Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Illinois; Ozone, 48062-48071 [2012-19556]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48062
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects errors
in the amendatory instructions and
paragraph heading regarding EPA’s
limited approval of Pennsylvania’s
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP).
DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096 or by
email at linden.melissa@.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean
EPA. On July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279),
we published a final rulemaking action
announcing our limited approval of
Pennsylvania’s Regional Haze SIP. In
this document, we inadvertently
provided an incorrect amendatory
instruction on page 41284 regarding the
addition of an entry to § 52.2020(e)(1),
and also omitted a paragraph heading.
This action corrects both the erroneous
amendatory instruction and the omitted
paragraph heading in part 52 for this
paragraph.
In rule document 2012–16428,
published in the Federal Register on
July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279), the
following corrections are made:
SUMMARY:
§ 52.2020
[Corrected]
1. On page 41284 in the third column,
amendatory instruction number 2 is
revised to read as follows:
‘‘2. In § 52.2020, the table in
paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for Regional Haze Plan at the
end of the table to read as follows:’’
■ 2. On page 41284 in the third column,
the paragraph designation is revised
from ‘‘(e)’’ to ‘‘(e)(1).’’
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B),
provides that, when an agency for good
cause finds that notice and public
procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule
without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. We
have determined that there is good
cause for making today’s rule final
without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because we are merely
correcting an incorrect citation in a
previous action. Thus, notice and public
procedure are unnecessary. We find that
this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and is therefore not subject to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)). Because the agency has made
a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action
is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as
indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections
202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. This rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of governments, as specified by
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
This technical correction action does
not involve technical standards; thus
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. The rule also
does not involve special consideration
of environmental justice related issues
as required by Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct, as
required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).
EPA has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
order. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. Section 808 allows
the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise
provided by the CRA if the agency
makes a good cause finding that notice
and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be
supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.
808(2). As stated previously, EPA had
made such a good cause finding,
including the reasons therefore, and
established an effective date of August
13, 2012. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule 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 rule in
the Federal Register. This correction for
40 CFR part 52, subpart NN
(Pennsylvania) is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Dated: July 23, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
III.
[FR Doc. 2012–19044 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0666; FRL–9712–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Illinois; Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a request
from the State of Illinois to redesignate
the Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN)
area (the Greater Chicago area) to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or standard). The Illinois
portion of the Greater Chicago area
includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
48063
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
McHenry, and Will Counties and
portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and
Goose Lake Townships) and Kendall
(Oswego Township) Counties. The
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) submitted this request on
July 23, 2009, and supplemented its
request on September 16, 2011. In
addition to approval of Illinois’ ozone
redesignation request, EPA is: (1)
Approving the State’s plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard through 2025 and the State’s
2002 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emission
inventories, as revisions to the Illinois
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago
area; and (2) approving and finding
adequate the State’s 2008 and 2025 VOC
and NOx Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets (MVEBs).
DATES: This final rule is effective August
13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0666. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the 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 material is
available either electronically in
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 Edward
Doty, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886–6057 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057,
doty.edward@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:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this rule?
II. What comments did we receive on the
proposed rule?
III. What actions is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this rule?
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA
promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (85 parts
per billion (ppb) or higher exceeds the
standard). EPA published a final rule
designating and classifying areas under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). In that
rulemaking, the Greater Chicago area
was designated as nonattainment for the
ozone standard. This area was classified
as a moderate nonattainment area under
subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
On July 23, 2009, IEPA requested
redesignation of the Illinois portion of
the Greater Chicago area to attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based
on ozone data for the period of 2006–
2008. On September 16, 2011, IEPA
supplemented the original ozone
redesignation request, submitting ozone
data for the period of 2008–2010,
revising the mobile source emission
estimates using EPA’s on-road mobile
source emissions model, MOVES, and
extending the demonstration of
maintenance of the ozone standard
through 2025, with new MVEBs, but
without emission reductions resulting
from implementation of EPA’s Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR).
On March 12, 2010, EPA issued a
final rulemaking determining that the
entire Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on three years of
complete, quality-assured ozone data for
the period of 2006–2008, and
continuing through 2009 1 (75 FR
12088). On May 11, 2010, EPA issued a
final rulemaking redesignating the
Indiana portion (Lake and Porter
Counties) of the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area to attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR
26118).
On February 9, 2012 (77 FR 6743),
EPA issued a notice of rulemaking
proposing to approve Illinois’ request to
redesignate the Illinois portion of the
Greater Chicago area to attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, as well
as proposing to approve Illinois’ tenyear ozone maintenance plan for the
area, VOC and NOx MVEBs, and 2002
VOC and NOx emission inventories as
revisions of the Illinois SIP. This
proposed rulemaking sets forth the basis
for determining that Illinois’
redesignation request meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Complete,
quality-assured air quality monitoring
data in the Greater Chicago area for
2008–2010 and for 2009–2011 show that
this area is currently attaining the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data
available to date for 2012 are consistent
with continued attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The qualityassured ozone data in the Greater
Chicago area were discussed in the
February 9, 2012, proposed rule for this
rulemaking (77 FR 6747). Table 1
summarizes the 2009–2011 annual
fourth high ozone concentrations and
2009–2011 ozone design values (threeyear averages of the annual fourth high
daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations) for each of the
monitoring sites in the Greater Chicago
area. These and other ozone data for the
Greater Chicago area are also
documented at EPA’s Web site https://
www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL FOURTH HIGH OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES FOR 2009–2011
(CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM))
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Site Name (site code)
County
4500 W. 123rd Street, Alsip (170310001) ..........................
3300 E. Cheltenham, Chicago (170310032) ......................
Wacker At Adams, Chicago (170310042) ..........................
5720 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago (170310064) ......................
1000 E. Ohio, Chicago (170310072) ..................................
7801 Lawndale, Chicago (1703100760 ..............................
1 The area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard based on quality assured ozone data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
2009
.............
..............
.............
.............
.............
.............
2011
Three-year
average
0.071 .............
0.079 .............
No Data ........
0.074 .............
0.074 .............
0.073 .............
0.071
0.073
..........................
0.068
0.070
0.069
2010
0.069
0.065
0.076
0.060
0.062
0.067
0.073
0.074
0.077
0.071
0.075
0.068
for 2010. See February 9, 2012, proposed rule (77
FR 6743).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
48064
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—ANNUAL FOURTH HIGH OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES FOR 2009–2011
(CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM))—Continued
Site Name (site code)
County
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6545 W. Hurlbut, Chicago (170311003) .............................
729 Houston, Lemont (170311601) ....................................
1820 S. 51st Avenue, Cicero (170314002) ........................
9511 W. Harrison Street, Chicago (170314007) ................
750 Dundee Road, Northbrook (170314201) .....................
531 E. Lincoln, Evanston ....................................................
(170317002) ........................................................................
Route 53 (170436001) ........................................................
665 Dundee Road, Elgin .....................................................
(170890005) ........................................................................
Golf and Jackson Streets, Waukegan (170971002) ...........
Illinois Beach State Park, Zion (170971007) ......................
First Street and Three Oaks Road, Cary (171110001) ......
36400 S. Essex Road (171971011) ...................................
201 Mississippi Street, Gary (180890022) .........................
1751 Oliver Street, Whiting (180890030) ...........................
1300 141 Street, Hammond (180892008) ..........................
84 Diana Road, Ogden Dunes (181270024) ......................
1000 Wesley/Valparaiso Water Department (181270026)
Chiwaukee Prairie, Pleasant Prairie (550590019) ..............
The primary background for today’s
action is contained in EPA’s February 9,
2012, proposal to approve Illinois’
redesignation request, and in EPA’s
March 12, 2010, final rulemaking
determining that the area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In these
rulemakings, we noted that, under EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR
part 50, appendix I, the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the
three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm at all ozone
monitoring sites in an area. See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information. To support the
redesignation of the area to attainment
of the NAAQS, the area must show
attainment based on complete, qualityassured data for the most recent threeyear period. The data completeness
requirement, for any given monitoring
site, is met when the three-year average
of days with valid ambient monitoring
data is greater than 90 percent, and no
single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness, as determined in
accordance with appendix I of 40 CFR
part 50. Under the CAA, EPA may
redesignate a nonattainment area to
attainment if sufficient, complete,
quality-assured data are available
demonstrating that the area has attained
the standard and if the State meets all
applicable redesignation requirements
specified in section 107(d)(E) and
section 175A of the CAA.
The February 9, 2012, proposed rule
provides a detailed discussion of how
Illinois’ ozone redesignation request
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
2009
2011
Three-year
average
.............
.............
.............
..............
.............
.............
0.064
0.067
0.067
0.057
0.069
0.064
0.070
0.073
0.068
0.064
0.072
0.067
0067 ..............
0.069 .............
0.072 .............
0.065 .............
0.076 .............
0.078 .............
0.067
0.070
0.069
0.062
0.072
0.070
DuPage .........
Kane .............
0.059
0.068
0.064
0.069
0.068 .............
0.070 .............
0.064
0.069
Lake ..............
Lake ..............
McHenry ........
Will ................
Lake ..............
Lake ..............
Lake ..............
Porter ............
Porter ............
Kenosha ........
0.057
0.075
0.066
0.063
0.058
0.062
0.065
0.067
0.064
0.071
0.074
0.078
0.065
0.065
0.064
0.069
0.069
0.067
0.061
0.081
No Data .........
0.076 .............
0.071 .............
0.061 .............
0.066 .............
0.069 .............
0.072 .............
0.068 .............
0.063 .............
0.081 .............
..........................
0.076
0.67
0.063
0.063
0.067
0.069
0.067
0.063
0.078
meets the CAA requirements. Complete,
quality-assured and certified air quality
monitoring data in the Greater Chicago
area for 2009–2011 and preliminary data
available for 2012 show that this area is
currently attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. With the final approval
of its VOC and NOx emission
inventories, Illinois has met all CAA
requirements for redesignation of the
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago
area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Illinois has
demonstrated that attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the Greater Chicago area
through 2025 with or without the
implementation of EPA’s CAIR. Finally,
Illinois has adopted 2008 and 2025
MVEBs that are supported by Illinois’
ozone maintenance demonstration and
adopted ozone maintenance plan.
II. What comments did we receive on
the proposed rule?
EPA provided a 30-day review and
comment period for the February 9,
2012, proposed rule. During the
comment period, we received one
comment set from an individual
representing the Sierra Club. These
comments are summarized and
addressed below.
Comment 1: The commenter argues
that it is inappropriate to redesignate
the Illinois portion of the Greater
Chicago area to attainment under the
1997 8-hour ozone standard when EPA
intends to designate this area as
nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard, and asserts that EPA is
PO 00000
2010
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
delaying the implementation of the 2008
8-hour ozone standard.
