[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30821-30828]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10820]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0743; EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0886; EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0123;
FRL-9567-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Indiana Portion
of the Chicago-Naperville Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone
Standard, NOX RACT Waiver, and Serious Plan Elements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the
Indiana portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area (Chicago area)
is attaining the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or standard). In addition, in response to a December 6, 2021,
request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(Indiana or the State), EPA is redesignating the Indiana portion of the
Chicago area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, because the State
has met the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving, as a revision to the Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plan for maintaining the 2008
ozone NAAQS through 2035 for the Indiana portion of the Chicago area.
EPA is also approving a waiver, for the Indiana portion of the Chicago
area, from the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) requirements of the
CAA. EPA finds adequate and is approving Indiana's 2030 and 2035
volatile organic compound (VOC) and NOX motor vehicle
emission budgets (budgets) for the Indiana portion of the Chicago area.
Finally, EPA is approving the VOC reasonably available control
technology (RACT), clean-fuel vehicle programs (CFVP), enhanced
monitoring of ozone and ozone precursors (EMP), and enhanced motor
vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) SIP revisions. These SIP revisions
satisfy the above requirements for a nonattainment area that is
classified as a ``Serious area'' for the Indiana portion of the Chicago
area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to approve this action on
March 3, 2022, and received adverse comments from one commentor.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 20, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0743 (regarding the serious area elements), EPA-
R05-

OAR-2021-0886 (regarding the redesignation), or EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0123
(regarding the NOX RACT waiver). All documents in the
dockets are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19. We recommend
that you telephone Katie Mullen, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 312-
353-3490 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Mullen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On March 3, 2022 (87 FR 12033), EPA proposed to determine that the
Indiana portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area is attaining
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and that the State has met the statutory
requirements for redesignation under the CAA. EPA proposed to approve,
as a revision to the Indiana SIP, the State's plan for maintaining the
2008 ozone NAAQS through 2035 for the Indiana portion. EPA also
proposed to approve a waiver, for the Indiana portion of the Chicago
area, from the NOX requirements of section 182(f) of the
CAA. EPA proposed to approve and find adequate Indiana's 2030 and 2035
VOC and NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Indiana
portion of the Chicago area. EPA proposed to approve the VOC RACT, the
CFVP, and the EMP. Finally, EPA proposed to approve the State's
enhanced I/M certification, because it satisfies the enhanced I/M
requirements for ``serious areas'' for the Indiana portion of the
Chicago area. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on
April 4, 2022. EPA received one supportive comment on the proposed
redesignation. EPA also received adverse comments on the proposal from
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). These comments
will be addressed below.
    On April 8, 2022, Indiana submitted new on-road emissions inventory
information, which the State generated using EPA's MOVES3 model.
Indiana requested that the new MOVES3 inventory information should
replace the MOVES2014 emissions inventory, motor vehicle emissions
budgets, and I/M performance standard modeling analysis that were
included in the State's December 6, 2021 submission. MOVES3 is the
latest MOVES version and is EPA's state-of-the-art model for estimating
emissions from on-road mobile sources.\1\ Consistent with our proposal
based on the MOVES2014 modeling, the projected emissions inventory for
2035 incorporating the updated MOVES3 budgets demonstrates maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through the 2035 maintenance period. The MOVES3
I/M performance standard demonstration is consistent with the findings
in EPA's proposal and supports Indiana's certification that its current
I/M program in Lake and Porter counties meets the applicable Enhanced
I/M performance standard requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With this additional MOVES3 information, EPA has
determined that the Indiana portion of the Chicago area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010LXH.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below are the revised emissions data tables that contain the new
on-road emissions inventory information from MOVES3. Tables 1 and 2
contain emissions with changes in VOC and NOX emissions from
2011 to 2019 for the Indiana portion of the Chicago area.

 Table 1--Emissions Reduction of NOX Emissions for the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Portions of the Chicago
                                          Nonattainment Area 2011-2019
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2011            2019
                             Sector                                nonattainment    Attainment       Emissions
                                                                       year            year          reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois:
    EGU Point...................................................           67.41           35.23           32.18
    Non-EGU.....................................................           52.58           47.55            5.03
    Area........................................................           32.03           34.63            -2.6
    On-Road.....................................................          285.34          134.38          150.96
    Non-road....................................................          176.60          121.63           54.97
    Total.......................................................          613.96          373.42          240.54
Indiana:
    EGU Point...................................................           24.04            4.29           19.75
    Non-EGU.....................................................           70.77           59.91           10.86
    Area........................................................            9.39            0.91            8.48
    On-road.....................................................           31.55            9.48           22.07
    Non-road....................................................           15.84           13.43            2.41
    Total.......................................................          151.59           88.02           63.57
Wisconsin:
    EGU Point...................................................            8.71            0.00            8.71
    Non-EGU.....................................................            0.09            0.08            0.01
    Area........................................................            1.20            1.13            0.07
    On-Road.....................................................            4.82            1.81            3.01

