Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Chicago and Evansville Nonattainment Areas; Determination of Attainment of the Fine Particle Standards, 62243-62249 [E9-28256]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 62243 2ND QUARTER 2008 LISTING—Continued Docket No. Location COTP Port Arthur–06–024 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–025 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–026 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–027 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–028 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–029 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–030 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–031 ...... COTP Port Arthur–06–032 ...... COTP Prince William Sound 07–001. COTP San Diego 05–030 ....... COTP San Diego 05–053 ....... COTP San Diego 05–061 ....... COTP San Diego 05–080 ....... COTP San Diego 05–091 ....... COTP San Diego 05–093 ....... COTP San Diego 05–097 ....... COTP San Diego 05–100 ....... COTP San Diego 05–102 ....... COTP San Diego 07–004 ....... COTP San Diego 07–005 ....... COTP San Diego 07–025 ....... COTP San Diego 07–043 ....... COTP San Diego 07–052 ....... COTP San Diego 07–069 ....... COTP San Diego 07–074 ....... COTP San Diego 07–152 ....... COTP San Diego 07–251 ....... COTP San Diego 07–252 ....... COTP San Diego 07–352 ....... COTP San Diego 07–452 ....... COTP San Diego 07–552 ....... COTP St. Petersburg 06–081 COTP St. Petersburg 06–105 COTP St. Petersburg 06–124 COTP St. Petersburg 06–137 COTP St. Petersburg 06–138 COTP St. Petersburg 06–139 COTP St. Petersburg 06–170 COTP St. Petersburg 06–255 Port Arthur, TX ........................ Port Arthur, TX ........................ Port Arthur, TX ........................ Port Arthur, TX ........................ Port Arthur, TX ........................ Orange, TX ............................. Port Arthur, TX ........................ Port Arthur, TX ........................ Orange, TX ............................. Valdez, AK .............................. Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 10/22/2006 11/5/2006 11/15/2006 11/24/2006 11/19/2006 12/5/2006 12/3/2006 12/10/2006 12/21/2006 4/29/2007 Lake Havasu, AZ .................... San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ San Diego, CA ........................ Laughlin, NV ........................... San Diego, CA ........................ Mission Bay, CA ..................... San Diego Bay, CA ................ San Diego Bay, CA ................ San Diego Bay, CA ................ San Diego Bay, CA ................ San Diego Bay, CA ................ San Diego Bay, CA ................ Ocean Beach, CA ................... Ocean Beach, CA ................... Tampa Bay, FL ....................... Tampa Bay, FL ....................... Ft. Myers, FL .......................... Marco Island, FL ..................... Venice Inlet, FL ....................... Bradenton Beach, FL .............. San Carlos Bay, FL ................ Tampa Bay, FL ....................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Security Zones (Part 165) ........................................................ Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Special Local Regulation (Part 100) ........................................ Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .......................................... 3/26/2005 10/11/2005 7/15/2005 12/11/2005 7/24/2005 8/2/2005 8/18/2005 10/1/2005 11/13/2005 6/18/2007 7/7/2007 4/30/2007 7/4/2007 12/31/2007 7/4/2007 5/15/2007 7/3/2007 6/30/2007 7/4/2007 7/4/2007 7/4/2007 7/4/2007 4/25/2006 5/28/2006 7/4/2006 7/4/2006 7/4/2006 7/3/2006 8/5/2006 11/23/2006 [FR Doc. E9–28365 Filed 11–25–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0664; FRL–8985–2] srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Chicago and Evansville Nonattainment Areas; Determination of Attainment of the Fine Particle Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IllinoisIndiana (‘‘Chicago’’) and Evansville, Indiana nonattainment areas have VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 Type Zones Zones Zones Zones Zones Zones Zones Zones Zones Zones (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts (Parts 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 and and and and and and and and and and attained the 1997 fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that show that the areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006 to 2008 monitoring period. Currently available preliminary data for 2009 are consistent with continued attainment of the standard. As a result of these determinations, the requirements for these areas to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress plan (RFP), contingency measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard are suspended for so long as the areas continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. DATES: This final rule is effective on November 27, 2009. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 165) 165) 165) 165) 165) 165) 165) 165) 165) 165) Effective date ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0664. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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. We recommend that you telephone Melissa M. Barnhart, E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 62244 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations Environmental Scientist, at (312) 353– 8641 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa M. Barnhart, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8641, barnhart.melissa@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Actions Is EPA Taking? II. What Did EPA Propose? A. Chicago Area B. Evansville Area III. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA’s Responses? IV. What Is the Effect of These Actions? V. When Are These Actions Effective? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Actions Is EPA Taking? EPA is determining that the Chicago nonattainment area (including portions in Illinois and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana nonattainment area have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These determinations are based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that show that the areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006–2008 monitoring period. Preliminary data available to date for 2009 are consistent with continued attainment of the standard. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES II. What Did EPA Propose? EPA proposed that the Chicago area (including portions in Illinois and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana area have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA published these proposed determinations on September 24, 2009, at 74 FR 48690. Further details of EPA’s review are available in the proposed rule. A. Chicago Area EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Chicago area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N. All data considered have been recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. The review primarily addressed air quality data collected in the three-year period from 2006 to 2008. Of sites with data to be compared to the annual standard, the highest threeyear average annual concentration for 2006 to 2008 in the Chicago area was recorded at the Schiller Park site, site number 17–031–3103, observing a threeyear average annual concentration of VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 14.6 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). As discussed in the proposed rule, even the sites that are not for comparison to the annual standard are observing average concentrations below the standard. The highest 98th percentile 24-hour average concentration is recorded at the McCook site, site number 17–031–1016, recording a three-year average 98th percentile 24-hour average concentration of 35 μg/m3. Thus, all sites in the area have three-year average annual PM2.5 concentrations below 15.0 μg/m3 and three-year average 98th percentile 24-hour average concentrations far below the 1997 standard of 65 μg/m3.1 See 74 FR 48692, including footnote 1. Further consideration of concentrations at Cicero, site 17–031– 6005, was necessary because data at this site do not meet completeness requirements, and because the site monitored a violation for the most recent three years with complete data, i.e. 2005 to 2007. A detailed review of concentrations at the Cicero site in relation to concentrations at other similar sites in the Chicago area is provided in the proposed rule. Based on this review, EPA stated its belief that the Cicero site, like other sites in the area, is attaining the PM2.5 standards for the 2006 to 2008 period. 74 FR 48692– 48693. In addition, the averages of available 2009 data from all monitors still operating in the Chicago nonattainment area are at or below the average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008, and the 98th percentile of available 24hour average concentrations is again more than 30 μg/m3 below the pertinent standard. Therefore, the available data for 2009 are consistent with the finding, based on 2006 to 2008 data, that the Chicago area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards. B. Evansville Area EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Evansville area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N. All data considered have been recorded in EPA’s AQS database. The review primarily addressed air quality data collected at six monitoring sites in the three-year period from 2006 to 2008. The highest annual average PM2.5 concentration in the Evansville nonattainment area for the 2006–2008 monitoring period was 13.7 μg/m3, which occurred both at the Jasper Golf 1 EPA erroneously reported the annual average for the Burr Street site, site number 18–089–0026, as 14.9 μg/m3; the correct value is 14.8 μg/m3. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 site (site 18–037–0005, in Dubois County) and at the Evansville/West Mill Road site (site 18–163–0012, in Vanderburgh County). The Evansville area also has four additional monitors with data for 2006 to 2008, at which the 2006–2008 three-year average annual concentrations ranged from 13.4 to 13.6 μg/m3. The average 98th percentile 24hour concentrations ranged from 28 to 32 μg/m3. Thus, the Evansville area is observing concentrations well below the 1997 standards of 15.0 μg/m3 and 65 μg/m3, respectively. The proposed rule notes a completeness criterion that a site record valid data for at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter within the applicable three-year period. See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1. Three sites in the Evansville area, namely the Evansville/West Mill Road site in Vanderburgh County and the Jasper Golf site and the Jasper Sport Complex site in Dubois County, did not meet this completeness criterion. For these sites, as explained in the proposal (74 FR 48694), EPA conducted a conservative data substitution analysis, assessing whether the site would still have observed attainment under the hypothesis that the monitor on the days of missed samples might have recorded the highest concentration that the monitor observed during the applicable quarter during the 2006 to 2008 period.2 Both the Jasper Golf site and the Evansville/West Mill Road site had one or more quarters in 2006 to 2008 that measured less than 75 percent complete data, but in both cases the substitution analysis indicates that the monitors would have shown attainment even with conservative assumptions about the missing data. At the Jasper Sport Complex site (site 18–037–0004, in Dubois County), the data substitution approach using the highest concentration that the monitor observed during the applicable quarter during the 2006 to 2008 period did not yield a firm conclusion as to whether the site is attaining the annual standard. This site began operation in early 2006 (January 29, 2006), and so earlier (e.g. 2005 to 2007) three-year averages were not available. As EPA explained in its proposal (74 FR 48694), another method available to evaluate these data is to examine the data at this site in relation to data at other similar sites in the area, to judge the likelihood that the monitor 2 This conservative substitution test to confirm a passing design value that is based on incomplete data is explained in the EPA guidance document ‘‘Guideline On Data Handling Conventions For The PM NAAQS,’’ EPA–454/R–99–008, April 1999, at page 16. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/ memoranda/pmfinal.pdf). E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES would have shown attainment had it collected complete data. The available data at this site have always indicated annual average concentrations below 15.0 μg/m3 and 24-hour concentrations below 65 μg/m3. The available data at this site are similar to the data at other nearby sites in the area. Therefore, EPA believes this site, like the other sites in the Evansville area, is attaining the standards. In addition, all sites with data from 2005 to 2007 recorded measurements showing attainment for that period as well. Therefore, EPA proposed to find that all sites in the Evansville area, including sites that did not meet the 75 percent completeness requirement, are now meeting the 1997 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1 and 4.2. In addition, EPA examined data from the first half of 2009. For each site, the average of available 2009 data is at or below the average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008 and the 98th percentile of available 24-hour average concentrations is again more than 30 μg/m3 below the pertinent standard. Therefore, EPA observed that the available data for 2009 are consistent with the finding, based on 2006 to 2008 data, that the Evansville area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards. III. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA’s Responses? EPA received a total of four sets of comments in response to these actions, including comments by Indiana Steel Environmental Group (ISEG), the Northwest Indiana Forum, Valley Watch, Inc., and one anonymous commenter. ISEG and the Northwest Indiana Forum supported EPA’s proposed determinations of attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago and Evansville areas. In this section, EPA responds to the adverse comments received in response to the September 24, 2009, proposed rulemaking. EPA did not receive any adverse comments specifically directed at its proposed determination of attainment for the Chicago area. Comment: Valley Watch requests that EPA accept its ‘‘comments objecting to EPA’s proposal to redesignate the Evansville, IN area to ‘attainment’ of the 1997 standard for PM2.5.’’ Valley Watch also submitted to this rulemaking the same comments that it submitted to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) in March 2008, at a State hearing on the State’s planned petition for redesignation of the Evansville area. Many of those comments include contentions about the health effects of PM2.5, the status of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 and the potential impact of new power plants that Valley Watch believes will increase emissions of fine particulate matter precursors. Valley Watch also expressed its concern that the recent economic downturn is responsible for temporary decreases in concentrations of PM2.5, and thus the ‘‘low’’ levels of particulate matter being measured are not due to permanent and enforceable emissions limitations. Response: As EPA stated in its proposal (74 FR 48695), EPA in this rulemaking is merely determining that the Evansville area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards, based on the most recent three years of quality assured air monitoring data. EPA is not redesignating the area under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is not evaluating whether any of the other criteria for redesignation, as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, have been met. The only issue before EPA in this rulemaking is whether the air quality monitored in the area meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards. Therefore, any comments that address other issues pertaining to redesignation, and that do not address the question of whether, as a matter of air quality, the area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards, are not relevant to this rulemaking. For example, the causes of air quality levels—whether they are due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions and whether such reductions will be maintained over time—are not addressed in a determination of attainment. Nor is there any relevance for this rulemaking of commenter’s assertions regarding the impact of CAIR or other regulatory regimes or emissions from prospective new power plants. If, in the future, EPA determines that the area has lapsed out of attainment with the standards, EPA would take action to withdraw its determination of attainment. Thus, comments addressing issues other than whether air quality currently meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards are not relevant to this determination of attainment. Comment: Valley Watch contends that there are ‘‘huge gaps’’ in the data for 2006–2007, and that this action should not go forward until more data are collected. The commenter claims that gaps of 13 percent and 16 percent occurred in 2006 and 2007, respectively, when ‘‘mysteriously or perhaps fraudulently data seemed to just disappear at times when fine particle levels were elevating at other regional monitors.’’ Valley Watch submitted these comments to Indiana on March 27, 2008, in response to a State solicitation of comments on a prospective request for redesignation of the Evansville area; PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 62245 Valley Watch then attached those comments to its comments on EPA’s proposed clean data determination. The commenter focuses on data at the Evansville Civic Center monitor (site number 18–163–0006). The commenter in particular notes for this site that ‘‘[i]n June, six out of ten measurements are missing. In August, five out ten measurements are also missing.’’ Response: The Evansville Civic Center site has two operating instruments. The shortfall in data collection noted by the commenter occurred in 2007 for one of these instruments (‘‘Instrument 1’’). However, many of the days lacking valid data at Instrument 1 had valid data at Instrument 2. Since both instruments collect equally valid data, EPA views valid data from Instrument 2 as a suitable substitute for missing data from Instrument 1, and in fact EPA treats the site as having valid data for such days.3 In particular for June and August of 2007, EPA finds that seven of the ten scheduled sampling days in June 2007 and nine of the eleven scheduled sampling days in August 2007 had valid data. Similarly for the full year, using data from Instrument 2 where data are missing from Instrument 1, EPA finds for 2007 for example that this site has valid data for 92 percent of the days, not 84 percent. The commenter expresses concern that the days it considers to lack data may disproportionately be days with high concentrations. Indeed, for the six days in the two months at the site especially in question (June and August 2007 at the Civic Center site) for which Instrument 2 obtained valid data and Instrument 1 did not, the average concentration was 20.0 μg/m3. The commenter may believe that availability of more complete data and inclusion of that data in the calculation of average concentrations at the Civic Center would have yielded a computed violation. However, in EPA’s view, a majority of the days that the commenter considers to lack data in fact have data, and EPA included those data in its computation of average concentrations. The results, as reported in the proposed rulemaking, are well below the applicable standard. EPA has no reason to believe that the days without data on average would have had concentrations higher (or lower) than the average for the applicable quarter, e.g., that the days without data in the third quarter of 2007 3 The use of data from a second instrument in place of missing data from the first instrument is explained in the EPA guidance document ‘‘Guideline On Data Handling Conventions For The PM NAAQS,’’ EPA–454/R–99–008, April 1999, at page 16. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/ memoranda/pmfinal.pdf) E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES 62246 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations at this site on average would have had concentrations higher than the quarterly average of 18.27 μg/m3, much less that the data on average would have been enough higher to yield a three-year average greater than 15.0 μg/m3. Inasmuch as the combined data set from the two instruments meets the data completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N 4.1(b), EPA believes that sufficient data are available to have adequate confidence in the result, i.e., that the site is attaining the standards. EPA computes annual average concentration through a multi-step process in which it first computes quarterly average concentrations and then computes each year’s average concentration as an average of the four quarterly average concentrations. This process assures that the four quarters are equally represented in the computation of the annual average, so that differences in the data completeness for different quarters do not influence the computed annual average. EPA agrees that summer concentrations in Evansville tend to be higher than concentrations at other times of year, but EPA does not expect a modest number of missing summer values (e.g., for the Civic Center site in 2007, 3 values in June and 2 values in August) to introduce any significant potential for bias in the average values for the respective quarters that are used in computing the annual average. The proposed rulemaking addressed a number of issues relating to data completeness. The proposal notes EPA’s completeness criterion that a site have valid data for at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples in all twelve quarters of the applicable three years, reflecting EPA’s view that this quantity of data provides an adequate representation of each quarter, i.e., EPA has adequate confidence that a complete data set would not be expected to show a significantly different average (or peak) concentration. The proposed rulemaking also addresses three sites (not including the Civic Center site; instead including the West Mill Road site in Vanderburgh County (site 18–163–0012) and the Jasper Sports Complex and Jasper Golf sites (sites 18–037–0004 and 18–037–0005) in Dubois County) that had quarters with less than 75 percent data capture, describing the data substitution analyses that EPA performed to assess whether it is plausible that complete data would have shown these sites to violate the standards. The commenter did not comment on any of this discussion in the proposed rulemaking. Specifically, the commenter did not comment on EPA’s 75 percent VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 completeness criterion, and the commenter did not comment on the analyses EPA conducted for sites for which that criterion was unmet. Indeed, by excluding the Civic Center site from its list of sites not meeting this completeness criterion, EPA made clear that it viewed the Civic Center as meeting this