Response 1: We disagree with the
commenter. The area’s status with
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard is not relevant to the area’s
attainment status under the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. It would be
inappropriate to defer or reject the
redesignation of the area under the 1997
8-hour ozone standard based on EPA’s
designation of the area under the 2008
8-hour ozone standard.
On June 11, 2012, EPA published its
designation for the Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone
standards. 77 FR 34221. EPA designated
the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area as
nonattainment with a classification of
marginal for the 2008 ozone standards.
The area’s status with respect to the
2008 ozone standards, however, does
not affect or prevent redesignation of the
area to attainment for the 1997 ozone
standard. The 1997 ozone standard
currently remains in effect, and, thus,
EPA continues to evaluate the area’s
designation status with respect to that
standard. Until the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is revoked, it remains in effect
and independent of the 2008 8-hour
ozone standards, and EPA continues to
evaluate and act upon states’
redesignation requests with respect to
the 1997 ozone standard.
EPA has in the past continued to
redesignate areas under existing
standards even after the adoption of
new standards for the same pollutant.
After adopting the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, EPA continued to redesignate
areas for the 1-hour ozone standard
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
until the 1-hour ozone standard was
revoked. See, for example the Cincinnati
ozone redesignation for the 1-hour
ozone standard, 70 FR 35946 (June 21,
2005) and the Atlanta ozone
redesignation for the 1-hour ozone
standard, 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005).
Subsequent to the adoption of the
2008 8-hour ozone standard and
designation of areas for this standard,
EPA has continued to redesignate areas
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. See, for example, the Detroit,
Michigan redesignation, 74 FR 30950
(June 29, 2009); Clearfield and Indiana
Counties, Pennsylvania redesignation,
74 FR 11674 (March 19, 2009);
Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
redesignation, 73 FR 29436 (May 21,
2008); and, Door and Manitowoc
Counties, Wisconsin redesignation, 75
FR 39635 (July 12, 2010). Also see the
redesignation of the Illinois portion of
the St. Louis area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, 77 FR 34819 (June 12,
2012).
Comment 2: The commenter argues
that EPA has failed to consider ambient
monitoring data from 2011 even though
Illinois has already submitted and
certified these data. The commenter
asserts that the EPA must include these
data in its consideration of Illinois’
ozone redesignation request and provide
the public with the opportunity to
review and comment on these data
before making any final decision on
Illinois’ ozone redesignation request.
Response 2: At the time EPA prepared
the proposed rule for rulemaking on
Illinois’ ozone redesignation request,
EPA had not yet received Illinois’
certification of the 2011 ozone data. At
the time of EPA’s proposed
redesignation of the area, the 2008–2010
ozone data were the most recent three
years of State-certified data available to
EPA. Illinois has subsequently certified
its 2011 ozone data for the Illinois
portion of the Greater Chicago area.
Indiana has certified its 2011 ozone
data for the Indiana portion of the
Greater Chicago area. In addition,
Wisconsin has certified the 2011 ozone
data for the Chiwaukee Prairie
monitoring site in Kenosha County,
generally considered to be the peak
ozone design value site attributable to
emissions in the Greater Chicago area.
The complete, certified 2011 ozone
data, along with ozone data for 2009 and
2010, show that the Greater Chicago
area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. The highest 8-hour
ozone design value for the 2009–2011
period was recorded at the Chiwaukee
Prairie monitoring site, with a value of
0.077 parts per million. All of these data
show that the area continued to attain
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard during
the 2009–2011 period. Preliminary
ozone data for 2012 for the Greater
Chicago area and for Chiwaukee Prairie
are consistent with the Greater Chicago
area’s continued attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. EPA has, thus,
considered these data, which reflect
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. Although the 2011 data
were not certified at the time of
proposal, these data were available to
the public through EPA’s Air Quality
System and commenters could have
reviewed the data and addressed them
in comments.
Comment 3: The commenter asserts
that the consideration of the 2011 data
is particularly important because 2008
(the attainment year used by the IEPA
to document the emissions reductionbasis for the attainment of the ozone
standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area and the base year for
the 10-year ozone standard maintenance
demonstration) was the first year of a
major recession. The commenter
contends that emission reductions
leading to the observed air quality
improvement were the result of
temporary economic conditions rather
than the result of permanent emission
reductions.
Response 3: First, as set forth in EPA’s
response to comment 2 above, EPA has
considered the complete, quality
assured and certified monitoring data
for the bi-state nonattainment area for
2011. These data show that the area has
continued to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, and preliminary data
for 2012 are consistent with continued
attainment. A determination of
attainment is based solely on air quality
considerations, and, therefore,
underlying economic conditions are not
relevant to the limited inquiry that
results in a determination. In another
portion of this rulemaking, and with
respect to a separate and independent
criterion for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii), EPA examines whether
attainment is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. See
discussion in the proposed rulemaking
(77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012) and
elsewhere in these responses to
comments.
The commenter provides no data to
demonstrate that the economic
recession of recent years had any impact
on emissions in 2008. The commenter
merely speculates that there was such
an impact. Lacking any data to the
contrary, we see no reason to assume
that the lower emissions of 2008
(relative to those of the base
nonattainment year of 2002) were
exclusively or predominantly an artifact
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48065
of temporary emission reductions
resulting from the economic recession.
In addition, the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area has continued to
attain the 1997 ozone standard over an
extended period (over a number of
sequential three-year periods, 2006–
2008, 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and now
2009–2011), with general downward
trends in ozone design values at most
monitoring sites in the area (see Table
1 in the proposed rule for this
rulemaking action, 77 FR 6747). Given
the downward trend in ozone design
values and the ozone design values
below the 0.085 ppm ozone standard
violation level, we see no reason to
believe that a reversal in the economic
situation in this area will cause a return
to violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in this area in the foreseeable
future.
Comment 4 General: The commenter
argues that Illinois and EPA have failed
to comply with the ozone redesignation
requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)
of the CAA, which requires that the
observed improvement in air quality be
due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions resulting from the
State’s implementation of its SIP and
implementation of applicable Federal
air pollution control requirements and
other permanent and enforceable
emission reductions. The commenter
argues, in particular, that EPA relied on
several emission control programs that
are not permanent and enforceable.
These questioned emission controls are
specified in the following:
Comment 4a: The commenter asserts
that the NOX SIP call is not permanent
and enforceable. The commenter notes
that EPA found that the NOX emission
reductions leading to attainment in the
Greater Chicago area were due, in part,
to the implementation of the NOX SIP
call. The commenter argues that the
NOX SIP call cannot be assumed to be
permanent and enforceable because it
has been replaced, and, therefore, no
longer exists. In addition, the NOX SIP
call is implemented through a cap-andtrade program, which means that no
actual NOX emission reduction may
have been required for any specified
source upwind of the high ozone areas
in the Greater Chicago area. The
commenter cites a 2009 decision by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which the
commenter believes held that EPA
cannot use cap-and-trade programs to
satisfy an area-specific statutory
mandate. See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Response 4a: EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s position that emission
reductions associated with the NOX SIP
call cannot be considered to be
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48066
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
permanent and enforceable. The
commenter’s first argument—that the
NOX emission reductions are not
permanent and enforceable because the
NOX SIP call has been replaced—is
based on a misunderstanding of the
relationship between the CAIR and the
NOX SIP call. While the CAIR ozoneseason trading program replaced the
ozone-season NOX trading program
developed in the NOX SIP call (70 FR
25290), nothing in the CAIR relieved
states of their NOX SIP call obligations.
In fact, in the preamble to CAIR, EPA
emphasized that the states and certain
units covered by the NOX SIP call but
not by CAIR must still satisfy the
requirements of the NOX SIP call. EPA
provided guidance regarding how such
states could meet these obligations.2 In
no way did EPA suggest that states
could disregard their NOX SIP call
obligations. (70 FR 25290). For NOX SIP
call states, the CAIR NOX ozone season
program provides a way to continue to
meet the NOX SIP call obligations for
electric generating units (EGUs) and
large non-electric generating units
(nonEGUs). In addition, the antibacksliding provisions of 40 CFR
51.905(f) specifically provide that the
provisions of the NOX SIP call,
including the statewide NOX emission
budgets, continue to apply.
In summary, the requirements of the
NOX SIP call remain in force. They are
permanent and enforceable as are state
regulations developed to implement the
requirements of the NOX SIP call.
EPA also disagrees with the
commenter’s second argument—that the
emission reductions associated with the
NOX SIP call cannot be considered
permanent and enforceable because the
NOX SIP call provides for a trading
program. There is no support for the
commenter’s argument that EPA must
ignore all emission reductions achieved
by the NOX SIP call simply because the
mechanism used to achieve the
emission reductions is an emissions
trading program. As a general matter,
trading programs establish mandatory
caps on emissions and permanently
reduce the total emissions allowed by
sources subject to the programs. The
emission caps and associated controls
are enforced through the associated SIP
rules or Federal Implementation Plans
(FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and
increase in emissions by a utility
necessitates a corresponding sale of
2 EPA guidance regarding the NO SIP call
X
transition to CAIR can be found at https://www.epa.
gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/faq-10.html. EPA
guidance regarding the NOX SIP call transition for
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/
faqs.html.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
allowances and results in an emission
reduction by another utility. Given the
regional nature of ozone formation and
transport, the emission reductions will
have an air quality benefit that will
compensate, at least in part, for the
impact of any emission increase.
In addition, the case cited by the
commenter, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not support
the commenter’s position. The case
addressed EPA’s determination that the
CAA nonattainment area RACT
requirement was satisfied by the NOX
SIP call trading program. The court held
that, because EPA had not demonstrated
that the trading program would result in
sufficient emission reductions within a
nonattainment area, its determination
that the program satisfied RACT was not
supported. Id. 1256–58. The court
explicitly noted that EPA might be able
to reinstate the provision providing that
compliance with the NOX SIP call
satisfies NOX RACT for EGUs for
particular nonattainment areas if, upon
conducting a technical analysis, it could
demonstrate that the NOX SIP call
results in greater emissions reductions
in a nonattainment area than would be
achieved if RACT-level controls were
installed in that area. Id. at 1258. In this
case, EPA’s comparison of emissions in
2002 and 2008 in this rulemaking
necessarily looked only at changes in
emissions ‘‘in the nonattainment area.’’
As such, the commenter’s reliance on
NRDC v. EPA is misplaced.
Comment 4b: The commenter
contends that EPA cannot rely on the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
to provide permanent and enforceable
emission reductions because the
implementation of this rule has been
stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. The
commenter contends that this stay
makes CSAPR neither permanent nor
enforceable. In addition, the commenter
notes that CSAPR is to be implemented
through a cap-and-trade program, and,
therefore, as summarized in Comment
4a, CSAPR cannot be relied on to
produce permanent and enforceable
emission reductions. Further, EPA
cannot take credit for the promise of any
emission control program that would
replace CSAPR should the Court
remand or vacate CSAPR.