    Non-road....................................................            2.25            1.64            0.61
    Total.......................................................           17.07            4.66           12.41
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 2008 ozone area:
    Illinois....................................................          613.96          373.42          240.54
    Indiana.....................................................          151.59           88.02           63.57
    Wisconsin...................................................           17.07            4.66           12.41
    Total.......................................................          782.62           466.1          316.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2--Emissions Reduction of VOC Emissions for the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Portions of the Chicago
                                          Nonattainment Area 2011-2019
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Emissions
                             Sector                                    2011            2019          reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois:
    EGU Point...................................................            0.62            0.97           -0.35
    Non-EGU.....................................................           47.63           45.35            2.28
    Area........................................................          215.14          232.00          -16.86
    On-Road.....................................................           72.43           66.45            5.98
    Non-road....................................................          101.83           67.67           34.16
    Total.......................................................          437.65          412.44           25.21
Indiana:
    EGU Point...................................................            0.54            0.47            0.07
    Non-EGU.....................................................           17.22           10.83            6.39
    Area........................................................           18.26           17.00            1.26
    On-road.....................................................            7.60            3.51            4.09
    Non-road....................................................           21.43            5.53           15.90
    Total.......................................................           65.05           37.34           27.71
Wisconsin:
    EGU Point...................................................            0.38            0.00            0.38
    Non-EGU.....................................................            0.24            0.19            0.05
    Area........................................................            4.10            3.58            0.52
    On-Road.....................................................            1.90            0.89            1.01
    Non-road....................................................            1.14            0.70            0.44
    Total.......................................................            7.76            5.36            2.40
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 2008 ozone area:
    Illinois....................................................          437.65          412.44           25.21
    Indiana.....................................................           65.05           37.34           27.71
    Wisconsin...................................................            7.76            5.36            2.40
    Total.......................................................          510.46          455.14           55.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Tables 1 and 2, NOX and VOC emissions in the
Indiana portion of the Chicago area declined by 63.57 tons/day and
27.71 tons/day, respectively, between 2011 and 2019. NOX and
VOC emissions throughout the entire Chicago area declined by 316.52
tons/day and 55.32 tons/day, respectively, between 2011 and 2019.
    Projected emissions data are shown in Tables 3 and 4 below.

 Table 3--Projected Emissions of NOX Emissions for the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Portions of the Chicago
                                        Nonattainment Area 2030 and 2035
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2019                            2035          Emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2030 Interim     Maintenance   reduction 2019-
                                                       year            year            year            2035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois:
    EGU Point...................................           35.23           43.59           40.97           -5.74
    Non-EGU.....................................           47.55           48.56           49.28           -1.73
    Area........................................           34.63           34.97           35.04           -0.41
    On-Road.....................................          134.38           55.94           48.81           85.57
    Non-road....................................          121.63          106.80          108.27           13.36
    Total.......................................          373.42          289.86          282.37           91.05
Indiana:

    EGU Point...................................            4.29            1.44            0.42            3.87
    Non-EGU.....................................           59.91           60.79           61.51           -1.60
    Area........................................            0.91            0.88            0.87            0.04
    On-road.....................................            9.48            4.55            4.77            4.71
    Non-road....................................           13.43           10.25            8.49            4.94
    Total.......................................           88.02           77.91           76.06           11.96
Wisconsin:
    EGU Point...................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
    Non-EGU.....................................            0.08            0.12            0.12           -0.04
    Area........................................            1.13            0.95            0.96            0.17
    On-Road.....................................            1.81            0.85            0.75            1.06
    Non-road....................................            1.64            1.21            1.21            0.43
    Total.......................................            4.66            3.13            3.04            1.62
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 2008 ozone area:
    Illinois....................................          373.42          289.86          282.37           91.05
    Indiana.....................................           88.02           77.91           76.06           11.96
    Wisconsin...................................            4.66            3.13            3.04            1.62
    Total.......................................           466.1           370.9          361.47          104.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 4--Projected Emissions of VOC Emissions for the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Portions of the Chicago
                                        Nonattainment Area 2030 and 2035
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2019                            2035          Emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2030 Interim     Maintenance   reduction 2019-
                                                       year            year            year            2035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois:
    EGU Point...................................            0.97            2.52            2.80           -1.83
    Non-EGU.....................................           45.35           44.71           44.54            0.81
    Area........................................          232.00          225.11          225.11            6.89
    On-Road.....................................           66.45           37.42           34.27           32.18
    Non-road....................................           67.67           66.41           67.37            0.30
    Total.......................................          412.44          376.17          374.09           38.35
Indiana:
    EGU Point...................................            0.47            0.56            0.67           -0.20
    Non-EGU.....................................           10.83           10.84           10.90           -0.07
    Area........................................           17.00           17.58           17.85           -0.85
    On-road.....................................            3.51            2.03            1.82            1.69
    Non-road....................................            5.53            4.80            4.35            1.18
    Total.......................................           37.34           35.81           35.59            1.75
Wisconsin:
    EGU Point...................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
    Non-EGU.....................................            0.19            0.26            0.26           -0.07
    Area........................................            3.58            3.49            3.56            0.02
    On-Road.....................................            0.89            0.54            0.47            0.42
    Non-road....................................            0.70            0.63            0.62            0.08
    Total.......................................            5.36            4.92            4.91            0.45
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 2008 ozone area:
    Illinois....................................          412.44          376.17          374.09           38.35
    Indiana.....................................           37.34           35.81           35.59            1.75
    Wisconsin...................................            5.36            4.92            4.91            0.45
    Total.......................................          455.14           416.9          414.59           40.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 contains the NOx and VOC motor vehicle budgets for the
Indiana portion of the Chicago area for 2030 and 2035. The budgets
include a 15% margin of safety applied to NOX and VOC
emission estimates for both years.