completeness criterion, and yet the commenter did not expressly challenge this EPA view. Furthermore, the commenter made no mention of the Dubois County sites, to which a majority of the Evansville area data completeness issues apply. As a result, EPA has no reason to change its views on the completeness criterion, the application of that criterion to the Evansville area, the analyses of Evansville air quality data, or the conclusion that EPA has adequate confidence that the Evansville area is attaining the 1997 air quality standards. EPA finds there is no evidence that data have ‘‘fraudulently’’ or ‘‘mysteriously’’ disappeared, as commenter contends. Valley Watch’s comments on the State’s redesignation request were submitted prior to the time that calendar year data for 2008 were recorded and quality-assured and certified. After Valley Watch’s comments on the redesignation request were submitted, more data have been acquired and evaluated for purposes of EPA’s determination of attainment. Thus Valley Watch’s analysis contained only a partial and outdated review of the relevant data. EPA finds no need for an additional ‘‘independent’’ analysis that was requested by the commenter in its comments on redesignation. Comment: Valley Watch, in its March, 2008 comments on the request for redesignation that IDEM had proposed, included criticisms of 2004 and 2005 data, and requested that the redesignation be stopped ‘‘until at least another year of data is collected’’ in order to see air quality trends. Response: EPA is making its determination of attainment based on 2006–2008 quality-assured data, rather than 2004–2006 data. Although in fact EPA believes that Evansville attained the standards based on 2004 to 2006 data, air quality for that period are not relevant to EPA’s determination that the area is currently attaining the standards. The commenter prepared the substance of his analysis of the data in March 2008, and did not update his review to include the more recent data used by EPA, or EPA’s evaluation and conclusions with respect to those data. It has now been more than a year and a half since Valley Watch submitted its March 2008 comments, and more than another year of data has been collected which shows continued attainment of PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the PM2.5 standards. Thus commenter’s wish for another year of quality-assured data has been satisfied. Comment: The commenter includes a series of comments related to criteria for redesignation that do not bear on the question of whether or not the area is currently attaining the standard. The commenter contends that ‘‘Utility executives that Valley Watch has consulted indicate that throughout 2008 and 2009 electrical generation demand has reduced nearly 25% in the region.’’ The commenter argues that this decrease in demand would yield a commensurate reduction in the formation of fine particles and that economic recovery will result in a rise of electrical production and fine particle levels; thus this decrease ‘‘cannot be considered as federally enforceable for redesignation purposes.’’ Further, ‘‘[n]umerous, already under construction, approved or soon to be approved new coal plants will add to an already fragile ‘attainment’ of the NAAQS for fine particles.’’ Response: EPA’s determination here is limited to a finding that the area’s air quality currently meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards. Unlike the case for redesignations, EPA need not evaluate whether the air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions, and projections as to whether the air quality standards will be maintained in the future also are not germane to EPA’s determination of attainment here. Moreover, the future impact of new sources and potential new sources on the area has and will be assessed in the context of permitting of those sources. For the reasons set forth in the discussions of EPA’s review of the data in this final rulemaking and in its proposal, EPA does not agree with the commenter’s contentions that currently monitored levels are too close to the 1997 standards for EPA to make determinations of attainment, or that the data recorded at the monitors are ‘‘skewed low’’. In the future, if EPA determines that the area no longer is attaining the standards, EPA will take action, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, to withdraw its determination. Comment: The commenter states that ‘‘EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a blue ribbon panel of scientists, recommended in 2005 and 2006 that the annual NAAQS for fine particles be set at a level as low as 13 μg/m3 and no higher than 14 μg/m3.’’ In addition, ‘‘[a]s further proof that residents of this area are forced to breathe unhealthy air, a study conducted by the Partnership for Healthcare Information through the E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations University of Southern Indiana found that ‘In 1996, Vanderburgh County had a hospitalization rate of 51.7 per 10,000 versus 32.2 per 10,000 in Allen County for the 0–3 age group; for the 4–8 year old group, Vanderburgh County’s rate was 35.2 while Allen County’s rate was 10.5; and the 9–13 year group showed 40.2 for Vanderburgh County and 8.3 for Allen County.’ ’’ Response: This rulemaking addresses whether air quality in the Evansville area is meeting the 1997 PM2.5 air quality standards, based on the most recent quality-assured monitoring data. It is not relevant to this determination that EPA has subsequently lowered the 24-hour standard or that the commenter believes EPA should have set the annual standard lower. Challenges to the PM2.5 standards have been raised in other proceedings, and are not properly brought here. Moreover, the historical study of health indicators in Vanderburgh and Allen Counties, which cites to information collected in 1996, and the question of whether the current air quality standards are health protective, are not relevant to the only question at issue here, which is whether the Evansville area is meeting the 1997 PM2.5 standards that are in place. Based on the reasons previously discussed, EPA continues to believe that determinations of attainment are warranted for the Chicago (Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas. Comment: Valley Watch makes numerous allegations reflecting a view that the Evansville data and the officials responsible for collecting and reporting these data are not to be trusted. These comments include allegations that the local agency may have avoided collecting data particularly on days with high concentrations. The commenter seeks investigation of a discrepancy between the value reported by the local agency versus the value reported by the State for July 7, 2007. The commenter believes that EPA’s computation involves rounding of a value above the standard to a value found to meet the standard; the commenter finds this a problematic ‘‘bureaucratic spin.’’ The commenter contends that, given the missing data, the commenter finds the values too close to the standard to be sure that the area is meeting the standard. Response: The commenter provides no credible evidence to justify the allegations that are lodged. Most relevantly here, EPA finds no reason to question the data that the State has certified as accurate, and EPA has no grounds for believing that the collected data are unrepresentative of the quarters during which they were collected. EPA VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 used values reported in the AQS, not the values in either of the reports cited by the commenter, and, in any case, EPA finds that July 7, 2007 was not a scheduled sampling day and evidently no concentration measurements were made.4 The comments regarding rounding and being close to the standard are not relevant to data from 2006 to 2008, which show annual average concentrations at all sites (with or without rounding as dictated under Appendix N) being more than 1 μg/m3 below the standard. Comment: An anonymous commenter stated the view that ‘‘cities are absolutely disgusting,’’ and that ‘‘they are getting way out of control. We need to do whatever it takes to clean them up!’’ Response: This comment does not address the actual air quality levels for the Chicago and Evansville areas or how those levels compare to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. It is thus not germane to whether the Chicago and Evansville areas are attaining those standards. 62247 NAAQS; (3) be separate from, and not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Chicago and Evansville areas based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect regardless of whether EPA designates these areas as nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as described below, any such final determination is not equivalent to the redesignation of the area to attainment based on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that either or both areas have violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist for the pertinent area(s), and EPA would take action to withdraw the determination and direct the pertinent area(s) to address the suspended requirements. The determinations that the air IV. What Is the Effect of These Actions? quality data show attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are not equivalent On the basis of this review, EPA is to the redesignation of the areas to determining that the Chicago area and attainment. These actions do not the Evansville area have attained the constitute a redesignation to attainment 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006–2008 under 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because we data. In addition, monitoring data for do not yet have approved maintenance 2009 that are available to date in the plans for the areas as required under EPA AQS database, but not yet certified, 175A of the CAA, nor have we indicate that these areas continues to determined whether the areas have met attain the 1997 PM2.5. the other requirements for Under the provisions of EPA’s PM2.5 redesignation. The designation status of implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the requirements for Illinois the areas will remain nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until such time and Indiana to submit attainment as EPA determines that the areas meet demonstrations and associated RACM, the CAA requirements for redesignation RFPs, contingency measures, and any to attainment. other planning SIPs related to These actions are limited to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for determinations that the Chicago and the Chicago and Evansville PM2.5 Evansville areas have attained the 1997 nonattainment areas are suspended for PM2.5 NAAQS. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the areas continue to attain became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 36852) and are set forth at 40 CFR 50.7. As further discussed below, these The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which determinations will: (1) For the Chicago became effective on December 18, 2006 and Evansville nonattainment areas, (71 FR 61144), are set forth at 40 CFR suspend the requirements for the 50.13. EPA has recently determined that submittal of attainment demonstrations the Chicago and Evansville areas meet and associated RACM, RFPs, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and contingency measures, and any other has designated the areas as planning SIP revisions related to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue until such time, if any, that 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688, 58726– 58729 (November 13, 2009). The status EPA subsequently determines that one of the 2006 annual NAAQS designations of the areas has violated the 1997 PM2.5 is described in the 2006 24-hour NAAQS designations notice. 