Response 4b: Illinois has not relied on
CSAPR to demonstrate that attainment
was due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions or to demonstrate
that it will maintain the standard. EPA
did not credit Illinois with NOX
emission reductions from the
implementation of CSAPR for
attainment or maintenance of the 1997
ozone standard. While CSAPR was
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
listed by the State as a possible
contingency measure in the State’s
ozone maintenance plan, EPA did not
credit Illinois with NOX emission
reductions resulting from the
implementation of CSAPR, nor did the
State take credit for any such emission
reduction when demonstrating
maintenance of the 1997 ozone
standard. As such, the stay of CSAPR is
not relevant here.
In addition, modeling performed by
EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking
process also demonstrates that the
counties in the Greater Chicago area will
have ozone levels below the 1997 8hour ozone standard in both 2012 and
2014 without emission reductions from
CSAPR or CAIR, with the highest value
for any county in the area projected to
be 81.1 ppb without the implementation
of CSAPR/CAIR-based emission
controls. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule Technical Support
Document,’’ Appendix B, pages B–9, B–
10, B–11, and B–33, which is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
Although Illinois did list the ‘‘CrossState Air Pollution Rule’’ as a possible
contingency measure in the ozone
maintenance plan, this measure is only
one of many that may be selected
should the contingency plan be
triggered. EPA has concluded, in its
consideration of the ozone maintenance
plan contingency measures, that there
are other contingency measures
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA, without the
consideration of CSAPR.
With regard to the commenter’s
assertion that EPA cannot rely on the
emission reductions resulting from the
implementation of CSAPR because
CSAPR would be implemented through
the application of an emissions trading
program, see our response to the
commenter’s similar comment with
regard to emissions trading under EPA’s
NOx SIP call in the response to
comment 4a above. In addition, CSAPR
contains assurance provisions that
guarantee that emission reductions will
occur in specific states.
Comment 4c: The commenter asserts
that Illinois emission control rules are
not permanent and enforceable. To
support this assertion, the commenter
argues that Illinois’ Consumer Products
and Architectural and Industrial
Coatings (AIM) rules have been adopted
only by the State, and that, until these
rules are approved by the EPA and
incorporated into the SIP they cannot be
relied upon for redesignation.
Response 4c: EPA in fact finalized
approval of Illinois’ consumer products
and AIM rules on June 7, 2012, at 77 FR
33659. Thus, the commenter’s concern
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
is moot. Moreover, EPA wishes to note
that it is not necessary for every change
in emissions between the nonattainment
year (in this case 2002) and the
attainment year (2008) to be permanent
and enforceable. Rather, the
improvement in air quality necessary for
the area to attain must be reasonably
attributable to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions. As
discussed in the proposed rule at 77 FR
6754 (February 9, 2012), Illinois and
upwind areas have implemented a
number of permanent and enforceable
regulatory control measures which have
reduced emissions and have resulted in
a corresponding improvement in ozone
air quality. Even if EPA did not finalize
action on Illinois’ consumer products
and AIM rules before completing action
on the State’s ozone redesignation
request, these emission reductions are
not necessary to demonstrate that the
improvement in air quality is reasonably
attributable to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
Comment 4d: The commenter asserts
that the use of 2008 air quality data is
inappropriate to demonstrate that the
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is due to the implementation
of permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. The commenter claims that
EPA simply documented the changes in
emissions between 2002 and 2008 to
demonstrate that the observed ozone air
quality improvement is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions during this period. The
commenter contends that this is
unacceptable for a number of reasons.
First, the commenter asserts that EPA
has done nothing to connect the
emission changes with air quality
impacts. The commenter claims that
EPA has conducted no analyses to prove
that emission reductions between 2002
and 2008 have led to reduced ozone
concentrations and attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Second, the commenter argues that
using a single attainment year, 2008, is
arbitrary because, as explained in
preceding comments, the impact of capand-trade emission control programs,
such as the NOX SIP call and CSAPR,
can cause emissions to vary over time
and location as sources buy, sell, and
trade emission allowances.
Third, the commenter characterizes
the choice of 2008 is further problematic
because 2008 marked the beginning of a
large economic recession in this
country. The commenter contends that
this resulted in decreased electricity
demand, decreased automobile, truck,
and shipping traffic, and decreased
factory production. The commenter
contends that EPA makes the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
‘‘unsupported and implicit conclusion’’
that monitored changes in ozone levels
between 2002 and 2008 were due to the
implementation of permanent and
enforceable emission controls rather
than to changes in meteorology,
economic conditions, temporary, or
voluntary (not enforceable) emission
controls. The commenter asserts that
EPA provides no analysis showing that
the recession was not the cause of the
2002–2008 emission reduction and
observed ozone air quality
improvement.
Finally, the commenter argues that
EPA has not shown that the 2008
emissions inventory reflects permanent
and enforceable emission reductions
occurring between 2002 and 2008. The
2008 emissions inventory appears to be
the ‘‘actual’’ or the ‘‘projected’’
emissions from an unidentified group of
sources. The commenter argues that
there is a significant difference between
what sources actually emit and what
sources are allowed to emit, and that the
IEPA and EPA have incorrectly assumed
that allowable emissions are equal to
actual emissions.
Response 4d: EPA’s conclusion here
is fully supported by the facts and
applicable legal criteria. EPA policy 3
and longstanding practice allows states
to demonstrate permanent and
enforceable emission reductions by
comparing emissions occurring during
the nonattainment period (represented
by emissions during one of the years in
the three-year period used to designate
an area as nonattainment,4 in this case
2002) with emissions occurring during
the attainment period (represented by
emissions during one of the three
attainment years, in this case 2008,
which is part of the three-year period,
2006–2008, in which Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area first attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard). In EPA’s
determination of attainment and
proposed approval of the redesignation
request, EPA considered data for the
2008–2010 time period, which was then
the most recent quality-assured,
certified three years of data available.
See 77 FR 6743, 6746 (February 9,
2012). Therefore, selecting 2008 as the
representative attainment year and
comparing emissions for this year to
those of the representative violation
year, 2002, is an appropriate and longestablished approach that demonstrates
emission reductions in the period
3 See September 4, 1992, memorandum from John
Calcagni entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ pp.
4 and 8–9.
4 The nonattainment designation of the Greater
Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
was based on 2001–2003 ozone data.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48067
between the years of nonattainment and
attainment. These emission reductions,
therefore, can be reasonably seen to
account for the observed air quality
improvement.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
assertion that EPA has conducted no
analyses to prove that emission
reductions between 2002 and 2008 led
to reduced ozone concentrations. EPA’s
analyses included comparison of
emissions for the representative
nonattainment year to the emissions for
the representative attainment year. This
comparison, which established the
existence of significant emission
reductions that resulted in attainment,
and also linked these emission
reductions to control measures, is
consistent with longstanding practice
and EPA policy for making such a
demonstration. As noted in the
proposed rulemaking for this
redesignation (77 FR 6754, February 9,
2012), the State of Illinois documented
changes in VOC and NOX emissions
between 2002 and 2008 in the Illinois
portion of the Greater Chicago area and
the emission control measures that have
been implemented in the Illinois
portion of the Greater Chicago area.
These emission control measures
resulted from the State’s adoption and
implementation of regulations,
including regulations to: Control NOX
emissions at electric generating utilities
and large industrial combustion sources
under EPA’s NOX SIP call; control
emissions and implement New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS),
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS),
and Maximum Available Control
Technology (MACT) standards for new
sources; control VOC solvent emissions
for aerosol coatings and AIM coatings
and consumer solvents; control vehicle
emissions through the implementation
of enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance; control vehicle refueling
emissions; and control vehicle
evaporative emissions through use of
low volatility fuels and reformulated
gasoline. In addition to the State’s
implementation of state-specific
emission control measures, Federal
emission control measures have also
been implemented in the Greater
Chicago area, including: Tier 2 emission
standards for vehicles; Tier 4 nonroad
diesel engine standards; marine
compression-ignition engine standards;
and locomotive engine standards. As
noted in the February 9, 2012, proposed
rule, all of these emission controls have
been implemented since the 2001–2003
ozone standard violation period for the
Greater Chicago area. Therefore, it is
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
48068
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
reasonable to conclude that the
emission reductions resulting from
these emission controls contributed to
the attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Greater Chicago area.
See the February 9, 2012, proposed rule
(77 FR 6754 and 6759) for discussions
of implemented emission control
measures and how Illinois derived the
2002 and 2008 VOC and NOX emissions,
demonstrating emission reductions
between the 2002 violation year and
2008 attainment year.
The State demonstrated that the
implementation of these emission
controls along with other ongoing
emission controls resulting from
continued implementation of the
Illinois SIP have led to the emission
reductions used to demonstrate the
emissions reduction in this area. To
derive the 2008 emissions, the State
determined source category-specific
emission control factors associated with
the implemented emission controls.
Note that the State applied emission
control factors only for those source
categories covered by State or Federal
emission control requirements and for
specific sources subject to permanent,
enforceable source closures. The State
took no credit for temporary or nonpermanent emission reductions
resulting from voluntary emission
control measures or source activity
downturn resulting from the current
downturn in the economy. The source
category-specific emission control
factors, along with source categoryspecific growth factors, were applied to
the 2002 base year emissions to project
the 2008 emissions. Emission
reductions resulting from source
closures occurring between 2002 and
2008 and determined to be permanent
(including forfeiture of source permits)
were also considered and factored into
the emission projections, but produced
relatively small emission reductions
compared to the impacts of
implemented emission controls. Since
most source categories had positive
growth factors, almost all projected
emission reductions can be attributed to
the impacts of implemented emission
controls. Therefore, the State has
demonstrated that the derived emission
reduction that occurred between 2002
and 2008 is due to the implementation
of emission controls.
The CAA does not specifically require
the use of ozone modeling to make a
demonstration that the observed ozone
air quality improvement is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the
implementation of emission controls. It
has not been the general practice of
states to do so in demonstrating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
emission reductions for purposes of
ozone redesignation requests.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
contention that using emissions from a
single attainment year is arbitrary due to
the year-to-year variation in emission
levels resulting from the
implementation of cap-and-trade
programs. As a general matter, trading
programs establish mandatory caps on
emissions and permanently reduce total
emissions allowed for sources subject to
the programs. The emission caps and
associated controls are enforced through
the associated SIP rules and FIPs. Any
purchase of emission allowances and
increase in emissions by a utility
necessitates a corresponding sale of
emission allowances and reduction in
emissions by another utility. Given the
regional nature of ozone formation and
transport, the emissions reduction will
have an ozone air quality benefit that
will compensate, at least in part, for the
impact of any emission increase.
With respect to NOX SIP call emission
reductions within the Greater Chicago
area, there is no evidence of significant
temporal variation in emissions levels.