 Table 5--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Indiana Portion of the
                Chicago Area 2008 Ozone Maintenance Plan
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pollutant                   2030 Budget     2035 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................            5.23            5.49
VOC.....................................            2.33            2.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Public Comments

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the March 3,
2022, proposed rule. The comment period ended on April 4, 2022. We
received one supportive comment on the proposed redesignation. We also
received adverse comments from WDNR requesting that EPA not approve the
NOX RACT waiver. These comments are summarized and addressed
below.
    Comment 1: A NOX RACT program was required for the
three-state Chicago-Naperville 2008 ozone nonattainment area by January
1, 2017, after the area was reclassified to moderate. In response to
this requirement, Indiana submitted several NOX RACT waiver
requests: The first in February 2017, the second in January 2020, and
the third in January 2022. The Chicago nonattainment area did not
attain the 2008 ozone standard in the 2019 ozone season and was
reclassified to serious in August 2019. The Chicago nonattainment area
briefly attained after the 2019 ozone season, but then violated the
standard in 2020. The commenter states that this action is in response
to Indiana's third NOX waiver request, which was submitted
in January 2022. The commenter argues that EPA's delayed decision-
making means Indiana is now 5 years overdue in implementing the CAA
required NOX RACT program.
    Response: CAA section 182(f)(1)(A) provides that the plan
provisions to address RACT for major stationary sources of
NOX for nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport
region do not apply if EPA determines ``that additional reductions of
[NOX] would not contribute to attainment of the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area.'' The Chicago area
is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on the most recent certified
monitoring data from the 2019-2021 period. It is EPA's longstanding
interpretation, as stated in EPA's January 2005 document, ``Guidance on
Limiting Nitrogen Oxides Requirements Related to 8-Hour Ozone
Implementation,'' that when an ozone nonattainment area is attaining
the ozone standard, as demonstrated by three consecutive years of
adequate monitoring data, ``it is clear that the section 182(f)[(1)(A)]
language is met since `additional reductions of oxides of nitrogen
would not contribute to attainment.' That is, since attainment has
already occurred, additional NOX reductions could not
improve the area's attainment status and, therefore, the NOX
exemption request could be approved.''
    EPA never acted on the waiver request submitted in February 2017
and, the waiver was withdrawn by IDEM in January 2020. Also, EPA never
acted on the waiver request submitted in January 2020 and, that waiver
was withdrawn by IDEM in November 2021. The NOX RACT waiver
under consideration in this action was submitted by IDEM in January
2022 and is based on CAA section 182(f)(1)(A). This waiver can be
approved because the area qualifies for the NOX RACT waiver
due to the achievement of three years of clean monitoring data.
    Comment 2: The implementation of NOX RACT is a cost-
effective way to address ozone-forming compounds from stationary
sources and NOX RACT technologies are widely available.
Wisconsin has a fully approved NOX RACT program and Illinois
implements a NOX emissions control program. Given this
information, the commenter argues that there are no barriers in
preventing the implementation of a NOX RACT program in
Indiana.
    Response: The Chicago area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based
on the most recent certified monitoring data from the 2019-2021 period.
EPA is finalizing our approval of the NOX RACT waiver
because as per the discussion above regarding the CAA section
182(f)(1)(A) the area qualifies for the NOX RACT waiver due
to the achievement of three years of clean monitoring data. The fact
that other states (Wisconsin and Illinois) have implemented
NOX controls on stationary sources has no bearing on the
availability of this waiver under the CAA.
    Comment 3: The Chicago nonattainment area continues to struggle to
meet Federal ozone standards. The Chicago area has failed to meet its
August 3, 2021, marginal attainment date for the more stringent 2015
ozone standard. The commenter further states that EPA is overdue in
meeting its statutory obligation to reclassify this area to moderate
for the 2015 standard, which was due within 6 months of that attainment
date. When this reclassification to moderate under the 2015 ozone
standard is finalized, Indiana will be required to submit a
NOX RACT program under the CAA. Given this forthcoming
NOX RACT requirement, the commenter argues EPA's proposed
approval to waive an emissions control requirement that will soon be
reinstated by statute should not be granted.
    Response: In this action, EPA is granting a NOX RACT
waiver only for the 2008 ozone standard based on three years of clean
monitoring data for that standard. A CAA section 182(f) NOX
exemption granted for the 2008 ozone standard does not relieve the area
from any CAA section 182(f) NOX obligations under the 2015
ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.1313(c)). Therefore, a potential future
reclassification of the Chicago area under the 2015 ozone standard does
not prevent EPA from approving the NOX RACT waiver for the
2008 ozone standard.
    Comment 4: The CAA does not compel EPA to grant this waiver request
and that the approval of the NOX waiver relies on EPA's 2005
guidance. In EPA's 2005 guidance, EPA cautions that actions relying on
the guidance might not be approvable in every situation. The commenter
requests that EPA explain how it is appropriate to apply that guidance
when the Chicago area remains in nonattainment for ozone and needs
additional NOX emissions reductions in the area to meet all
of the ozone standards.
    Response: The Chicago area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based
on the most recent certified monitoring data from the 2019-2021 period.
In this action, EPA is granting a NOX RACT waiver only for
the 2008 ozone standard because, as per the discussion above regarding
the CAA section 182(f)(1)(A) and EPA's January 2005 document, the area
qualifies for the NOX RACT waiver due to the achievement of
three years of clean monitoring data. A CAA section 182(f)
NOX exemption granted for the 2008 standard does not relieve
the area