74 FR 4 The monitor at issue with regard to July 7, 2007 (at site number 18–163–0012) was operating on an 58690–58691. However, designations for every third day schedule in 2007. The dates of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are independent sampling for this schedule are set by EPA so that of today’s determinations that the the same days are monitored in all locations, and Chicago and Evansville areas are are posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ ambient/pm25/cal2007.pdf. attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 62248 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action makes a determination based on air quality data and results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small V. When Are These Actions Effective? entities under the Regulatory Flexibility EPA finds that there is good cause for Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this these determinations to become rule makes a determination based on air effective on the date of publication of quality data, and results in the these actions in the Federal Register, suspension of certain Federal because a delayed effective date is requirements, it does not contain any unnecessary due to the nature of the unfunded mandate or significantly or actions. The expedited effective date for uniquely affect small governments, as these actions is authorized under both 5 described in the Unfunded Mandates U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). rule actions may become effective less This rule also does not have tribal than 30 days after publication if the rule applications because it will not have a ‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or substantial direct effect on one or more relieves a restriction,’’ and 5 U.S.C. Indian tribes, on the relationship 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date between the Federal Government and less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as Indian tribes, or on the distribution of otherwise provided by the agency for power and responsibilities between the good cause found and published with Federal Government and Indian tribes, the rule.’’ As noted above, these determinations of attainment will result as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This in a suspension of the requirements for action also does not have Federalism Chicago and Evansville to submit an implications because it does not have attainment demonstration, a RFP, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for government and the States, or on the distribution of power and so long as the area continues to attain responsibilities among the various the PM2.5 NAAQS. The suspension of levels of government, as specified in these requirements is sufficient reason Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, to allow an expedited effective date of August 10, 1999), because it merely this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In makes a determination based on air addition, the suspension of the quality data and results in the obligations of Illinois and Indiana to suspension of certain Federal make submissions for these requirements, and does not alter the requirements provides good cause to relationship or the distribution of power make this rule effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal and responsibilities established in the Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of The purpose of the 30-day waiting Children from Environmental Health period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it determines that air quality in to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, the affected area is meeting Federal standards. as here, the final rule suspends The requirements of 12(d) of the requirements rather than imposing obligations, affected parties, such as the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Chicago and Evansville areas, do not 272 note) do not apply because it would need time to adjust and prepare before be inconsistent with applicable law for the rule takes effect. EPA, when determining the attainment VI. Statutory and Executive Order status of an area, to use voluntary Reviews consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR monitoring procedures to otherwise 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and satisfy the provisions of the CAA. This rule does not impose an information therefore is not subject to review by the collection burden under the provisions Office of Management and Budget. For of the Paper Reduction Act of 1995 (44 this reason, this action is not subject to U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES If the Chicago and Evansville areas continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for Illinois and Indiana to submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in these areas would remain suspended. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule, pertaining to the determinations of attainment of the fine particle standard for the Chicago (Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas, involves determinations of attainment based on air quality data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-income communities. In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because there is no federally recognized Indian country located in the states, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these actions and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rules in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. These actions are not ‘‘major rules’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of these actions must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2010. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules 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. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 227 / Friday, November 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations Dated: November 18, 2009. Walter W. Kovalick Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. ■ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: Revisions to State Implementation Plan 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart O—Illinois 2. Section 52.725 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: ■ § 52.725 Control strategy: Particulates. * * * * * (j) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November 27, 2009, that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Subpart P—Indiana 2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraph(s) to read as follows: ■ § 52.776 matter. Control strategy: Particulate srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES * * * * * (s) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November 27, 2009, that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5 nonattainment area, which includes Lake and Porter counties in IN, and the Evansville nonattainment area have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These determinations, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspend the requirements for these areas to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to attainment of the standard for as long as the area(s) continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. [FR Doc. E9–28256 Filed 11–25–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:26 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 220001 [EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0649–200918; FRL– 8984–7] AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) in three submittals dated October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007. The submittals include modifications to Georgia’s Rules for Air Quality Control, Chapter 391–3–1. EPA is not acting on the August 22, 2007, revisions to rule 391–3–1–.03(6) ‘‘Exemptions, Combustion Equipment’’ in this action. EPA is also not acting on the August 22, 2007, revisions to rule 391–3–1–.03(9), as it is not part of the Federallyapproved SIP. These submittals also included revisions to Georgia’s Prevention of Signification Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs, which EPA is addressing separately. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective December 28, 2009. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0649. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 electronically through http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 62249 Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deanne Grant, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9291. Ms. Grant can also be reached via electronic mail at grant.deanne@epa.gov. For information relating to the Georgia SIP, please contact Ms. Stacy Harder at (404) 562– 9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. EPA’s Action. II. Background. III. Final Action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. EPA’s Action EPA is taking final action to approve SIP revisions, provided by the State of Georgia in three respective submittals, to Chapter 391–3–1. The first submittal dated October 31, 2006, includes revisions to Rule 391–3–1–.03(6)(b) ‘‘Permit Exemption for Combustion Equipment.’’ The second submittal dated March 5, 2007, includes revisions to Rules 391–3–1–.02(2)(jjj) ‘‘NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,’’ and 391–3–1– .02(6)(a)4 ‘‘Emission Statements.’’ The third submittal dated August 22, 2007, includes revisions to Rules 391–3–1– .01(llll) ‘‘Volatile Organic Compound,’’ 391–3–1–.02(12) ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule NOX Annual Trading Program,’’ and 391–3–1–.03(6)(b)11 ‘‘Stationary Engines.’’ The revisions are approvable pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. EPA is not acting on the August 22, 2007, revisions to Rule 391–3–1– .03(6)(b)16 ‘‘Exemptions, Combustion Equipment’’ in this action. Additionally, EPA is not acting on the August 22, 2007, revisions to Rule 391–3–1–.03(9), as it is not part of the Federallyapproved SIP, or on provisions pertaining to Georgia’s PSD and NNSR rules. II. Background The GA EPD submitted revisions to the Georgia SIP in three submittals dated October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007. The October 31, 2006, submittal revises Rule 391–3–1– .03(6)(b), ‘‘Permit Exemption for Combustion Equipment.’’ This revision adds two new subparagraphs, (b)14 and E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 227 (Friday, November 27, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62243-62249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28256]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0664; FRL-8985-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; Indiana; Chicago and Evansville Nonattainment Areas; 
Determination of Attainment of the Fine Particle Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 
Illinois-Indiana (``Chicago'') and Evansville, Indiana nonattainment 
areas have attained the 1997 fine particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based 
upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that 
show that the areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006 to 2008 monitoring period. 
Currently available preliminary data for 2009 are consistent with 
continued attainment of the standard. As a result of these 
determinations, the requirements for these areas to submit an 
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress plan (RFP), contingency 
measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related 
to attainment of the standard are suspended for so long as the areas 
continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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. We recommend that you telephone Melissa M. 
Barnhart,

