Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Redesignation of the Chicago Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 48103-48123 [2013-18948]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
• Are not a ’’significant regulatory
action’’ 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 economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions 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.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, National Parks, Wilderness.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Dated: July 24, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013–18951 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0899; FRL–9842–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois;
Redesignation of the Chicago Area to
Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to grant a
redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
request submitted by the state of Illinois
on October 15, 2010, and supplemented
on September 16, 2011, and May 6,
2013. The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) requested
EPA to redesignate the Illinois portion
of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN) nonattainment
area to attainment of the 1997 annual
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS
or standard) and requested EPA
approval of Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance
plan and PM2.5-related emission
inventories for this area as revisions of
the Illinois SIP. The Illinois portion
(Chicago area) of this nonattainment
area is: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,
McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable
and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy
County, and Oswego Township in
Kendall County. EPA is proposing to
grant the state’s redesignation request
and to approve the requested Illinois
SIP revisions, including the state’s plan
for maintaining attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area
through 2025. EPA is also proposing to
approve Illinois’ 2008 and 2025
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for
the Chicago area. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002
NOX, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Volatile
Organic Compound, ammonia, and
primary PM2.5 emission inventories for
this area. In the context of this proposal
to redesignate the Chicago area, EPA
addresses a number of additional issues,
including the effects of two decisions of
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or
Court): The Court’s August 21, 2012,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48103
decision to vacate and remand to EPA
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR); and the Court’s January 4,
2013, decision to remand to EPA two
final rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5
standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 6, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0899, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• EMail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
• Fax: (312) 408–2279.
• Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
• Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano,
Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois
60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–
0899. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48104
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
and viruses. For additional instructions
on submitting comments, go to section
I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the U.S. 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 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 (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057,
or 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:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to
attainment?
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s
request?
A. Has the area achieved attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard?
B. Has the Chicago area and the State of
Illinois met all applicable requirements
of section 110 and part D of the Clean
Air Act, and does the Chicago area have
a fully approved SIP under section
110(k) of the Clean Air Act for purposes
of redesignation to attainment?
1. Illinois Has Met All Applicable
Requirements for Purposes of
Redesignation of the Chicago Area Under
Section 110 and Part D of the Clean Air
Act
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
b. Part D Requirements
2. The Chicago Area Has a Fully Approved
Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
3. Nonattainment Requirements
4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit
Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the
CAA
a. Background
b. Proposal on This Issue
i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of
Evaluating the Redesignation Request
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Illinois’
Redesignation Request
iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5
Precursors
C. Are the air quality improvements in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area
due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions?
1. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
a. Federal Emission Control Measures
i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles
and Gasoline Sulfur Standards
ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards
iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and
Recreational Engine Standards
b. Control Measures Statewide in Illinois
and in Upwind Areas
i. NOX SIP Call
ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
c. Consent Decrees
2. Emission Reductions
a. Illinois’ Demonstration That Significant
Emission Reductions Have Occurred in
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN
Area and in Upwind Areas
b. VOC and Ammonia Emission
Reductions
c. Conclusions Regarding Emission
Reductions Between 2002 and 2005 in
the Chicago Area
D. Does Illinois have a fully approvable
PM2.5 maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA for the Chicago
area?
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
2. Attainment Inventory
3. Demonstration of Maintenance
4. Monitoring Network
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
6. Contingency Plan
7. Provision for Future Update of the
Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan
8. CAIR and CSAPR
a. Background—Effect of the August 21,
2012, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
EPA’s CSAPR
b. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation
Resulting From Court Decisions
E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable MVEBs
for the PM2.5 maintenance period?
1. How are MVEBs developed and what are
the MVEBs for the Chicago area?
2. What are safety margins?
F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related
emissions inventories for the Chicago
area approvable under section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA?
1. EPA’s Base Year Emissions Inventory
SIP Policy
2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission
Inventories for the Chicago Area
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the proposed rule.
II. What actions is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to take several
actions related to the redesignation of
the Chicago area to attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS based on quality assured,
certified 2007–2012 air quality data.