from any CAA section 182(f) NOX obligations under the 2015
ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.1313(c)). Therefore, approval of a
NOX RACT waiver only as it applies to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
is appropriate.
    Comment 5: EPA's recently released ozone transport modeling for the
2015 standard shows that Indiana significantly contributes to downwind
nonattainment at several monitors along Wisconsin's Lake Michigan
shoreline. Also, both the Sheboygan and Chicago nonattainment areas
will continue to be nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standard in 2032
based on EPA's ozone transport modeling. Given these modeling results,
the commenter states that additional, timely reductions in ozone
precursor emissions, including NOX, are needed to ensure
attainment of the 2015 ozone standard throughout the region.
    Response: The Chicago area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based
on the most recent certified monitoring data from the 2019-2021 period.
In this action, EPA is finalizing our approval of the NOX
RACT waiver only for the 2008 ozone standard because, as discussed
above regarding the CAA section 182(f)(1)(A), the area qualifies for
the NOX RACT waiver based on three years of clean monitoring
data and EPA's modeling indicates that the Chicago area will continue
to attain the 2008 NAAQS in the future. In this regard, further
NOX reductions will not improve the area's ability to attain
the 2008 ozone standard. In contrast, EPA's ozone transport modeling
indicates that, barring further emissions reductions, this area will
continue to have difficulty attaining or maintaining the 2015 NAAQS in
2024 (the Moderate Area attainment date for the 2015 NAAQS) and beyond.
CAA section 182(f) NOX exemption granted for a prior ozone
standard (in this case the 2008 standard) does not relieve the area
from any CAA section 182(f) NOX obligations under the 2015
ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.1313(c)). If finalized, EPA's determination
that the Chicago area failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date and accompanying reclassification to Moderate would
impose the CAA's NOX RACT requirements for the 2015 ozone
standard.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is determining that the Chicago area is attaining the 2008
ozone NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for
2019-2021. EPA is approving Indiana's January 18, 2022, NOX
exemption request as meeting section 182(f) requirements of the CAA.
EPA is approving the VOC RACT, CFVP, EMP, and Enhanced I/M program SIP
revisions included in Indiana's December 29, 2020, and January 18,
2022, submittals, because they satisfy the Serious requirements of the
CAA for the Indiana portion of the Chicago area. EPA has determined
that the Indiana portion of the Chicago area has met the requirements
for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus
changing the legal designation of the Indiana portion of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Indiana SIP,
the state's maintenance plan for the area. The maintenance plan is
designed to keep the Indiana portion of the Chicago area in attainment
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2035. Finally, EPA is finding adequate
and is approving the newly established 2030 and 2035 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes in the Indiana
portion of the Chicago area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), EPA finds there is good cause for this action to become
effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date
for this action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
    Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes
an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision
is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed.
Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting
legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA has
determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule
relieves sources in the area of Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
permitting requirements; instead, upon the effective date of this
action, sources will be subject to less restrictive Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements. For this
reason, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) for this action
to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 19, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 16, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries for ``Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour Ozone Serious
Planning Elements'', ``Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour Ozone
NOX RACT Waiver'', and ``Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-
hour Ozone Maintenance Plan'' immediately following the entry for
``Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour Ozone Negative Declarations'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.770   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Indiana
                 Title                       date            EPA approval                   Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour      12/29/2020  5/20/22, [INSERT FEDERAL    2030 and 2035 VOC and NOX
 Ozone Serious Planning Elements.                      REGISTER CITATION].         motor vehicle emissions
                                                                                budgets, VOC RACT
                                                                                certification, Enhanced Motor
                                                                                Vehicle Inspection and
                                                                                Maintenance Program
                                                                                certification, clean-fuel
                                                                                vehicle programs
                                                                                certification, enhanced
                                                                                monitoring of ozone and ozone
                                                                                precursors certification.
Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour       1/18/2022  5/20/22, [INSERT FEDERAL
 Ozone NOX RACT Waiver.                                REGISTER CITATION].
Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour      12/06/2021  5/20/22, [INSERT FEDERAL
 Ozone Maintenance Plan.                               REGISTER CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry ``Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' in the table entitled ``Indiana--2008 Ozone
NAAQS [Primary and secondary]'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315   Indiana

* * * * *

                                            Indiana--2008 Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
         Designation area         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type              Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI \2\.      5/20/22  Attainment...............    9/23/2019  Serious.

    Lake County.
    Porter County.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-10820 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


               Regional Meteorological Data Processing Protocol
                            EPA Region 5 and States
                              August 2014 - DRAFT

Purpose:    The purpose of this protocol is to recommend a methodology that can be used by Region 5 States to process National Weather Service meteorological data for use in AERMOD regulatory modeling applications.  This document highlights several aspects of meteorological data processing including:  choice of surface meteorological data, choice of upper air meteorological data, approach for processing surface characteristics, and thoughts on representativeness.

This protocol is the result of numerous discussions held between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States.  It is based on guidance available in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W (Guideline).  It also relies on the information in the AERMOD Implementation Guide, dated March 19, 2009 and User Guides for AERSURFACE, AERMET, and AERMINUTE.   Other references are highlighted in the text of the document.

Contents:

I.	Background

II.	Surface Data
	A.	Time period and Format
	B.	Missing data and Calms
	C. 	Light Wind Considerations

III.	Upper Air Data Selection
	A.	Time period
	B.	Format
	C.	Missing data

IV.	Surface Characteristics
	A.        AERSURFACE
		1.  	Land Cover Data
		2.	Meteorological Tower Location
		3. 	Seasonal Definitions
		4.	Arid Region/Surface Moisture
		5.	Domain

V.	Representativeness
I.  Background

Over the past 20 years, meteorological (met) data processing has changed significantly.  For most of the 1990's and early 2000's, Region 5 States used ISCST3 and the meteorological data available from the Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM), typically using a 5-year period from the years 1984-1992.   This data was acquired from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and, for the most part, filled by EPA and ready to use in PCRAMMET.

As AERMOD replaced ISCST3 as the recommended regulatory modeling tool, new meteorological processing procedures were implemented.  Namely, surface characteristics (i.e., surface roughness, Bowen ratio, and albedo) are used in the AERMOD preprocessor, AERMET.   This information is used in AERMET to calculate scaling parameters for atmospheric dispersion, which are used in AERMOD to determine the profiles of winds, temperature, and turbulence.   The release of AERSURFACE has provided a consistent, technically sound approach for determining appropriate surface characteristic values.

For many years, States have provided processed meteorological data to applicants for use in regulatory applications.   The approaches used to process the meteorological data through AERMET have often varied from state to state.   This document lays out a methodology that allows Region 5 states to develop processed meteorological data in a consistent manner.