[[Page 62244]]

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 353-8641 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa M. Barnhart, Environmental 
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8641, barnhart.melissa@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Did EPA Propose?
    A. Chicago Area
    B. Evansville Area
III. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA's Responses?
IV. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
V. When Are These Actions Effective?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is determining that the Chicago nonattainment area (including 
portions in Illinois and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana 
nonattainment area have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These 
determinations are based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air 
monitoring data that show that the areas have monitored attainment of 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006-2008 monitoring period. 
Preliminary data available to date for 2009 are consistent with 
continued attainment of the standard.

II. What Did EPA Propose?

    EPA proposed that the Chicago area (including portions in Illinois 
and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana area have attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA published these proposed determinations on 
September 24, 2009, at 74 FR 48690. Further details of EPA's review are 
available in the proposed rule.

A. Chicago Area

    EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Chicago area 
in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N. All 
data considered have been recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) 
database. The review primarily addressed air quality data collected in 
the three-year period from 2006 to 2008.
    Of sites with data to be compared to the annual standard, the 
highest three-year average annual concentration for 2006 to 2008 in the 
Chicago area was recorded at the Schiller Park site, site number 17-
031-3103, observing a three-year average annual concentration of 14.6 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). As discussed in the proposed 
rule, even the sites that are not for comparison to the annual standard 
are observing average concentrations below the standard. The highest 
98th percentile 24-hour average concentration is recorded at the McCook 
site, site number 17-031-1016, recording a three-year average 98th 
percentile 24-hour average concentration of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, all 
sites in the area have three-year average annual PM2.5 
concentrations below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and three-year average 98th 
percentile 24-hour average concentrations far below the 1997 standard 
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\.\1\ See 74 FR 48692, including footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA erroneously reported the annual average for the Burr 
Street site, site number 18-089-0026, as 14.9 [mu]g/m\3\; the 
correct value is 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further consideration of concentrations at Cicero, site 17-031-
6005, was necessary because data at this site do not meet completeness 
requirements, and because the site monitored a violation for the most 
recent three years with complete data, i.e. 2005 to 2007. A detailed 
review of concentrations at the Cicero site in relation to 
concentrations at other similar sites in the Chicago area is provided 
in the proposed rule. Based on this review, EPA stated its belief that 
the Cicero site, like other sites in the area, is attaining the 
PM2.5 standards for the 2006 to 2008 period. 74 FR 48692-
48693.
    In addition, the averages of available 2009 data from all monitors 
still operating in the Chicago nonattainment area are at or below the 
average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008, and the 98th 
percentile of available 24-hour average concentrations is again more 
than 30 [mu]g/m\3\ below the pertinent standard. Therefore, the 
available data for 2009 are consistent with the finding, based on 2006 
to 2008 data, that the Chicago area is attaining the 1997 
PM2.5 standards.