In fact, actual emissions from NOX SIP
call sources in the Chicago area have not
varied much from year-to-year over the
2003–2011 time period. Some of the
largest emitters in the Greater Chicago
area that are covered by the NOX SIP
call are operating near full capacity. In
addition, an analysis of ozone season
NOX emission rates and total operating
hours for all NOX SIP call sources in
this area shows that annual levels of
NOX emission rates (tons per hour of
operation) have generally trended
downward subsequent to 2003 as a
result of the implementation of emission
controls.
While the commenter expressed
concerns that an economic downturn
was responsible for the observed air
quality improvement, the commenter
has made no demonstration that the
reduction in emissions and observed
improvement in air quality is due to an
economic recession, changes in
meteorology, or temporary or voluntary
emission reductions. In addition, as
noted previously, the CAA does not
require modeling to make any such
demonstration. There are no data
demonstrating that the observed air
quality improvement is due to the
economic downturn, temporary changes
in meteorology, or voluntary emission
reductions, and, as discussed above,
EPA’s modeling for the CSAPR
demonstrates that the Greater Chicago
area would attain the NAAQS in 2012
and 2014 with or without
implementation of CAIR, which is place
only temporarily. We, thus, have no
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reason to believe that factors other than
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions let to attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard in the Greater
Chicago area.
Finally, with regard to consideration
of actual versus allowable/permitted
emission levels, longstanding practice
and EPA policy allows for the use of
actual emissions when demonstrating
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. Sources seldom emit at
maximum allowable emission levels,
and assuming that all sources
simultaneously operate at maximum
capacity would grossly overestimate
emission levels. For this reason, EPA
believes actual emissions are the
appropriate emission levels to consider
when comparing nonattainment year
emissions with attainment year
emissions to demonstrate the basis for
improvements in peak ozone levels.
EPA also notes that the certified
monitoring data establish that the area
has been attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard continuously during the
periods of 2006–2008, 2007–2009,
2008–2010, and 2009–2011, and that
EPA’s modeling demonstrates that the
Greater Chicago area would have
attainment air quality in 2012 and 2014
with or without the implementation of
CAIR. Emissions reductions have
continued during this extended period
as the State has continued to implement
and enforce emission controls in
addition to those required by CAIR.
Comment 5: The commenter claims
that EPA has not conducted an adequate
analysis of the effect redesignation to
attainment will have on attainment and
maintenance of other NAAQS under
section 110(l) of the CAA. The
commenter complains that EPA has
failed to conduct an adequate analysis
of the ozone redesignation impacts with
respect to the 1997 annual fine
particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS, the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 1-hour
sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Response 5: Section 110(l) of the CAA
provides in part: ‘‘the Administrator
shall not approve a revision of a plan if
the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress * * *, or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ As a
general matter, EPA must and does
consider section 110(l) requirements for
every SIP revision, including whether
the revision would ‘‘interfere with’’ any
applicable requirement. See, e.g., 70 FR
53, 57 (January 3, 2005); 70 FR 17029,
17033 (April 4, 2005); 70 FR 28429,
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
28431 (May 18, 2005); and 70 FR 58119,
58134 (October 5, 2005).
The Illinois redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard neither revises nor
removes any existing emission control
requirements. On that basis, EPA
concludes that the redesignation will
not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any of the air quality
standards. Moreover, the maintenance
plan itself demonstrates that the
emission emissions of NOX and VOC in
the Greater Chicago area will remain at
or below the attainment year (2008)
levels through 2025, thus demonstrating
non-interference with other pollutants,
in particular fine pollutants, that are
formed through reactions and processes
involving NOX and/or VOC. In addition,
contingency measures, if subsequently
activated, can be selected to ensure noninterference through lowered emission
levels.
The commenter does not provide any
information in the comment to indicate
that approval of this redesignation
would have any impact on the area’s
ability to comply with any of the
referenced NAAQS. In fact, the ozone
maintenance plan provided with the
State’s redesignation request
demonstrates a decline in VOC and NOX
emissions over the timeframe of the 10plus year maintenance period. This
reflects the fact that the redesignation
does not relax any existing emission
control rules or emission limits, nor will
the redesignation alter the status quo air
quality. The commenter has not
explained why the redesignation might
interfere with attainment of any
standard or with satisfaction of any
other CAA requirement, and EPA finds
no basis under section 110(l) for EPA to
disapprove the SIP revision (ozone
maintenance plan and emissions
inventories) at issue or to disapprove
the requested ozone redesignation.
Comment 6: The commenter asserts
that EPA cannot approve Illinois’ 2002
emissions inventory as meeting the
emission inventory requirement of
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA for a
number of reasons. In particular, the
commenter believes that Illinois’ mobile
source emission inventories, based on
the use of EPA’s MOVES model, does
not account for the increase VOC and
NOX emissions that would result from
the use of up to 15 percent ethanol
content in gasoline recently approved
by the EPA. The commenter argues that
many car and light-duty truck emission
control systems are not designed to
control vehicle emissions with blends of
15 percent ethanol (Ethanol 15 or E15).
The commenter believes that EPA has
not accounted for the extra VOC and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
NOX emissions that would result from
the use of E15.
Response 6: First, it is noted that this
comment was directed at EPA’s
proposed approval of Illinois’ 2002 base
period emissions. The commenter’s
concern is not relevant to approval of
the 2002 base year emission inventories
because the EPA-approved use of E15
fuels was not in place during 2002. The
use of E15 fuels was approved by EPA
well after 2002. Therefore, the mobile
source emissions for 2002 could not
have reflected the future use of E15
fuels.
With regard to the use of E15 fuels in
later years, it is noted that, in 2010 and
2011, EPA granted partial waivers for
the use of E15 fuels in Model Year (MY)
2001 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles (75 FR 68094, November 4,
2010 and 76 FR 4662, January 26, 2011).
As discussed in the waiver decisions,
there may be some small emission
impacts for the use of E15. E15 is
expected to cause a small immediate
emissions increase in NOX emissions.
However, due to its lower volatility than
the E10 fuels currently in use, its use is
also expected to result in lower
evaporative emissions. Other possible
emissions impacts may be from the
misfueling of E15 in vehicles or engines
for which its use is not approved, i.e.,
MY 2000 and older motor vehicles,
heavy-duty engines and vehicles,
motorcycles and all non-road engines,
vehicles, and equipment. EPA has
promulgated a separate rule dealing
specifically with the mitigation of
misfueling to reduce potential emissions
impacts from misfueling (76 FR 44406,
July 25, 2011).
EPA’s partial waiver for E15 is based
on extensive studies done by the
Department of Energy, as well as EPA’s
engineering assessment, to determine
the effects on exhaust and evaporative
emissions for the vehicle fleet prior to
and after the partial waiver. The criteria
for granting the waiver was not that
there are no emission impacts for E15,
but rather that vehicles operating on E15
would not be expected to violate their
emission standards in-use.
The E15 partial waivers do not require
that E15 be made or sold, and it is
unclear if and to what extent E15 may
even be used in Illinois. Even if E15 is
introduced into commerce in Illinois,
considering the likely small and
offsetting direction of the emission
impacts, the limited set of motor
vehicles approved for its use, and the
measures required to mitigate
misfueling, EPA believes that any
potential emission impacts of E15 will
be less than the margin of safety by
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48069
which Illinois shows maintenance of the
1997 ozone standard.
Comment 7: The commenter argues
that EPA has not accounted for the
effects of changes in weather in its
analysis of Illinois’ ozone redesignation
request. The commenter asserts that
EPA should have adjusted monitored
ozone levels to account for the varying
impacts of meteorology. The commenter
contends that EPA cannot approve
Illinois’ ozone resignation request
without a weather adjusted analysis. In
addition, the commenter believes that
EPA has erred in not considering the
impacts that climate change will have
on ozone formation during the
maintenance period.
Response 7: A determination that an
area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is based on an objective review
of the air quality data for a specified
period. There are no provisions in the
CAA for considering the impacts of
changing meteorology and adjusting
monitored ozone concentrations to
reflect a standardized set of
meteorological data or some historical
range of meteorological data. Therefore,
we disagree with the commenter’s
argument that EPA should have
adjusted ozone levels to assess the
impacts of meteorology during the
attainment period versus meteorology
more reflective of historical high ozone
periods. In addition, it should be noted
that the very nature of the three-year
averaging of ozone concentrations used
to assess compliance with the 1997 8hour ozone standard is used, in part, to
negate the impacts of year-to-year
variations in meteorology on ozone
formation.
By the same reasoning, we also
disagree with the commenter that EPA
must, in the context of a redesignation
rulemaking, consider the impact of
climate change on future ozone
formation. While EPA agrees that
climate change is a serious
environmental issue, at this time EPA
does not believe that an area-specific
climate change analysis must occur in
the context of rulemaking on a
redesignation request and maintenance
plan. Even if EPA chose to make such
an assessment, it is virtually impossible,
especially given the relatively limited
spatial and temporal focus of a
redesignation request and related
maintenance plan, to project or predict
the local meteorological changes that
might result from climate change.
Current modeling uncertainties result in
conflicting projections of the spatial
patterns of future changes in
meteorological variables and the
specific regional distributions of future
ozone changes across the United States.
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
48070
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Conclusion of Comment Review and
Response
We conclude that none of the
comments discussed above provides a
basis for precluding EPA from finalizing
the actions we proposed on February 9,
2012.
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago
area. For 2008, these MVEBs are 117.23
tons per ozone season weekday for VOC
and 373.52 tons per ozone season
weekday for NOX. For 2025, these
MVEBs are 48.13 tons per ozone season
weekday for VOC and 126.27 tons per
ozone season weekday for NOX.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
EPA finds there is good cause for this
action to become effective immediately
upon publication. This is because a
delayed effective date is unnecessary
due to the nature of a redesignation to
attainment, which relieves the area from
certain CAA requirements that would
otherwise apply to it. The immediate
effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking activities may become
effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ‘‘grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction,’’ and section 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.’’
The purpose of the 30-day waiting
period prescribed in section 553(d) is to
give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule,
however, does not create any new
regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to
prepare before the rule takes effect.
Rather, today’s rule relieves the State of
planning requirements for this 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. For these
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to
become effective on the date of
publication of this action.