II.	Surface Data

A. Time Period and Format:

It is getting harder to justify the use of 20-25 year old meteorological data.   Issues such as urban sprawl and other land-use changes can impact the representativeness of older data.   Additionally, the general public is increasingly questioning why old meteorological data are driving our air quality decisions.  Very recent National Weather Service data is available from NCDC in a standard hourly format (i.e., ISD) and in a 2-minute average format for ASOS sites.

Recommendation:  SCRAM data should be replaced.  As the Guideline states, at least 5 consecutive years of recent, readily available, adequately representative data should be utilized.   Free full-archive NWS data is available at   ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/ .     One-minute ASOS data (DSI-6405) is available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/asos-onemin/ . The 1-minute data is actually overlapping 2-minute averages  The purpose and benefits of the 1-minute meteorological data is discussed in the next section.

B. Missing data and calms

The SCRAM meteorological data was provided with missing data filled in for the vast majority of stations (not including calms).  This was necessary because ISCST3 required a 100% complete meteorological data set (excluding calms) when run in the regulatory default mode.  While valid data retrieval requirements must still be met,  AERMOD does not require missing data to be filled.  However, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.c of Appendix W recommends that "[A]fter valid data retrieval requirements have been met, hours in the record having missing data should be treated according to an established data substitution protocol provided that data from an adequately representative alternative site are available [emphasis added]." The EPA guidance document, Missing Data Procedures for Substituting Values for Missing NWS Meteorological Data for Use in Regulatory Air Quality Models, dated July 7, 1992, provides a technique for filling in missing data.   This approach uses either interpolation for short time frames (a few hours) or substitution from another meteorological data set determined to be reasonably representative, through examination of information such as wind roses, terrain, and surface characteristics.   The substitution procedure was primarily applicable to National Weather Service (NWS) data sets.  AERMET version 13350 and later, includes options to substitute for missing cloud cover and/or ambient temperature using linear interpolation across 1-2 hour gaps.

Beginning in the early 1990's NWS surface data has been collected using the Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) method.  In addition, the Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine (METAR) system for coding weather observations was adopted in July 1996, which imposed a strict wind speed threshold of 3 knots (i.e., any wind speed less than 3 knots is reported as a calm.)  Additionally, wind speeds up to 6 knots associated with wind directions varying more than 60 degrees within the 2 minute observation period is reported as variable (i.e., missing wind direction for purposes of air quality modeling). The new reporting system has resulted in an increased number of calm and missing hours in the ASOS meteorological files.

Meteorological data consisting of 2-minute average wind information, rolled every minute, is available on the NCDC website at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/asos-onemin/.  These data sets are titled 6405 (2-minute data) and 6406 (5-minute data).  The rolling 2-minute average wind data currently being used in AERMET is 6405.  This data is available for most NWS stations and can be used to generate 5-year meteorological data sets that contain significantly fewer calm and missing hours compared to standard hourly ASOS data.   A methodology for processing the 2-minute data has been developed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), called AERMINUTE and can be applied to the 2-minute average data to generate hourly averaged wind data.   Recent versions of AERMET (beginning with version 11059) can incorporate the AERMINUTE output file.  In addition to addressing the calm and missing hour issue, the meteorological data files generated using the 2-minute wind data can improve the representativeness of airport data by providing true hourly averages rather than using a single 2-minute observation to represent the hour.

An EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards memorandum was released on March 8, 2013 entitled Use of ASOS Meteorological Data in AERMOD Dispersion Modeling.  This memorandum provides a complete discussion of the implementation of ASOS data and the sensitivity of AERMOD results to automated rather than human based observations, the impact of the METAR reporting system, and the use of AERMINUTE.

Recommendation:    Two-minute average wind data should be used for regulatory modeling applications.  AERMINUTE should be used to generate the hourly average observations from the 2-minute data.  (See AERMINUTE and AERMET User's Guides for more information).   AERMET will process AERMINUTE output to produce the surface meteorological data file for use in AERMOD.   Standard hourly ASOS data should be included using the SURFDATA keyword in the AERMINUTE control file.   The Quality Control tools available in AERMINUTE should be used to examine the usefulness of flagged data and to validate against quality controlled data from the standard observations.    Missing cloud cover and/or temperature data should be substituted using the linear interpolation options available in AERMET.

C.  Light Wind Considerations

The AERMET processor, beginning with Version 12345, contains a keyword (THRESH_1MIN) that allows the user to specify a wind speed below which winds in the 2-minute ASOS data will be considered calm.     There is no default value, however a warning will be given if the value chosen is greater than 0.5 m/s.  The rationale behind the setting the 0.5 m/s threshold is to make that value consistent with the minimum wind speed value set under current meteorological monitoring guidance for site-specific towers.   This minimum wind-speed threshold in AERMET is applicable for applications using 2-minute average data.

AERMOD and AERMET (Version 12345 and later) contain several other options designed to address concerns regarding AERMOD model performance in light wind conditions.  These options are described in Model Change Bulletin 8 as follows:  "Incorporated two new BETA (non-Default) options to address concerns regarding model performance under low wind speed conditions.  BETA options are not available for standard regulatory use.   Prior to use, they need to be justified in accordance with the provisions of Appendix W and approved by EPA in order to be used in a regulatory modeling context.