B. Evansville Area

    EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Evansville 
area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N. 
All data considered have been recorded in EPA's AQS database. The 
review primarily addressed air quality data collected at six monitoring 
sites in the three-year period from 2006 to 2008.
    The highest annual average PM2.5 concentration in the 
Evansville nonattainment area for the 2006-2008 monitoring period was 
13.7 [mu]g/m\3\, which occurred both at the Jasper Golf site (site 18-
037-0005, in Dubois County) and at the Evansville/West Mill Road site 
(site 18-163-0012, in Vanderburgh County). The Evansville area also has 
four additional monitors with data for 2006 to 2008, at which the 2006-
2008 three-year average annual concentrations ranged from 13.4 to 13.6 
[mu]g/m\3\. The average 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations ranged 
from 28 to 32 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, the Evansville area is observing 
concentrations well below the 1997 standards of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and 65 
[mu]g/m\3\, respectively.
    The proposed rule notes a completeness criterion that a site record 
valid data for at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for 
each quarter within the applicable three-year period. See 40 CFR 50 
Appendix N 4.1. Three sites in the Evansville area, namely the 
Evansville/West Mill Road site in Vanderburgh County and the Jasper 
Golf site and the Jasper Sport Complex site in Dubois County, did not 
meet this completeness criterion. For these sites, as explained in the 
proposal (74 FR 48694), EPA conducted a conservative data substitution 
analysis, assessing whether the site would still have observed 
attainment under the hypothesis that the monitor on the days of missed 
samples might have recorded the highest concentration that the monitor 
observed during the applicable quarter during the 2006 to 2008 
period.\2\ Both the Jasper Golf site and the Evansville/West Mill Road 
site had one or more quarters in 2006 to 2008 that measured less than 
75 percent complete data, but in both cases the substitution analysis 
indicates that the monitors would have shown attainment even with 
conservative assumptions about the missing data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This conservative substitution test to confirm a passing 
design value that is based on incomplete data is explained in the 
EPA guidance document ``Guideline On Data Handling Conventions For 
The PM NAAQS,'' EPA-454/R-99-008, April 1999, at page 16. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Jasper Sport Complex site (site 18-037-0004, in Dubois 
County), the data substitution approach using the highest concentration 
that the monitor observed during the applicable quarter during the 2006 
to 2008 period did not yield a firm conclusion as to whether the site 
is attaining the annual standard. This site began operation in early 
2006 (January 29, 2006), and so earlier (e.g. 2005 to 2007) three-year 
averages were not available. As EPA explained in its proposal (74 FR 
48694), another method available to evaluate these data is to examine 
the data at this site in relation to data at other similar sites in the 
area, to judge the likelihood that the monitor

[[Page 62245]]

would have shown attainment had it collected complete data. The 
available data at this site have always indicated annual average 
concentrations below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and 24-hour concentrations below 
65 [mu]g/m\3\. The available data at this site are similar to the data 
at other nearby sites in the area. Therefore, EPA believes this site, 
like the other sites in the Evansville area, is attaining the 
standards. In addition, all sites with data from 2005 to 2007 recorded 
measurements showing attainment for that period as well. Therefore, EPA 
proposed to find that all sites in the Evansville area, including sites 
that did not meet the 75 percent completeness requirement, are now 
meeting the 1997 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1 and 4.2.
    In addition, EPA examined data from the first half of 2009. For 
each site, the average of available 2009 data is at or below the 
average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008 and the 98th 
percentile of available 24-hour average concentrations is again more 
than 30 [micro]g/m\3\ below the pertinent standard. Therefore, EPA 
observed that the available data for 2009 are consistent with the 
finding, based on 2006 to 2008 data, that the Evansville area is 
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

III. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA's Responses?

    EPA received a total of four sets of comments in response to these 
actions, including comments by Indiana Steel Environmental Group 
(ISEG), the Northwest Indiana Forum, Valley Watch, Inc., and one 
anonymous commenter. ISEG and the Northwest Indiana Forum supported 
EPA's proposed determinations of attainment of the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago and Evansville areas. In this 
section, EPA responds to the adverse comments received in response to 
the September 24, 2009, proposed rulemaking. EPA did not receive any 
adverse comments specifically directed at its proposed determination of 
attainment for the Chicago area.
    Comment: Valley Watch requests that EPA accept its ``comments 
objecting to EPA's proposal to redesignate the Evansville, IN area to 
`attainment' of the 1997 standard for PM2.5.'' Valley Watch 
also submitted to this rulemaking the same comments that it submitted 
to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) in March 
2008, at a State hearing on the State's planned petition for 
redesignation of the Evansville area. Many of those comments include 
contentions about the health effects of PM2.5, the status of 
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the potential impact of new 
power plants that Valley Watch believes will increase emissions of fine 
particulate matter precursors. Valley Watch also expressed its concern 
that the recent economic downturn is responsible for temporary 
decreases in concentrations of PM2.5, and thus the ``low'' 
levels of particulate matter being measured are not due to permanent 
and enforceable emissions limitations.
    Response: As EPA stated in its proposal (74 FR 48695), EPA in this 
rulemaking is merely determining that the Evansville area is attaining 
the 1997 PM2.5 standards, based on the most recent three 
years of quality assured air monitoring data. EPA is not redesignating 
the area under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is 
not evaluating whether any of the other criteria for redesignation, as 
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, have been met. The only 
issue before EPA in this rulemaking is whether the air quality 
monitored in the area meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards. 
Therefore, any comments that address other issues pertaining to 
redesignation, and that do not address the question of whether, as a 
matter of air quality, the area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 
standards, are not relevant to this rulemaking. For example, the causes 
of air quality levels--whether they are due to permanent and 
enforceable emissions reductions and whether such reductions will be 
maintained over time--are not addressed in a determination of 
attainment. Nor is there any relevance for this rulemaking of 
commenter's assertions regarding the impact of CAIR or other regulatory 
regimes or emissions from prospective new power plants. If, in the 
future, EPA determines that the area has lapsed out of attainment with 
the standards, EPA would take action to withdraw its determination of 
attainment. Thus, comments addressing issues other than whether air 
quality currently meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards are not 
relevant to this determination of attainment.
    Comment: Valley Watch contends that there are ``huge gaps'' in the 
data for 2006-2007, and that this action should not go forward until 
more data are collected. The commenter claims that gaps of 13 percent 
and 16 percent occurred in 2006 and 2007, respectively, when 
``mysteriously or perhaps fraudulently data seemed to just disappear at 
times when fine particle levels were elevating at other regional 
monitors.'' Valley Watch submitted these comments to Indiana on March 
27, 2008, in response to a State solicitation of comments on a 
prospective request for redesignation of the Evansville area; Valley 
Watch then attached those comments to its comments on EPA's proposed 
clean data determination.
    The commenter focuses on data at the Evansville Civic Center 
monitor (site number 18-163-0006). The commenter in particular notes 
for this site that ``[i]n June, six out of ten measurements are 
missing. In August, five out ten measurements are also missing.''
    Response: The Evansville Civic Center site has two operating 
instruments. The shortfall in data collection noted by the commenter 
occurred in 2007 for one of these instruments (``Instrument 1''). 
However, many of the days lacking valid data at Instrument 1 had valid 
data at Instrument 2. Since both instruments collect equally valid 
data, EPA views valid data from Instrument 2 as a suitable substitute 
for missing data from Instrument 1, and in fact EPA treats the site as 
having valid data for such days.\3\ In particular for June and August 
of 2007, EPA finds that seven of the ten scheduled sampling days in 
June 2007 and nine of the eleven scheduled sampling days in August 2007 
had valid data. Similarly for the full year, using data from Instrument 
2 where data are missing from Instrument 1, EPA finds for 2007 for 
example that this site has valid data for 92 percent of the days, not 
84 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The use of data from a second instrument in place of missing 
data from the first instrument is explained in the EPA guidance 
document ``Guideline On Data Handling Conventions For The PM 
NAAQS,'' EPA-454/R-99-008, April 1999, at page 16. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter expresses concern that the days it considers to lack 
data may disproportionately be days with high concentrations. Indeed, 
for the six days in the two months at the site especially in question 
(June and August 2007 at the Civic Center site) for which Instrument 2 
obtained valid data and Instrument 1 did not, the average concentration 
was 20.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The commenter may believe that availability of 
more complete data and inclusion of that data in the calculation of 
average concentrations at the Civic Center would have yielded a 
computed violation. However, in EPA's view, a majority of the days that 
the commenter considers to lack data in fact have data, and EPA 
included those data in its computation of average concentrations. The 
results, as reported in the proposed rulemaking, are well below the 
applicable standard. EPA has no reason to believe that the days without 
data on average would have had concentrations higher (or lower) than 
the average for the applicable quarter, e.g., that the days without 
data in the third quarter of 2007