III. What actions is EPA taking?
After reviewing Illinois’ ozone
redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) f the CAA. Therefore, EPA
is approving the redesignation of the
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago
area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving
Illinois’ ozone maintenance plan for the
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago
area as a revision of the Illinois SIP
based on Illinois’ demonstration that the
plan meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA. EPA is approving the
2002 VOC and NOX emission
inventories for the Illinois portion of the
Greater Chicago area as meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the
CAA. Finally, EPA is also approving
and finding adequate Illinois’ 2008 and
2025 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation
to attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Modeling guidance is not yet available
for the type of area-specific analysis of
effects or climate change on ozone
concentrations required for SIP
planning. EPA, therefore, believes it is
premature to require a precise
mathematical accounting in the SIP
process for the effect of higher ambient
temperatures due to climate change on
ozone concentrations. EPA is ready to
reevaluate this position when the state
of science and confidence in projection
improve. Given the above, at this time,
EPA is not in a position to forecast the
impact climate change may have on
future ozone considerations with the
specificity needed for evaluating a
state’s ozone maintenance
demonstration. See EPA’s similar
reasoning in its approval of Kentucky’s
section 110(a)(1) maintenance for
Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky, 76 FR
21853 (April 14, 2011). Finally, EPA
notes that the Greater Chicago area has
continued to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard since the 2006–2008
monitoring period, and that its
attainment of the standard has
withstood the challenges of
meteorological variability for many
years longer than required. Elsewhere in
this notice, EPA has addressed
extensively its reasoning for concluding,
as required for redesignation, that
attainment is due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions, rather
than to unduly favorable meteorology.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, these actions do
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law and
the CAA. For that reason, these actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, 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 this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
48071
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 12, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, National parks, Wilderness
areas.
Dated: July 27, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.726 is amended by
adding paragraphs (mm)(2) and (nn) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.726
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(mm) * * *
(2) Approval—Illinois’ 2002 volatile
organic compounds and nitrogen oxides
emission inventories satisfy the
emissions inventory requirements of
section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act for
the Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana area under
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
(nn) Approval—On July 23, 2009, and
September 16, 2011, Illinois submitted a
request to redesignate the Illinois
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, Illinois-Indiana area to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The Illinois portion of the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IllinoisIndiana area includes Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will
Counties and portions of Grundy (Aux
Sable and Goose Lake Townships) and
Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties.
As part of the redesignation request, the
State submitted a plan for maintaining
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard through
2025 in the area as required by section
175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the
section 175A maintenance plan
includes a contingency plan. The ozone
maintenance plan establishes 2008
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the
Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana area of
117.23 tons per day (tpd) for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and 373.52
tpd for nitrogen oxides (NOX). In
addition, the maintenance plan
establishes 2025 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the Illinois
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, Illinois-Indiana area of 48.13
tpd for VOC and 125.27 tpd for NOX.
PART 81—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
4. Section 81.314 is amended by
revising the entry for Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN in the table entitled
‘‘Illinois—1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and Secondary)’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 81.314
*
*
Illinois.
*
*
*
ILLINOIS—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY)
Designation a
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN:
Cook County .............................................................................................
DuPage County .........................................................................................
Grundy County (part).
Aux Sable Township.
Goose Lake Township.
Kane County.
Kendall County (part).
Oswego Township.
Lake County.
McHenry County.
Will County.
*
*
*
Type
8/13/2012
........................
Attainment.
*
Date 1
*
*
a Includes
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 This
*
*
Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–19556 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Aug 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM
13AUR1
Type
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48062-48071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19556]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0666; FRL-9712-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Illinois; Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request from the State of Illinois to
redesignate the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Illinois-Indiana (IL-IN) area (the Greater Chicago area) to attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS
or standard). The Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
[[Page 48063]]
McHenry, and Will Counties and portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose
Lake Townships) and Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties. The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted this request on July
23, 2009, and supplemented its request on September 16, 2011. In
addition to approval of Illinois' ozone redesignation request, EPA is:
(1) Approving the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard through 2025 and the State's 2002 Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emission inventories, as revisions to
the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Illinois portion
of the Greater Chicago area; and (2) approving and finding adequate the
State's 2008 and 2025 VOC and NOx Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs).
DATES: This final rule is effective August 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0666. All documents in the docket are listed on the
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 material is available either
electronically in 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 Edward Doty,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, doty.edward@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:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this rule?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
III. What actions is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this rule?
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (85 parts per billion (ppb) or
higher exceeds the standard). EPA published a final rule designating
and classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857). In that rulemaking, the Greater Chicago area was
designated as nonattainment for the ozone standard. This area was
classified as a moderate nonattainment area under subpart 2 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
On July 23, 2009, IEPA requested redesignation of the Illinois
portion of the Greater Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard based on ozone data for the period of 2006-2008. On
September 16, 2011, IEPA supplemented the original ozone redesignation
request, submitting ozone data for the period of 2008-2010, revising
the mobile source emission estimates using EPA's on-road mobile source
emissions model, MOVES, and extending the demonstration of maintenance
of the ozone standard through 2025, with new MVEBs, but without
emission reductions resulting from implementation of EPA's Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR).
On March 12, 2010, EPA issued a final rulemaking determining that
the entire Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area had attained the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS based on three years of complete, quality-assured
ozone data for the period of 2006-2008, and continuing through 2009 \1\
(75 FR 12088). On May 11, 2010, EPA issued a final rulemaking
redesignating the Indiana portion (Lake and Porter Counties) of the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (75 FR 26118).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
based on quality assured ozone data for 2010. See February 9, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 6743).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 9, 2012 (77 FR 6743), EPA issued a notice of rulemaking
proposing to approve Illinois' request to redesignate the Illinois
portion of the Greater Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, as well as proposing to approve Illinois' ten-year
ozone maintenance plan for the area, VOC and NOx MVEBs, and 2002 VOC
and NOx emission inventories as revisions of the Illinois SIP. This
proposed rulemaking sets forth the basis for determining that Illinois'
redesignation request meets the CAA requirements for redesignation for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Complete, quality-assured air quality
monitoring data in the Greater Chicago area for 2008-2010 and for 2009-
2011 show that this area is currently attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Preliminary data available to date for 2012 are consistent with
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The quality-
assured ozone data in the Greater Chicago area were discussed in the
February 9, 2012, proposed rule for this rulemaking (77 FR 6747). Table
1 summarizes the 2009-2011 annual fourth high ozone concentrations and
2009-2011 ozone design values (three-year averages of the annual fourth
high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations) for each of the
monitoring sites in the Greater Chicago area. These and other ozone
data for the Greater Chicago area are also documented at EPA's Web site
https://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.
Table 1--Annual Fourth High Ozone Concentrations and Three-Year Averages for 2009-2011 (Concentrations in parts
per million (ppm))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year
Site Name (site code) County 2009 2010 2011 average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4500 W. 123rd Street, Alsip Cook............ 0.069 0.073 0.071.......... 0.071
(170310001).
3300 E. Cheltenham, Chicago Cook............ 0.065 0.074 0.079.......... 0.073
(170310032).
Wacker At Adams, Chicago Cook............ 0.076 0.077 No Data........ ..............
(170310042).
5720 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago Cook............ 0.060 0.071 0.074.......... 0.068
(170310064).
1000 E. Ohio, Chicago Cook............ 0.062 0.075 0.074.......... 0.070
(170310072).
7801 Lawndale, Chicago Cook............ 0.067 0.068 0.073.......... 0.069
(1703100760.
[[Page 48064]]
6545 W. Hurlbut, Chicago Cook............ 0.064 0.070 0067........... 0.067
(170311003).
729 Houston, Lemont Cook............ 0.067 0.073 0.069.......... 0.070
(170311601).
1820 S. 51st Avenue, Cicero Cook............ 0.067 0.068 0.072.......... 0.069
(170314002).
9511 W. Harrison Street, Cook............ 0.057 0.064 0.065.......... 0.062
Chicago (170314007).
750 Dundee Road, Northbrook Cook............ 0.069 0.072 0.076.......... 0.072
(170314201).
531 E. Lincoln, Evanston..... Cook............ 0.064 0.067 0.078.......... 0.070
(170317002)..................
Route 53 (170436001)......... DuPage.......... 0.059 0.064 0.068.......... 0.064
665 Dundee Road, Elgin....... Kane............ 0.068 0.069 0.070.......... 0.069
(170890005)..................
Golf and Jackson Streets, Lake............ 0.057 0.074 No Data........ ..............
Waukegan (170971002).
Illinois Beach State Park, Lake............ 0.075 0.078 0.076.......... 0.076
Zion (170971007).
First Street and Three Oaks McHenry......... 0.066 0.065 0.071.......... 0.67
Road, Cary (171110001).
36400 S. Essex Road Will............ 0.063 0.065 0.061.......... 0.063
(171971011).
201 Mississippi Street, Gary Lake............ 0.058 0.064 0.066.......... 0.063
(180890022).
1751 Oliver Street, Whiting Lake............ 0.062 0.069 0.069.......... 0.067
(180890030).
1300 141 Street, Hammond Lake............ 0.065 0.069 0.072.......... 0.069
(180892008).
84 Diana Road, Ogden Dunes Porter.......... 0.067 0.067 0.068.......... 0.067
(181270024).
1000 Wesley/Valparaiso Water Porter.......... 0.064 0.061 0.063.......... 0.063
Department (181270026).
Chiwaukee Prairie, Pleasant Kenosha......... 0.071 0.081 0.081.......... 0.078
Prairie (550590019).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary background for today's action is contained in EPA's
February 9, 2012, proposal to approve Illinois' redesignation request,
and in EPA's March 12, 2010, final rulemaking determining that the area
has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In these rulemakings, we
noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm at all ozone
monitoring sites in an area. See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for
further information. To support the redesignation of the area to
attainment of the NAAQS, the area must show attainment based on
complete, quality-assured data for the most recent three-year period.
The data completeness requirement, for any given monitoring site, is
met when the three-year average of days with valid ambient monitoring
data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75
percent data completeness, as determined in accordance with appendix I
of 40 CFR part 50. Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate a nonattainment
area to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data are
available demonstrating that the area has attained the standard and if
the State meets all applicable redesignation requirements specified in
section 107(d)(E) and section 175A of the CAA.
The February 9, 2012, proposed rule provides a detailed discussion
of how Illinois' ozone redesignation request meets the CAA
requirements. Complete, quality-assured and certified air quality
monitoring data in the Greater Chicago area for 2009-2011 and
preliminary data available for 2012 show that this area is currently
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With the final approval of its
VOC and NOx emission inventories, Illinois has met all CAA requirements
for redesignation of the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Illinois has
demonstrated that attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the Greater Chicago area through 2025 with or without the
implementation of EPA's CAIR. Finally, Illinois has adopted 2008 and
2025 MVEBs that are supported by Illinois' ozone maintenance
demonstration and adopted ozone maintenance plan.
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the February 9,
2012, proposed rule. During the comment period, we received one comment
set from an individual representing the Sierra Club. These comments are
summarized and addressed below.
Comment 1: The commenter argues that it is inappropriate to
redesignate the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area to
attainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard when EPA intends to
designate this area as nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard, and asserts that EPA is delaying the implementation of the
2008 8-hour ozone standard.
