx
[[Page 42494]]
controls within the Chicago ozone nonattainment area and throughout the
LMOS domain will not contribute, but instead will interfere with
attainment of the ozone standard.
IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Comments
Based on the submittal accompanying the State's SIP revision
request, the USEPA proposes to approve Illinois' request for an
exemption from the transportation conformity requirement to provide
annual reductions in NOx emissions as necessary to reach
attainment, for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.
Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on
USEPA's proposed rulemaking action. Comments received by September 15,
1995, will be considered in the development of USEPA's final rule.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, I
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids USEPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA,
427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
USEPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any
proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
Section 205, the USEPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the USEPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The USEPA has determined that this action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector.
This Federal action will relieve requirements otherwise imposed
under the Act, and hence does not impose any federal intergovernmental
mandate, as defined in section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, result from this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Conformity,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Transportation
conformity.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: August 4, 1995.
Corinne S. Wellish,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-20253 Filed 8-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P