The LOWWIND1 option increases the minimum value of sigma-v from 0.2 to 0.5 m/s and "turns off" the horizontal meander component. The LOWWIND2 option increases the minimum value of sigma-v from 0.2 to 0.3 m/s, and incorporates the meander component, with some adjustments to the algorithm, including an upper limit on the meander factor (FRAN) of 0.95. A new LOW_WIND keyword has been added to the CO pathway that allows users to adjust the minimum sigma-v value (within a range of 0.01 to 1.0 m/s), and the minimum wind speed value (within a range from 0.01 to 1.0 m/s), with a default value of 0.2828 m/s, consistent with the default applied in previous versions based on SQRT(2*SVmin*SVmin) with SVmin=0.2. The new LOW_WIND keyword also allows users to adjust the maximum value for the meander factor (FRAN) within a range of 0.50 to 1.0, inclusive, when the LOWWIND2 option is used.  Both of the new LowWind BETA options also modify the the adjustment of vector mean wind speeds (based on Eq. 112, p. 79, of the AERMOD Model Formulation Document) to use the original values of sigma-v before they are adjusted based on SVmin. The new LOWWIND1 and LOWWIND2 options are mutually exclusive and the model will issue a fatal warning message if both options are specified."

Changes to the surface friction velocity value in AERMET are applied by use of the BETA option, ADJ_U*.     The User's Guide describes the change as follows: "Beginning with version 12345, the AERMET program includes a non-Default BETA option in Stage 3 processing to adjust the surface friction velocity (u* or ustar) for low wind speed stable conditions, based on Qian and Venkatram (2011)....The ADJ_U* "BETA" option is considered to be a non-Default option and is therefore subject to the alternative model provisions in Section 3.2 of Appendix W (40 CFR Part 51).  Users should coordinate with the appropriate reviewing authority regarding the procedures and requirements for approval of this BETA option for regulatory modeling applications."

Recommendation:   The minimum wind speed threshold option should be used in AERMET when processing 2-minute average data (DSI-6405) by applying a minimum speed of 0.5 m/s.    (See March 8, 2013 EPA memorandum entitled Use of ASOS meteorological data in AERMOD dispersion modeling.)

The use of the Beta LOWWIND and ADJ_U* options in AERMOD and AERMET represent alternative forms of the models and therefore must be adequately justified by the applicant in accordance with Appendix W Section 3.2.2 before they would be accepted for use on a case-by-case basis.  For ADJ_U*, some evaluation of the option has already been conducted by OAQPS and may be useful to justify its use on a case-by-case basis.

III.	Upper Air Data

A.	Time Period Recommendation:   Use time period concurrent with surface data.

B.	Format Recommendation:  	Upper Air data is available for free from http://esrl.noaa.gov/raobs/.  Users should select:  Hours of access --  All times;  Data levels  -  All levels; Wind units  -  tenths of meters/second.

C.	Missing data recommendation:  As with surface data, filling upper air missing data is not required.  However, changes to AERMET, starting with Version 12345, allow for substitution of missing UA soundings with other adequately representative UA stations.   Filling in missing upper air data when adequately representative alternate station data is available is recommended.

IV.   	Surface Characteristics

A. AERSURFACE

As mentioned above, AERSURFACE is an EPA tool which implements a recommended methodology for processing surface characteristics.    The AERSURFACE User's Guide, combined with the AERMOD Implementation Guide, provides substantial information on how to implement AERSURFACE.   This protocol will address some decision points not explicitly outlined in the Guides.  The information in this document will apply to those using AERSURFACE as well as those using other spatial tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

1.  	Land cover data

National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data is available from the USGS Land Cover Institute website:   http://www.mrlc.gov/ .  Hit the Find Data tab to access 1992 land cover data.   1992 Land Cover data by state can also be found at http://edcftp.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/landcover/states/ .   AERSURFACE is currently designed to read the 1992 Land Cover data.   A draft version of AERSURFACE has been developed which can read 2001 and later land cover data (supplemented by Impervious and Canopy data), but has not yet been released for general use.  Some concerns about the 2001 and later land cover categories have emerged. However, some of these concerns are mitigated by the availability of Impervious and Canopy data.  Furthermore, the temporal representativeness of 1992 NLCD for the meteorological data periods being processed will likely become a more significant issue as more recent data are processed.

Recommendation: 	For the state supplied meteorological data, examine the temporal representativeness of the 1992 land cover data for use in AERSURFACE.   If land use has not changed significantly at the meteorological tower site since 1992,  1992 data should be used.  If 1992 NLCD is not representative for a particular application, contact the EPA Region 5 Office to discuss possible processing using the draft AERSURFACE tool for later NLCD information.   Any alternative approach to determining surface roughness, Bowen ratio and albedo values should be discussed, justified, and documented prior to use.

The Gust Factor Tool is available on a case-by-case basis to help determine an appropriate surface roughness value if the NLCD information is questionable.  The Gust Factor Tool has not been released yet but is expected to be available soon.  Talk to EPA Region 5 about potential use of this tool.  The Gust Factor Tool may also be useful for identifying possible temporal representativeness issues with the land cover data and/or errors in the location of the meteorological tower.

NLCD can be downloaded in two formats: complete state files or a user defined geographic area.  Either approach can be accessed through http://www.mrlc.gov/ .    State files are available at http://edcftp.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/landcover/states/ .
Domain-specific National Map data is preferable for sites near state boundaries because it will provide complete coverage on both sides of the state line.

2.  Meteorological Tower Location

The AERSURFACE program asks the user  "Is this site at an airport?"   The answer impacts how AERSURFACE will apply the Commercial/Industrial/Transportation category (Cat. 23).   If the site is at an airport, 95% of the land cover is considered to be "transportation" (low roughness) and 5% "commercial/industrial" (high roughness).   For sites not considered to be at an airport, 20% of the land cover is "transportation" and 80% is "commercial/industrial".    The answer to this question may not be obvious for some tower locations.

Recommendation:  While there may be a few cases where the tower location would not be correctly represented by the "airport" land use described above, in general, if the tower is located on airport property (away from buildings), the answer to the question above should be "yes".    Tower location can be reported either as UTM or LAT/LON coordinates.   If using LAT/LON, the data should be reported to at least the ten-thousandth digit (e.g., 39.8453, -89.9675).   The reported meteorological tower location should always be verified.   This is an important point worth repeating.   The reported meteorological tower location should always be verified and documented.