Response 1: We disagree with the commenter. The area's status with
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard is not relevant to the area's
attainment status under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. It would be
inappropriate to defer or reject the redesignation of the area under
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on EPA's designation of the area
under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
On June 11, 2012, EPA published its designation for the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone standards. 77 FR 34221.
EPA designated the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area as nonattainment
with a classification of marginal for the 2008 ozone standards. The
area's status with respect to the 2008 ozone standards, however, does
not affect or prevent redesignation of the area to attainment for the
1997 ozone standard. The 1997 ozone standard currently remains in
effect, and, thus, EPA continues to evaluate the area's designation
status with respect to that standard. Until the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is revoked, it remains in effect and independent of the 2008
8-hour ozone standards, and EPA continues to evaluate and act upon
states' redesignation requests with respect to the 1997 ozone standard.
EPA has in the past continued to redesignate areas under existing
standards even after the adoption of new standards for the same
pollutant. After adopting the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA continued
to redesignate areas for the 1-hour ozone standard
[[Page 48065]]
until the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked. See, for example the
Cincinnati ozone redesignation for the 1-hour ozone standard, 70 FR
35946 (June 21, 2005) and the Atlanta ozone redesignation for the 1-
hour ozone standard, 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005).
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and
designation of areas for this standard, EPA has continued to
redesignate areas to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
See, for example, the Detroit, Michigan redesignation, 74 FR 30950
(June 29, 2009); Clearfield and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania
redesignation, 74 FR 11674 (March 19, 2009); Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
redesignation, 73 FR 29436 (May 21, 2008); and, Door and Manitowoc
Counties, Wisconsin redesignation, 75 FR 39635 (July 12, 2010). Also
see the redesignation of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012).
Comment 2: The commenter argues that EPA has failed to consider
ambient monitoring data from 2011 even though Illinois has already
submitted and certified these data. The commenter asserts that the EPA
must include these data in its consideration of Illinois' ozone
redesignation request and provide the public with the opportunity to
review and comment on these data before making any final decision on
Illinois' ozone redesignation request.
Response 2: At the time EPA prepared the proposed rule for
rulemaking on Illinois' ozone redesignation request, EPA had not yet
received Illinois' certification of the 2011 ozone data. At the time of
EPA's proposed redesignation of the area, the 2008-2010 ozone data were
the most recent three years of State-certified data available to EPA.
Illinois has subsequently certified its 2011 ozone data for the
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area.
Indiana has certified its 2011 ozone data for the Indiana portion
of the Greater Chicago area. In addition, Wisconsin has certified the
2011 ozone data for the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site in Kenosha
County, generally considered to be the peak ozone design value site
attributable to emissions in the Greater Chicago area.
The complete, certified 2011 ozone data, along with ozone data for
2009 and 2010, show that the Greater Chicago area continues to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The highest 8-hour ozone design value
for the 2009-2011 period was recorded at the Chiwaukee Prairie
monitoring site, with a value of 0.077 parts per million. All of these
data show that the area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard during the 2009-2011 period. Preliminary ozone data for 2012
for the Greater Chicago area and for Chiwaukee Prairie are consistent
with the Greater Chicago area's continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA has, thus, considered these data, which reflect
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Although the
2011 data were not certified at the time of proposal, these data were
available to the public through EPA's Air Quality System and commenters
could have reviewed the data and addressed them in comments.
Comment 3: The commenter asserts that the consideration of the 2011
data is particularly important because 2008 (the attainment year used
by the IEPA to document the emissions reduction-basis for the
attainment of the ozone standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
area and the base year for the 10-year ozone standard maintenance
demonstration) was the first year of a major recession. The commenter
contends that emission reductions leading to the observed air quality
improvement were the result of temporary economic conditions rather
than the result of permanent emission reductions.
Response 3: First, as set forth in EPA's response to comment 2
above, EPA has considered the complete, quality assured and certified
monitoring data for the bi-state nonattainment area for 2011. These
data show that the area has continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, and preliminary data for 2012 are consistent with continued
attainment. A determination of attainment is based solely on air
quality considerations, and, therefore, underlying economic conditions
are not relevant to the limited inquiry that results in a
determination. In another portion of this rulemaking, and with respect
to a separate and independent criterion for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii), EPA examines whether attainment is due to permanent
and enforceable emission reductions. See discussion in the proposed
rulemaking (77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012) and elsewhere in these
responses to comments.
The commenter provides no data to demonstrate that the economic
recession of recent years had any impact on emissions in 2008. The
commenter merely speculates that there was such an impact. Lacking any
data to the contrary, we see no reason to assume that the lower
emissions of 2008 (relative to those of the base nonattainment year of
2002) were exclusively or predominantly an artifact of temporary
emission reductions resulting from the economic recession.
In addition, the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area has continued
to attain the 1997 ozone standard over an extended period (over a
number of sequential three-year periods, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-
2010, and now 2009-2011), with general downward trends in ozone design
values at most monitoring sites in the area (see Table 1 in the
proposed rule for this rulemaking action, 77 FR 6747). Given the
downward trend in ozone design values and the ozone design values below
the 0.085 ppm ozone standard violation level, we see no reason to
believe that a reversal in the economic situation in this area will
cause a return to violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in this
area in the foreseeable future.
Comment 4 General: The commenter argues that Illinois and EPA have
failed to comply with the ozone redesignation requirement of section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, which requires that the observed
improvement in air quality be due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from the State's implementation of its SIP and
implementation of applicable Federal air pollution control requirements
and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The commenter
argues, in particular, that EPA relied on several emission control
programs that are not permanent and enforceable. These questioned
emission controls are specified in the following:
Comment 4a: The commenter asserts that the NOX SIP call
is not permanent and enforceable. The commenter notes that EPA found
that the NOX emission reductions leading to attainment in
the Greater Chicago area were due, in part, to the implementation of
the NOX SIP call. The commenter argues that the
NOX SIP call cannot be assumed to be permanent and
enforceable because it has been replaced, and, therefore, no longer
exists. In addition, the NOX SIP call is implemented through
a cap-and-trade program, which means that no actual NOX
emission reduction may have been required for any specified source
upwind of the high ozone areas in the Greater Chicago area. The
commenter cites a 2009 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,
which the commenter believes held that EPA cannot use cap-and-trade
programs to satisfy an area-specific statutory mandate. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Response 4a: EPA disagrees with the commenter's position that
emission reductions associated with the NOX SIP call cannot
be considered to be
[[Page 48066]]
permanent and enforceable. The commenter's first argument--that the
NOX emission reductions are not permanent and enforceable
because the NOX SIP call has been replaced--is based on a
misunderstanding of the relationship between the CAIR and the
NOX SIP call. While the CAIR ozone-season trading program
replaced the ozone-season NOX trading program developed in
the NOX SIP call (70 FR 25290), nothing in the CAIR relieved
states of their NOX SIP call obligations. In fact, in the
preamble to CAIR, EPA emphasized that the states and certain units
covered by the NOX SIP call but not by CAIR must still
satisfy the requirements of the NOX SIP call. EPA provided
guidance regarding how such states could meet these obligations.\2\ In
no way did EPA suggest that states could disregard their NOX
SIP call obligations. (70 FR 25290). For NOX SIP call
states, the CAIR NOX ozone season program provides a way to
continue to meet the NOX SIP call obligations for electric
generating units (EGUs) and large non-electric generating units
(nonEGUs). In addition, the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR
51.905(f) specifically provide that the provisions of the
NOX SIP call, including the statewide NOX
emission budgets, continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP call
transition to CAIR can be found at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/faq-10.html. EPA guidance regarding the
NOX SIP call transition for the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) can be found at https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/faqs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the requirements of the NOX SIP call remain
in force. They are permanent and enforceable as are state regulations
developed to implement the requirements of the NOX SIP call.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's second argument--that the
emission reductions associated with the NOX SIP call cannot
be considered permanent and enforceable because the NOX SIP
call provides for a trading program. There is no support for the
commenter's argument that EPA must ignore all emission reductions
achieved by the NOX SIP call simply because the mechanism
used to achieve the emission reductions is an emissions trading
program. As a general matter, trading programs establish mandatory caps
on emissions and permanently reduce the total emissions allowed by
sources subject to the programs. The emission caps and associated
controls are enforced through the associated SIP rules or Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and increase in
emissions by a utility necessitates a corresponding sale of allowances
and results in an emission reduction by another utility. Given the
regional nature of ozone formation and transport, the emission
reductions will have an air quality benefit that will compensate, at
least in part, for the impact of any emission increase.
In addition, the case cited by the commenter, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not support the commenter's position. The
case addressed EPA's determination that the CAA nonattainment area RACT
requirement was satisfied by the NOX SIP call trading
program. The court held that, because EPA had not demonstrated that the
trading program would result in sufficient emission reductions within a
nonattainment area, its determination that the program satisfied RACT
was not supported. Id. 1256-58. The court explicitly noted that EPA
might be able to reinstate the provision providing that compliance with
the NOX SIP call satisfies NOX RACT for EGUs for
particular nonattainment areas if, upon conducting a technical
analysis, it could demonstrate that the NOX SIP call results
in greater emissions reductions in a nonattainment area than would be
achieved if RACT-level controls were installed in that area. Id. at
1258. In this case, EPA's comparison of emissions in 2002 and 2008 in
this rulemaking necessarily looked only at changes in emissions ``in
the nonattainment area.'' As such, the commenter's reliance on NRDC v.
EPA is misplaced.
Comment 4b: The commenter contends that EPA cannot rely on the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to provide permanent and
enforceable emission reductions because the implementation of this rule
has been stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. The commenter contends that this stay makes CSAPR
neither permanent nor enforceable. In addition, the commenter notes
that CSAPR is to be implemented through a cap-and-trade program, and,
therefore, as summarized in Comment 4a, CSAPR cannot be relied on to
produce permanent and enforceable emission reductions. Further, EPA
cannot take credit for the promise of any emission control program that
would replace CSAPR should the Court remand or vacate CSAPR.
Response 4b: Illinois has not relied on CSAPR to demonstrate that
attainment was due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions or
to demonstrate that it will maintain the standard. EPA did not credit
Illinois with NOX emission reductions from the
implementation of CSAPR for attainment or maintenance of the 1997 ozone
standard. While CSAPR was listed by the State as a possible contingency
measure in the State's ozone maintenance plan, EPA did not credit
Illinois with NOX emission reductions resulting from the
implementation of CSAPR, nor did the State take credit for any such
emission reduction when demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 ozone
standard. As such, the stay of CSAPR is not relevant here.