[[Page 62246]]

at this site on average would have had concentrations higher than the 
quarterly average of 18.27 [mu]g/m\3\, much less that the data on 
average would have been enough higher to yield a three-year average 
greater than 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Inasmuch as the combined data set from 
the two instruments meets the data completeness requirements of 40 CFR 
part 50 Appendix N 4.1(b), EPA believes that sufficient data are 
available to have adequate confidence in the result, i.e., that the 
site is attaining the standards.
    EPA computes annual average concentration through a multi-step 
process in which it first computes quarterly average concentrations and 
then computes each year's average concentration as an average of the 
four quarterly average concentrations. This process assures that the 
four quarters are equally represented in the computation of the annual 
average, so that differences in the data completeness for different 
quarters do not influence the computed annual average. EPA agrees that 
summer concentrations in Evansville tend to be higher than 
concentrations at other times of year, but EPA does not expect a modest 
number of missing summer values (e.g., for the Civic Center site in 
2007, 3 values in June and 2 values in August) to introduce any 
significant potential for bias in the average values for the respective 
quarters that are used in computing the annual average.
    The proposed rulemaking addressed a number of issues relating to 
data completeness. The proposal notes EPA's completeness criterion that 
a site have valid data for at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples 
in all twelve quarters of the applicable three years, reflecting EPA's 
view that this quantity of data provides an adequate representation of 
each quarter, i.e., EPA has adequate confidence that a complete data 
set would not be expected to show a significantly different average (or 
peak) concentration. The proposed rulemaking also addresses three sites 
(not including the Civic Center site; instead including the West Mill 
Road site in Vanderburgh County (site 18-163-0012) and the Jasper 
Sports Complex and Jasper Golf sites (sites 18-037-0004 and 18-037-
0005) in Dubois County) that had quarters with less than 75 percent 
data capture, describing the data substitution analyses that EPA 
performed to assess whether it is plausible that complete data would 
have shown these sites to violate the standards.
    The commenter did not comment on any of this discussion in the 
proposed rulemaking. Specifically, the commenter did not comment on 
EPA's 75 percent completeness criterion, and the commenter did not 
comment on the analyses EPA conducted for sites for which that 
criterion was unmet. Indeed, by excluding the Civic Center site from 
its list of sites not meeting this completeness criterion, EPA made 
clear that it viewed the Civic Center as meeting this completeness 
criterion, and yet the commenter did not expressly challenge this EPA 
view. Furthermore, the commenter made no mention of the Dubois County 
sites, to which a majority of the Evansville area data completeness 
issues apply. As a result, EPA has no reason to change its views on the 
completeness criterion, the application of that criterion to the 
Evansville area, the analyses of Evansville air quality data, or the 
conclusion that EPA has adequate confidence that the Evansville area is 
attaining the 1997 air quality standards. EPA finds there is no 
evidence that data have ``fraudulently'' or ``mysteriously'' 
disappeared, as commenter contends. Valley Watch's comments on the 
State's redesignation request were submitted prior to the time that 
calendar year data for 2008 were recorded and quality-assured and 
certified. After Valley Watch's comments on the redesignation request 
were submitted, more data have been acquired and evaluated for purposes 
of EPA's determination of attainment. Thus Valley Watch's analysis 
contained only a partial and outdated review of the relevant data. EPA 
finds no need for an additional ``independent'' analysis that was 
requested by the commenter in its comments on redesignation.
    Comment: Valley Watch, in its March, 2008 comments on the request 
for redesignation that IDEM had proposed, included criticisms of 2004 
and 2005 data, and requested that the redesignation be stopped ``until 
at least another year of data is collected'' in order to see air 
quality trends.
    Response: EPA is making its determination of attainment based on 
2006-2008 quality-assured data, rather than 2004-2006 data. Although in 
fact EPA believes that Evansville attained the standards based on 2004 
to 2006 data, air quality for that period are not relevant to EPA's 
determination that the area is currently attaining the standards. The 
commenter prepared the substance of his analysis of the data in March 
2008, and did not update his review to include the more recent data 
used by EPA, or EPA's evaluation and conclusions with respect to those 
data. It has now been more than a year and a half since Valley Watch 
submitted its March 2008 comments, and more than another year of data 
has been collected which shows continued attainment of the 
PM2.5 standards. Thus commenter's wish for another year of 
quality-assured data has been satisfied.
    Comment: The commenter includes a series of comments related to 
criteria for redesignation that do not bear on the question of whether 
or not the area is currently attaining the standard. The commenter 
contends that ``Utility executives that Valley Watch has consulted 
indicate that throughout 2008 and 2009 electrical generation demand has 
reduced nearly 25% in the region.'' The commenter argues that this 
decrease in demand would yield a commensurate reduction in the 
formation of fine particles and that economic recovery will result in a 
rise of electrical production and fine particle levels; thus this 
decrease ``cannot be considered as federally enforceable for 
redesignation purposes.'' Further, ``[n]umerous, already under 
construction, approved or soon to be approved new coal plants will add 
to an already fragile `attainment' of the NAAQS for fine particles.''
    Response: EPA's determination here is limited to a finding that the 
area's air quality currently meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards. 
Unlike the case for redesignations, EPA need not evaluate whether the 
air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions, 
and projections as to whether the air quality standards will be 
maintained in the future also are not germane to EPA's determination of 
attainment here. Moreover, the future impact of new sources and 
potential new sources on the area has and will be assessed in the 
context of permitting of those sources. For the reasons set forth in 
the discussions of EPA's review of the data in this final rulemaking 
and in its proposal, EPA does not agree with the commenter's 
contentions that currently monitored levels are too close to the 1997 
standards for EPA to make determinations of attainment, or that the 
data recorded at the monitors are ``skewed low''. In the future, if EPA 
determines that the area no longer is attaining the standards, EPA will 
take action, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, to withdraw its 
determination.
    Comment: The commenter states that ``EPA's Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC), a blue ribbon panel of scientists, 
recommended in 2005 and 2006 that the annual NAAQS for fine particles 
be set at a level as low as 13 [micro]g/m\3\ and no higher than 14 
[micro]g/m\3\.'' In addition, ``[a]s further proof that residents of 
this area are forced to breathe unhealthy air, a study conducted by the 
Partnership for Healthcare Information through the

[[Page 62247]]