3.  Seasonal Definitions

Snow Cover:   AERSURFACE defines seasons by asking whether the area experiences continuous snow cover, either for at least one month or for most of the winter.   Because snow cover inhibits the amount of convection in the atmosphere, AERSURFACE users should caution not to overestimate the amount of snow cover assumed in the model.

Recommendation:   Local climatological data (LCD) reports can help determine an answer to this question for specific seasons and months.  They are available free for .gov, .edu, .mil, .k12 domains online at  http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/qclcd/QCLCD.   Daily snow/ice cover totals are reported.   For months with days with snow cover (1 inch or more), AERSURFACE should be run twice; once with continuous snowcover and once without snowcover.   The values are then weighted based on the snow cover days / no snow cover days ratio.  The application can be processed on a seasonal or monthly basis.  An example below shows the calculation for an albedo monthly application, which may be the most common approach.   The following approach should be used for Bowen ratio and surface roughness also.  The five-year period of meteorological data should be examined when answering this question.
Example:  For calendar year 2006 at station XY, the following information is gathered from LCD reports;

January - 	10 days with 1 inch or more or more of snow cover

Number of days in January   -   31

Two separate AERSURFACE runs provide the following albedo information

Run without continuous snow cover -  0.15
Run with continuous snow cover  -	0.33

To determine the value to be included in AERMET Stage 3 for January albedo values use:

(21 * (0.15) + 10 * (0.33))     =    0.21
                  31

Where 21 is the number of days without snow cover, 10 is the number of days with snow cover,

4.  Arid Region/Surface Moisture

AERSURFACE will prompt the user to answer the question "Is this site in an arid region?"    If continuous snow cover is assumed for the area, this question will not be asked.   Region 5 does not have arid regions so AERSURFACE will ask the user to characterize the surface moisture conditions at the site relative to climatological normals.  The moisture conditions impact the Bowen ratio value generated by ASF.   Bowen ratio, which is the ratio of sensible heat to latent heat, can enhance or inhibit convective conditions in the atmosphere.  Wet conditions will result in a lower Bowen ratio, which will dampen the convective conditions in AERMOD.  Similar to the snow cover recommendation discussed on page 5, users should caution not to overestimate wet conditions for use in ASF.

Recommendation: 	Start with the default assumption that moisture conditions are average.   If the precipitation information and/or soil moisture data indicate an exceptionally "dry" or "wet" season or year, that time period should be processed as wet or dry in ASF.   There is considerable discretion in categorizing the moisture conditions for an area.

Useful information can be found in the AERSURFACE User's Guide, which recommends surface moisture condition can be determined by comparing precipitation for the period of data to be processed to the 30-year climate record, selecting "wet" conditions if precipitation is in the upper 30th-percentile, "dry" conditions if precipitation is in the lower 30th-percentile, and "average" conditions if precipitation is in the middle 40th-percentile.   The 5-year period precipitation, judged on a year-to-year annual basis, should be examined and compared to the area climate record.   The LCD reports can help answer this question.

Additionally, thirty-year monthly and yearly climate data on soil moisture can also provide useful information.   For example, the website http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/soilmst/w.shtml is a National Weather Service product which contains climatological soil moisture normals on a monthly basis that can be compared to specific monthly values.   Drought index archive maps are available from  http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml  and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php.

5.  Domain Issues

The AERSURFACE methodology uses a 1 km default domain for determining surface roughness values around the tower location.  (A beta version of AERSURFACE has been developed that bases the radius for determining surface roughness on internal boundary layer considerations.  This tool has not yet been released.)  As the AERSURFACE User's Guide notes, significant discrepancies have been identified between station coordinates reported by NCDC and the actual location of the meteorological tower for NWS sites.  It is very important to verify coordinates of the meteorological towers.   The default domain for Bowen ratio and albedo used in the AERSURFACE methodology is a 10km by 10km box centered on the tower site.

The surface roughness domain can be subdivided into at most 12 sectors (i.e., 30 degrees each).   For many areas, fewer sectors may suffice depending on the homogeneity of the 1km area surrounding the tower.  Other factors such as nearby water bodies, can influence the number and orientation of the sectors.   The AERMOD Implementation Guide document available on SCRAM provides a substantial discussion of the methods recommended for determining land use characteristics.

Recommendation:  	A site specific evaluation should be conducted to determine the most appropriate number of sectors and their orientation.  As a default, the 1 km domain with twelve 30 degree sectors should be adequate for the surface roughness domain.  Twelve sectors may be more than needed for many NWS tower sites.   If the site encompasses a distinct land use variation, such as a coastline, additional guidance on buffer zone recommendations is available in the AERMET User's Guide.

The 10km by 10km albedo and Bowen ratio domain should be centered on the tower location for most applications.  However, for applications primarily involving tall stacks in flat terrain, it may be appropriate to consider using a domain representative of the application site for Bowen ratio and albedo (see Section 3.1.2 of the AERMOD Implementation Guide).  If an application site is used as the center of the 10km by 10km domain, the rationale should be documented and justified.

Lastly, it could be useful to compare the NLCD categories and the AERSURFACE model results to aerial photos, or other site-specific information, to determine if the results are reasonable.