In addition, modeling performed by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking
process also demonstrates that the counties in the Greater Chicago area
will have ozone levels below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in both
2012 and 2014 without emission reductions from CSAPR or CAIR, with the
highest value for any county in the area projected to be 81.1 ppb
without the implementation of CSAPR/CAIR-based emission controls. See
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,''
Appendix B, pages B-9, B-10, B-11, and B-33, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Although Illinois did list the ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule''
as a possible contingency measure in the ozone maintenance plan, this
measure is only one of many that may be selected should the contingency
plan be triggered. EPA has concluded, in its consideration of the ozone
maintenance plan contingency measures, that there are other contingency
measures sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA, without the consideration of CSAPR.
With regard to the commenter's assertion that EPA cannot rely on
the emission reductions resulting from the implementation of CSAPR
because CSAPR would be implemented through the application of an
emissions trading program, see our response to the commenter's similar
comment with regard to emissions trading under EPA's NOx SIP call in
the response to comment 4a above. In addition, CSAPR contains assurance
provisions that guarantee that emission reductions will occur in
specific states.
Comment 4c: The commenter asserts that Illinois emission control
rules are not permanent and enforceable. To support this assertion, the
commenter argues that Illinois' Consumer Products and Architectural and
Industrial Coatings (AIM) rules have been adopted only by the State,
and that, until these rules are approved by the EPA and incorporated
into the SIP they cannot be relied upon for redesignation.
Response 4c: EPA in fact finalized approval of Illinois' consumer
products and AIM rules on June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33659. Thus, the
commenter's concern
[[Page 48067]]
is moot. Moreover, EPA wishes to note that it is not necessary for
every change in emissions between the nonattainment year (in this case
2002) and the attainment year (2008) to be permanent and enforceable.
Rather, the improvement in air quality necessary for the area to attain
must be reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions. As discussed in the proposed rule at 77 FR 6754 (February
9, 2012), Illinois and upwind areas have implemented a number of
permanent and enforceable regulatory control measures which have
reduced emissions and have resulted in a corresponding improvement in
ozone air quality. Even if EPA did not finalize action on Illinois'
consumer products and AIM rules before completing action on the State's
ozone redesignation request, these emission reductions are not
necessary to demonstrate that the improvement in air quality is
reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.
Comment 4d: The commenter asserts that the use of 2008 air quality
data is inappropriate to demonstrate that the attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard is due to the implementation of permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. The commenter claims that EPA simply
documented the changes in emissions between 2002 and 2008 to
demonstrate that the observed ozone air quality improvement is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions during this period. The
commenter contends that this is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
First, the commenter asserts that EPA has done nothing to connect
the emission changes with air quality impacts. The commenter claims
that EPA has conducted no analyses to prove that emission reductions
between 2002 and 2008 have led to reduced ozone concentrations and
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Second, the commenter argues that using a single attainment year,
2008, is arbitrary because, as explained in preceding comments, the
impact of cap-and-trade emission control programs, such as the
NOX SIP call and CSAPR, can cause emissions to vary over
time and location as sources buy, sell, and trade emission allowances.
Third, the commenter characterizes the choice of 2008 is further
problematic because 2008 marked the beginning of a large economic
recession in this country. The commenter contends that this resulted in
decreased electricity demand, decreased automobile, truck, and shipping
traffic, and decreased factory production. The commenter contends that
EPA makes the ``unsupported and implicit conclusion'' that monitored
changes in ozone levels between 2002 and 2008 were due to the
implementation of permanent and enforceable emission controls rather
than to changes in meteorology, economic conditions, temporary, or
voluntary (not enforceable) emission controls. The commenter asserts
that EPA provides no analysis showing that the recession was not the
cause of the 2002-2008 emission reduction and observed ozone air
quality improvement.
Finally, the commenter argues that EPA has not shown that the 2008
emissions inventory reflects permanent and enforceable emission
reductions occurring between 2002 and 2008. The 2008 emissions
inventory appears to be the ``actual'' or the ``projected'' emissions
from an unidentified group of sources. The commenter argues that there
is a significant difference between what sources actually emit and what
sources are allowed to emit, and that the IEPA and EPA have incorrectly
assumed that allowable emissions are equal to actual emissions.
Response 4d: EPA's conclusion here is fully supported by the facts
and applicable legal criteria. EPA policy \3\ and longstanding practice
allows states to demonstrate permanent and enforceable emission
reductions by comparing emissions occurring during the nonattainment
period (represented by emissions during one of the years in the three-
year period used to designate an area as nonattainment,\4\ in this case
2002) with emissions occurring during the attainment period
(represented by emissions during one of the three attainment years, in
this case 2008, which is part of the three-year period, 2006-2008, in
which Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area first attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard). In EPA's determination of attainment and proposed
approval of the redesignation request, EPA considered data for the
2008-2010 time period, which was then the most recent quality-assured,
certified three years of data available. See 77 FR 6743, 6746 (February
9, 2012). Therefore, selecting 2008 as the representative attainment
year and comparing emissions for this year to those of the
representative violation year, 2002, is an appropriate and long-
established approach that demonstrates emission reductions in the
period between the years of nonattainment and attainment. These
emission reductions, therefore, can be reasonably seen to account for
the observed air quality improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See September 4, 1992, memorandum from John Calcagni
entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' pp. 4 and 8-9.
\4\ The nonattainment designation of the Greater Chicago area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was based on 2001-2003 ozone
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA has conducted
no analyses to prove that emission reductions between 2002 and 2008 led
to reduced ozone concentrations. EPA's analyses included comparison of
emissions for the representative nonattainment year to the emissions
for the representative attainment year. This comparison, which
established the existence of significant emission reductions that
resulted in attainment, and also linked these emission reductions to
control measures, is consistent with longstanding practice and EPA
policy for making such a demonstration. As noted in the proposed
rulemaking for this redesignation (77 FR 6754, February 9, 2012), the
State of Illinois documented changes in VOC and NOX
emissions between 2002 and 2008 in the Illinois portion of the Greater
Chicago area and the emission control measures that have been
implemented in the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area. These
emission control measures resulted from the State's adoption and
implementation of regulations, including regulations to: Control
NOX emissions at electric generating utilities and large
industrial combustion sources under EPA's NOX SIP call;
control emissions and implement New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), and Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards
for new sources; control VOC solvent emissions for aerosol coatings and
AIM coatings and consumer solvents; control vehicle emissions through
the implementation of enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance;
control vehicle refueling emissions; and control vehicle evaporative
emissions through use of low volatility fuels and reformulated
gasoline. In addition to the State's implementation of state-specific
emission control measures, Federal emission control measures have also
been implemented in the Greater Chicago area, including: Tier 2
emission standards for vehicles; Tier 4 nonroad diesel engine
standards; marine compression-ignition engine standards; and locomotive
engine standards. As noted in the February 9, 2012, proposed rule, all
of these emission controls have been implemented since the 2001-2003
ozone standard violation period for the Greater Chicago area.
Therefore, it is
[[Page 48068]]
reasonable to conclude that the emission reductions resulting from
these emission controls contributed to the attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard in the Greater Chicago area. See the February 9,
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 6754 and 6759) for discussions of
implemented emission control measures and how Illinois derived the 2002
and 2008 VOC and NOX emissions, demonstrating emission
reductions between the 2002 violation year and 2008 attainment year.
The State demonstrated that the implementation of these emission
controls along with other ongoing emission controls resulting from
continued implementation of the Illinois SIP have led to the emission
reductions used to demonstrate the emissions reduction in this area. To
derive the 2008 emissions, the State determined source category-
specific emission control factors associated with the implemented
emission controls. Note that the State applied emission control factors
only for those source categories covered by State or Federal emission
control requirements and for specific sources subject to permanent,
enforceable source closures. The State took no credit for temporary or
non-permanent emission reductions resulting from voluntary emission
control measures or source activity downturn resulting from the current
downturn in the economy. The source category-specific emission control
factors, along with source category-specific growth factors, were
applied to the 2002 base year emissions to project the 2008 emissions.
Emission reductions resulting from source closures occurring between
2002 and 2008 and determined to be permanent (including forfeiture of
source permits) were also considered and factored into the emission
projections, but produced relatively small emission reductions compared
to the impacts of implemented emission controls. Since most source
categories had positive growth factors, almost all projected emission
reductions can be attributed to the impacts of implemented emission
controls. Therefore, the State has demonstrated that the derived
emission reduction that occurred between 2002 and 2008 is due to the
implementation of emission controls.
The CAA does not specifically require the use of ozone modeling to
make a demonstration that the observed ozone air quality improvement is
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from the
implementation of emission controls. It has not been the general
practice of states to do so in demonstrating emission reductions for
purposes of ozone redesignation requests.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that using emissions
from a single attainment year is arbitrary due to the year-to-year
variation in emission levels resulting from the implementation of cap-
and-trade programs. As a general matter, trading programs establish
mandatory caps on emissions and permanently reduce total emissions
allowed for sources subject to the programs. The emission caps and
associated controls are enforced through the associated SIP rules and
FIPs. Any purchase of emission allowances and increase in emissions by
a utility necessitates a corresponding sale of emission allowances and
reduction in emissions by another utility. Given the regional nature of
ozone formation and transport, the emissions reduction will have an
ozone air quality benefit that will compensate, at least in part, for
the impact of any emission increase.
With respect to NOX SIP call emission reductions within
the Greater Chicago area, there is no evidence of significant temporal
variation in emissions levels. In fact, actual emissions from
NOX SIP call sources in the Chicago area have not varied
much from year-to-year over the 2003-2011 time period. Some of the
largest emitters in the Greater Chicago area that are covered by the
NOX SIP call are operating near full capacity. In addition,
an analysis of ozone season NOX emission rates and total
operating hours for all NOX SIP call sources in this area
shows that annual levels of NOX emission rates (tons per
hour of operation) have generally trended downward subsequent to 2003
as a result of the implementation of emission controls.
While the commenter expressed concerns that an economic downturn
was responsible for the observed air quality improvement, the commenter
has made no demonstration that the reduction in emissions and observed
improvement in air quality is due to an economic recession, changes in
meteorology, or temporary or voluntary emission reductions. In
addition, as noted previously, the CAA does not require modeling to
make any such demonstration. There are no data demonstrating that the
observed air quality improvement is due to the economic downturn,
temporary changes in meteorology, or voluntary emission reductions,
and, as discussed above, EPA's modeling for the CSAPR demonstrates that
the Greater Chicago area would attain the NAAQS in 2012 and 2014 with
or without implementation of CAIR, which is place only temporarily. We,
thus, have no reason to believe that factors other than permanent and
enforceable emission reductions let to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard in the Greater Chicago area.
Finally, with regard to consideration of actual versus allowable/
permitted emission levels, longstanding practice and EPA policy allows
for the use of actual emissions when demonstrating permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. Sources seldom emit at maximum
allowable emission levels, and assuming that all sources simultaneously
operate at maximum capacity would grossly overestimate emission levels.