University of Southern Indiana found that `In 1996, Vanderburgh County 
had a hospitalization rate of 51.7 per 10,000 versus 32.2 per 10,000 in 
Allen County for the 0-3 age group; for the 4-8 year old group, 
Vanderburgh County's rate was 35.2 while Allen County's rate was 10.5; 
and the 9-13 year group showed 40.2 for Vanderburgh County and 8.3 for 
Allen County.' ''
    Response: This rulemaking addresses whether air quality in the 
Evansville area is meeting the 1997 PM2.5 air quality 
standards, based on the most recent quality-assured monitoring data. It 
is not relevant to this determination that EPA has subsequently lowered 
the 24-hour standard or that the commenter believes EPA should have set 
the annual standard lower. Challenges to the PM2.5 standards 
have been raised in other proceedings, and are not properly brought 
here. Moreover, the historical study of health indicators in 
Vanderburgh and Allen Counties, which cites to information collected in 
1996, and the question of whether the current air quality standards are 
health protective, are not relevant to the only question at issue here, 
which is whether the Evansville area is meeting the 1997 
PM2.5 standards that are in place.
    Based on the reasons previously discussed, EPA continues to believe 
that determinations of attainment are warranted for the Chicago 
(Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas.
    Comment: Valley Watch makes numerous allegations reflecting a view 
that the Evansville data and the officials responsible for collecting 
and reporting these data are not to be trusted. These comments include 
allegations that the local agency may have avoided collecting data 
particularly on days with high concentrations. The commenter seeks 
investigation of a discrepancy between the value reported by the local 
agency versus the value reported by the State for July 7, 2007. The 
commenter believes that EPA's computation involves rounding of a value 
above the standard to a value found to meet the standard; the commenter 
finds this a problematic ``bureaucratic spin.'' The commenter contends 
that, given the missing data, the commenter finds the values too close 
to the standard to be sure that the area is meeting the standard.
    Response: The commenter provides no credible evidence to justify 
the allegations that are lodged. Most relevantly here, EPA finds no 
reason to question the data that the State has certified as accurate, 
and EPA has no grounds for believing that the collected data are 
unrepresentative of the quarters during which they were collected. EPA 
used values reported in the AQS, not the values in either of the 
reports cited by the commenter, and, in any case, EPA finds that July 
7, 2007 was not a scheduled sampling day and evidently no concentration 
measurements were made.\4\ The comments regarding rounding and being 
close to the standard are not relevant to data from 2006 to 2008, which 
show annual average concentrations at all sites (with or without 
rounding as dictated under Appendix N) being more than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ 
below the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The monitor at issue with regard to July 7, 2007 (at site 
number 18-163-0012) was operating on an every third day schedule in 
2007. The dates of sampling for this schedule are set by EPA so that 
the same days are monitored in all locations, and are posted at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/cal2007.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: An anonymous commenter stated the view that ``cities are 
absolutely disgusting,'' and that ``they are getting way out of 
control. We need to do whatever it takes to clean them up!''
    Response: This comment does not address the actual air quality 
levels for the Chicago and Evansville areas or how those levels compare 
to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. It is thus not germane to whether 
the Chicago and Evansville areas are attaining those standards.

IV. What Is the Effect of These Actions?

    On the basis of this review, EPA is determining that the Chicago 
area and the Evansville area have attained the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS based on 2006-2008 data. In addition, monitoring data for 2009 
that are available to date in the EPA AQS database, but not yet 
certified, indicate that these areas continues to attain the 1997 
PM2.5.
    Under the provisions of EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule 
(see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the requirements for Illinois and Indiana to 
submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFPs, contingency 
measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago and Evansville PM2.5 
nonattainment areas are suspended for so long as the areas continue to 
attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As further discussed below, these determinations will: (1) For the 
Chicago and Evansville nonattainment areas, suspend the requirements 
for the submittal of attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, 
RFPs, contingency measures, and any other planning SIP revisions 
related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue 
until such time, if any, that EPA subsequently determines that one of 
the areas has violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate 
from, and not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation 
determination or requirements for the Chicago and Evansville areas 
based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect 
regardless of whether EPA designates these areas as nonattainment areas 
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as 
described below, any such final determination is not equivalent to the 
redesignation of the area to attainment based on the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking 
in the Federal Register, that either or both areas have violated the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the 
specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer 
exist for the pertinent area(s), and EPA would take action to withdraw 
the determination and direct the pertinent area(s) to address the 
suspended requirements.
    The determinations that the air quality data show attainment of the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are not equivalent to the redesignation of 
the areas to attainment. These actions do not constitute a 
redesignation to attainment under 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because we do 
not yet have approved maintenance plans for the areas as required under 
175A of the CAA, nor have we determined whether the areas have met the 
other requirements for redesignation. The designation status of the 
areas will remain nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
until such time as EPA determines that the areas meet the CAA 
requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    These actions are limited to determinations that the Chicago and 
Evansville areas have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 
36852) and are set forth at 40 CFR 50.7.
    The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on December 
18, 2006 (71 FR 61144), are set forth at 40 CFR 50.13. EPA has recently 
determined that the Chicago and Evansville areas meet the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and has designated the areas as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688, 58726-58729 
(November 13, 2009). The status of the 2006 annual NAAQS designations 
is described in the 2006 24-hour NAAQS designations notice. 74 FR 
58690-58691. However, designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
are independent of today's determinations that the Chicago and 
Evansville areas are attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

[[Page 62248]]

    If the Chicago and Evansville areas continue to attain the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for Illinois and Indiana to 
submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, 
contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment 
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in these areas would remain 
suspended.

V. When Are These Actions Effective?

    EPA finds that there is good cause for these determinations to 
become effective on the date of publication of these actions in the 
Federal Register, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due 
to the nature of the actions. The expedited effective date for these 
actions is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides 
that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after 
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves 
a restriction,'' and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date 
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the 
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' As noted 
above, these determinations of attainment will result in a suspension 
of the requirements for Chicago and Evansville to submit an attainment 
demonstration, a RFP, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any 
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the PM2.5 
NAAQS. The suspension of these requirements is sufficient reason to 
allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1). In addition, the suspension of the obligations of Illinois 
and Indiana to make submissions for these requirements provides good 
cause to make this rule effective on the date of publication of this 
action in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The 
purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is 
to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and 
prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final 
rule suspends requirements rather than imposing obligations, affected 
parties, such as the Chicago and Evansville areas, do not need time to 
adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action makes a 
determination based on air quality data and results in the suspension 
of certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule makes a determination 
based on air quality data, and results in the suspension of certain 
Federal requirements, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal applications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely makes a determination 
based on air quality data and results in the suspension of certain 
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) because it determines that air quality in the affected area is 
meeting Federal standards.
    The requirements of 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it 
would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the 
attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in 
place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures to 
otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. This rule does not impose 
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paper 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule, pertaining 
to the determinations of attainment of the fine particle standard for 
the Chicago (Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas, 
involves determinations of attainment based on air quality data and 
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any communities in the area, including 
minority and low-income communities.
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because there is no federally recognized Indian country located in the 
states, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs 
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing these actions and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rules in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. These actions are not ``major rules'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of these actions must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2010. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules 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. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate 
matter, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 62249]]


    Dated: November 18, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.725 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.725  Control strategy: Particulates.

* * * * *
    (j) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November 
27, 2009, that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5 
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the 
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, 
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further 
progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to 
attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraph(s) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (s) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November 
27, 2009, that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5 
nonattainment area, which includes Lake and Porter counties in IN, and 
the Evansville nonattainment area have attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These determinations, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.1004(c), suspend the requirements for these areas to submit an 
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control 
measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, and other 
plan elements related to attainment of the standard for as long as the 
area(s) continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. E9-28256 Filed 11-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P