V.  Representativeness

Many Region 5 states have opted to provide pre-processed met data for use in regulatory AERMOD modeling.   While this provides a useful service to applicants, and to a large degree, simplifies the review process for the reviewing authority, it is important to review representativeness of the pre-processed data when being used in AERMOD.   For most areas in the Midwest, terrain influences are minor and historically, the nearest NWS site has been determined to be the best representative station available.   Because surface characteristics can vary significantly even within areas of similar terrain, it's important to examine whether the surface characteristics of the source are reasonably representative of   the surface characteristics of the meteorological site.   Surface stations located further away from a source, or even in a neighboring state, may be more representative than the nearest NWS station.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11529]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4407]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-27-000]

Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities Company;
Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on February 14, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, Louisville Gas and Electric Company and
Kentucky Utilities Company, filed a Petition for Declaratory Order,
requesting that the Commission find that the payment of dividends from
equity accounts that represent adjusted retained earnings will not
violate section 305(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 15, 2012.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4407 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31796-31798]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14263]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0175]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Pipe Line
Contractors Association (PLCA)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Pipe Line Contractors Association
(PLCA) has requested an exemption from the requirement that a motor
carrier install and require each of its drivers to use an electronic
logging device (ELD) to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS) no
later than December 18, 2017. PLCA requests the exemption for all
pipeline contractor vehicle drivers. These drivers typically utilize
the short-haul exception to the logging requirement, which also exempts
them from using ELDs. Sometimes, however, they may exceed the
conditions of the short-haul exception more than 8 days in a 30-day
period, which would subject them to the ELD rule. PLCA's exemption
request is addressed to that situation. These drivers would remain
subject to the standard HOS limits and maintain a paper record of duty
status (RODS) for HOS compliance. PLCA believes that the exemption, if
granted, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption.
The term of the requested exemption is 5 years. FMCSA requests public
comment on PLCA's application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0175 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2017-0175), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0175'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen

appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into
the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting
your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then
submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may grant
or not grant this application based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The PLCA is an industry trade association that negotiates labor
agreements, encourages safe practices in pipeline construction, and
seeks the resolution of problems common to those in the pipeline
construction industry. PLCA has been in existence since 1948 and
currently has 77 members who employ approximately 30,000 to 40,000
workers depending upon the level of pipeline work in any year.
    Pipeline jobs range from construction of major interstate and
intrastate pipelines to maintenance and repair work for utilities. In
2016, their contractors worked on over 750 pipeline projects across the
U.S. PLCA contractors hire workers on a project-by-project basis, with
workers often employed on multiple jobs each year in different states.
Pipeline projects are often short-duration projects lasting for only 4-
6 weeks. Pipeline contractors hire dozens of different short-term
personnel to support any given project.
    PLCA contractors own different types of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs), including flatbed trucks that haul heavy equipment, dump
trucks, skid trucks, water trucks, pilot cars, and buses that transport
workers from the daily assembly points to the pipeline right-of-way. A
significant number of the vehicles owned by pipeline contractors
require a commercial driver's license (CDL) to operate. The standard
practice is for workers to begin each workday at a designated assembly
point, which typically is 10-50 miles away from a pipeline right-of-
way. The workers who operate heavy equipment typically are transported
by bus to the pipeline right-of-way. The drivers of the flatbed trucks
move the heavy equipment along the pipeline right-of-way as they
complete work on segments of the pipeline. As pipeline contractor
drivers work off-road along the length of the pipelines, they typically
do not spend much of their work days operating on public roads.
    The employees who work on pipelines and drive the subject vehicles
typically stay in hotels or campers at locations along the pipeline
right-of-way. They relocate as they advance in their work along the
right-of-way. As they complete work on a segment of the pipeline, they
sometimes do not return to the assembly point. Instead, they may end
the work day where they finish work and spend the night at a new
location farther down the right-of-way. The following day they would
meet at a new assembly point.
    The drivers who would be covered under the exemption operate
flatbed trucks that haul heavy equipment, dump trucks, skid trucks,
water trucks, pilot cars and buses that transport workers from the
daily assembly point to the pipeline right-of-way. These drivers
possess CDLs and almost always operate within 100 miles of their
assembly point, and meet the other requirements of the short-haul
exception in Section 395.1(e)(1). However, the drivers may not return
within the 12 hours required for use of the short-haul exemption.
    While pipeline contractor drivers typically do not exceed the
requirements of the short-haul exception more than 8 days in a 30-day
period, there may be occasions when they do so. Because pipeline
contractors typically hire temporary employees to work on short-term
jobs, it would be onerous for contractors to have to purchase ELDs,
provide them to temporary employees, train the employees in their
usage, and monitor and ensure compliance with the ELD requirement.
Pipeline contractors would have to monitor the number of days their
drivers exceed the requirements of the short-haul exception, including
if a driver exceeded the short haul exception on any days in a rolling
30-day period immediately before the employer hired the driver. PLCA
states that ELDs do not offer a safety benefit for pipeline drivers
since the drivers spend very little time on public roads and would have
to use paper logs to record their duty status in any event. This is in
stark contrast to long-haul truck drivers who spend most of their on-
duty hours driving their vehicles on public roads.
    According to PLCA, exempting pipeline contractors from the ELD
requirement would have no impact on safety for several reasons. First,
drivers would continue to maintain written RODS on any day that they
exceed the requirements of the short-haul exemption. Second, pipeline
contractor drivers typically spend very little time operating on public
roads. Third, pipeline contractors are required to maintain time
records for their drivers. Finally, pipeline contractors and drivers
otherwise must comply with all the HOS regulations.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    PLCA states that granting this exemption will result in a level of
safety that is equal to or greater than the level of safety achieved by
complying with the ELD rule. The exemption is requested for pipeline
contractor drivers of CMVs. Drivers of pipeline contractor CMVs that
require HOS compliance represent a small percentage of trucks on the
road; however, the requirements of the ELD rule would impose
significant burden on the industry and its customers. By allowing
pipeline contractor drivers to continue to operate with paper RODS,
PLCA's members and their customers would be able to comply with all
Federal and State HOS regulations while continuing to operate
efficiently and safely.

    A copy of PLCA's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: June 30, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-14263 Filed 7-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P