For this reason, EPA believes actual emissions are the appropriate
emission levels to consider when comparing nonattainment year emissions
with attainment year emissions to demonstrate the basis for
improvements in peak ozone levels. EPA also notes that the certified
monitoring data establish that the area has been attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard continuously during the periods of 2006-2008, 2007-
2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011, and that EPA's modeling demonstrates
that the Greater Chicago area would have attainment air quality in 2012
and 2014 with or without the implementation of CAIR. Emissions
reductions have continued during this extended period as the State has
continued to implement and enforce emission controls in addition to
those required by CAIR.
Comment 5: The commenter claims that EPA has not conducted an
adequate analysis of the effect redesignation to attainment will have
on attainment and maintenance of other NAAQS under section 110(l) of
the CAA. The commenter complains that EPA has failed to conduct an
adequate analysis of the ozone redesignation impacts with respect to
the 1997 annual fine particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS, the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS, the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Response 5: Section 110(l) of the CAA provides in part: ``the
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress * * *, or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.'' As a general matter, EPA must and does
consider section 110(l) requirements for every SIP revision, including
whether the revision would ``interfere with'' any applicable
requirement. See, e.g., 70 FR 53, 57 (January 3, 2005); 70 FR 17029,
17033 (April 4, 2005); 70 FR 28429,
[[Page 48069]]
28431 (May 18, 2005); and 70 FR 58119, 58134 (October 5, 2005).
The Illinois redesignation request and maintenance plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard neither revises nor removes any existing
emission control requirements. On that basis, EPA concludes that the
redesignation will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any
of the air quality standards. Moreover, the maintenance plan itself
demonstrates that the emission emissions of NOX and VOC in
the Greater Chicago area will remain at or below the attainment year
(2008) levels through 2025, thus demonstrating non-interference with
other pollutants, in particular fine pollutants, that are formed
through reactions and processes involving NOX and/or VOC. In
addition, contingency measures, if subsequently activated, can be
selected to ensure non-interference through lowered emission levels.
The commenter does not provide any information in the comment to
indicate that approval of this redesignation would have any impact on
the area's ability to comply with any of the referenced NAAQS. In fact,
the ozone maintenance plan provided with the State's redesignation
request demonstrates a decline in VOC and NOX emissions over
the timeframe of the 10-plus year maintenance period. This reflects the
fact that the redesignation does not relax any existing emission
control rules or emission limits, nor will the redesignation alter the
status quo air quality. The commenter has not explained why the
redesignation might interfere with attainment of any standard or with
satisfaction of any other CAA requirement, and EPA finds no basis under
section 110(l) for EPA to disapprove the SIP revision (ozone
maintenance plan and emissions inventories) at issue or to disapprove
the requested ozone redesignation.
Comment 6: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve Illinois'
2002 emissions inventory as meeting the emission inventory requirement
of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA for a number of reasons. In particular,
the commenter believes that Illinois' mobile source emission
inventories, based on the use of EPA's MOVES model, does not account
for the increase VOC and NOX emissions that would result
from the use of up to 15 percent ethanol content in gasoline recently
approved by the EPA. The commenter argues that many car and light-duty
truck emission control systems are not designed to control vehicle
emissions with blends of 15 percent ethanol (Ethanol 15 or E15). The
commenter believes that EPA has not accounted for the extra VOC and
NOX emissions that would result from the use of E15.
Response 6: First, it is noted that this comment was directed at
EPA's proposed approval of Illinois' 2002 base period emissions. The
commenter's concern is not relevant to approval of the 2002 base year
emission inventories because the EPA-approved use of E15 fuels was not
in place during 2002. The use of E15 fuels was approved by EPA well
after 2002. Therefore, the mobile source emissions for 2002 could not
have reflected the future use of E15 fuels.
With regard to the use of E15 fuels in later years, it is noted
that, in 2010 and 2011, EPA granted partial waivers for the use of E15
fuels in Model Year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles (75
FR 68094, November 4, 2010 and 76 FR 4662, January 26, 2011). As
discussed in the waiver decisions, there may be some small emission
impacts for the use of E15. E15 is expected to cause a small immediate
emissions increase in NOX emissions. However, due to its
lower volatility than the E10 fuels currently in use, its use is also
expected to result in lower evaporative emissions. Other possible
emissions impacts may be from the misfueling of E15 in vehicles or
engines for which its use is not approved, i.e., MY 2000 and older
motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines and vehicles, motorcycles and all
non-road engines, vehicles, and equipment. EPA has promulgated a
separate rule dealing specifically with the mitigation of misfueling to
reduce potential emissions impacts from misfueling (76 FR 44406, July
25, 2011).
EPA's partial waiver for E15 is based on extensive studies done by
the Department of Energy, as well as EPA's engineering assessment, to
determine the effects on exhaust and evaporative emissions for the
vehicle fleet prior to and after the partial waiver. The criteria for
granting the waiver was not that there are no emission impacts for E15,
but rather that vehicles operating on E15 would not be expected to
violate their emission standards in-use.
The E15 partial waivers do not require that E15 be made or sold,
and it is unclear if and to what extent E15 may even be used in
Illinois. Even if E15 is introduced into commerce in Illinois,
considering the likely small and offsetting direction of the emission
impacts, the limited set of motor vehicles approved for its use, and
the measures required to mitigate misfueling, EPA believes that any
potential emission impacts of E15 will be less than the margin of
safety by which Illinois shows maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard.
Comment 7: The commenter argues that EPA has not accounted for the
effects of changes in weather in its analysis of Illinois' ozone
redesignation request. The commenter asserts that EPA should have
adjusted monitored ozone levels to account for the varying impacts of
meteorology. The commenter contends that EPA cannot approve Illinois'
ozone resignation request without a weather adjusted analysis. In
addition, the commenter believes that EPA has erred in not considering
the impacts that climate change will have on ozone formation during the
maintenance period.
Response 7: A determination that an area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard is based on an objective review of the air quality
data for a specified period. There are no provisions in the CAA for
considering the impacts of changing meteorology and adjusting monitored
ozone concentrations to reflect a standardized set of meteorological
data or some historical range of meteorological data. Therefore, we
disagree with the commenter's argument that EPA should have adjusted
ozone levels to assess the impacts of meteorology during the attainment
period versus meteorology more reflective of historical high ozone
periods. In addition, it should be noted that the very nature of the
three-year averaging of ozone concentrations used to assess compliance
with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is used, in part, to negate the
impacts of year-to-year variations in meteorology on ozone formation.
By the same reasoning, we also disagree with the commenter that EPA
must, in the context of a redesignation rulemaking, consider the impact
of climate change on future ozone formation. While EPA agrees that
climate change is a serious environmental issue, at this time EPA does
not believe that an area-specific climate change analysis must occur in
the context of rulemaking on a redesignation request and maintenance
plan. Even if EPA chose to make such an assessment, it is virtually
impossible, especially given the relatively limited spatial and
temporal focus of a redesignation request and related maintenance plan,
to project or predict the local meteorological changes that might
result from climate change. Current modeling uncertainties result in
conflicting projections of the spatial patterns of future changes in
meteorological variables and the specific regional distributions of
future ozone changes across the United States.
[[Page 48070]]
Modeling guidance is not yet available for the type of area-specific
analysis of effects or climate change on ozone concentrations required
for SIP planning. EPA, therefore, believes it is premature to require a
precise mathematical accounting in the SIP process for the effect of
higher ambient temperatures due to climate change on ozone
concentrations. EPA is ready to reevaluate this position when the state
of science and confidence in projection improve. Given the above, at
this time, EPA is not in a position to forecast the impact climate
change may have on future ozone considerations with the specificity
needed for evaluating a state's ozone maintenance demonstration. See
EPA's similar reasoning in its approval of Kentucky's section 110(a)(1)
maintenance for Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky, 76 FR 21853 (April 14,
2011). Finally, EPA notes that the Greater Chicago area has continued
to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard since the 2006-2008 monitoring
period, and that its attainment of the standard has withstood the
challenges of meteorological variability for many years longer than
required. Elsewhere in this notice, EPA has addressed extensively its
reasoning for concluding, as required for redesignation, that
attainment is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions,
rather than to unduly favorable meteorology.
Conclusion of Comment Review and Response
We conclude that none of the comments discussed above provides a
basis for precluding EPA from finalizing the actions we proposed on
February 9, 2012.
III. What actions is EPA taking?
After reviewing Illinois' ozone redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) f the CAA. Therefore, EPA is approving the
redesignation of the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving
Illinois' ozone maintenance plan for the Illinois portion of the
Greater Chicago area as a revision of the Illinois SIP based on
Illinois' demonstration that the plan meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA. EPA is approving the 2002 VOC and NOX
emission inventories for the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago
area as meeting the requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA.
Finally, EPA is also approving and finding adequate Illinois' 2008 and
2025 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Illinois portion of the
Greater Chicago area. For 2008, these MVEBs are 117.23 tons per ozone
season weekday for VOC and 373.52 tons per ozone season weekday for
NOX. For 2025, these MVEBs are 48.13 tons per ozone season
weekday for VOC and 126.27 tons per ozone season weekday for
NOX.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rulemaking activities may become effective less than 30
days after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption
or relieves a restriction,'' and section 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.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning
requirements for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. For these
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action
to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions do not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law and the CAA. For that reason, these actions:
Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do 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);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, 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 this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate,
[[Page 48071]]
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: July 27, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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.
0
2. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraphs (mm)(2) and (nn) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(mm) * * *
(2) Approval--Illinois' 2002 volatile organic compounds and
nitrogen oxides emission inventories satisfy the emissions inventory
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act for the Illinois
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area under
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
(nn) Approval--On July 23, 2009, and September 16, 2011, Illinois
submitted a request to redesignate the Illinois portion of the Chicago-
Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area to attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. The Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, Illinois-Indiana area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
McHenry, and Will Counties and portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose
Lake Townships) and Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties. As part of the
redesignation request, the State submitted a plan for maintaining the
1997 8-hour ozone standard through 2025 in the area as required by
section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the section 175A maintenance
plan includes a contingency plan. The ozone maintenance plan
establishes 2008 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Illinois
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area of
117.23 tons per day (tpd) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
373.52 tpd for nitrogen oxides (NOX). In addition, the
maintenance plan establishes 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets for
the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana
area of 48.13 tpd for VOC and 125.27 tpd for NOX.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. Section 81.314 is amended by revising the entry for Chicago-Gary-
Lake County, IL-IN in the table entitled ``Illinois--1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.314 Illinois.
* * * * *
Illinois--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN:
Cook County............................. 8/13/2012
DuPage County........................... ............... Attainment.
Grundy County (part)....................
Aux Sable Township..................
Goose Lake Township.................
Kane County.............................
Kendall County (part)...................
Oswego Township.....................
Lake County.............................
McHenry County..........................
Will County.............................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-19556 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