EPA is proposing to grant the
redesignation of the Chicago area to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA proposes to find that Illinois’
PM2.5 maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and is proposing
to approve Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance
plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
for the Chicago area as a revision to the
Illinois SIP. The PM2.5 maintenance
plan provides for the maintenance of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area
through 2025. The state of Illinois has
committed to revising this maintenance
plan to cover an additional 10 years
within eight years after EPA approves
the redesignation of the Chicago area to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve Illinois’
2008 and 2025 primary PM2.5 (fine
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
particulates directly emitted by on-road
motor vehicles) and NOX MVEBs for the
Chicago area. In addition, EPA is
proposing to find these MVEBs as
adequate for purposes of transportation
and general conformity demonstrations
and determinations.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve
Illinois’ 2002 primary PM2.5, NOX, SO2,
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), and
ammonia emission inventories for the
Chicago area as satisfying the
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA for a current, accurate, and
comprehensive emission inventory.
III. What is the background for these
actions?
Fine particulate pollution can be
emitted directly from a source (primary
PM2.5) or formed secondarily through
chemical reactions in the atmosphere
involving precursor pollutants 1 emitted
from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a
type of secondary fine particulates
formed from reactions involving SO2
emissions from power plants and
industrial facilities. Nitrates, another
common type of secondary particulate,
are formed from combustion emissions
of NOX (primarily Nitrogen Oxide (NO)
and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)) from
power plants, mobile sources, and other
combustion sources.
EPA promulgated the first air quality
standards for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997, at
62 FR 38652. In this rulemaking, EPA
promulgated an annual standard at a
level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
(mg/m3) of ambient air, based on a threeyear average of the annual mean PM2.5
concentrations at each monitoring site
(the site’s PM2.5 design value for the
annual standard). In the same
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at a level of 65 mg/m3,
based on a three-year average of the
annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at each monitoring site.
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA
published air quality area designations
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
based on air quality data for calendar
years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking,
EPA designated the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area as nonattainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This
area includes the Chicago area in
Illinois and Lake and Porter Counties in
Indiana.
On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144,
EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard
at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5
standard), but revised the 24-hour PM2.5
standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the
three-year average of the annual 98th
1 Generally NO , SO , VOC, ammonia (NH ), and
X
2
3
primary PM2.5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations. In response to legal
challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5
standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) remanded this standard to EPA
for further consideration. See American
Farm Bureau Federation and National
Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA,
559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Since the
Chicago area is designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard, today’s proposed action
addresses redesignation of this area only
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
On November 27, 2009, EPA made a
final determination that the Chicago
area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard (76 FR 62243). This
determination of attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard was based on
quality-assured annual-averaged PM2.5
concentrations for PM2.5 monitoring
sites in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL–IN area for the period of 2006–2008.
Based on our review of complete,
quality-assured, and state-certified
ambient PM2.5 monitoring data from
2009–2012 in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area, we are proposing to
determine that the Chicago area
continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
On October 15, 2010, IEPA submitted
a request to EPA for the redesignation of
the Chicago area to attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and for EPA
approval of a SIP revision containing
emission inventories and a maintenance
plan for the area. The maintenance plan
also includes 2008 and 2025 MVEBs for
the Chicago area. In a supplemental
submission to EPA on September 16,
2011, the IEPA revised the on-road
mobile source emissions and MVEBs in
the original submittal to reflect the use
of EPA’s MOVES model to calculate
mobile source emissions. In a
supplemental submission to EPA on
May 6, 2013, the IEPA submitted VOC
and ammonia emission inventories to
supplement the emission inventories
that had previously been submitted to
explain the attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area and to
demonstrate future maintenance of the
PM2.5 standard in this area.
In this proposed redesignation, EPA
takes into account two recent decisions
of the D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two
Court decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on
August 21, 2012, issued EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d
7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and
remanded Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) and ordered EPA to
continue administering the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . .
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48105
development of a valid replacement.’’
EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit
denied all petitions for rehearing on
January 24, 2013.2 In the second
decision, on January 4, 2013, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Rule (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
IV. What are the criteria for
redesignation to attainment?
The CAA sets forth the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment of a NAAQS. Specifically,
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows
for redesignation provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS
based on current air quality data; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved an
applicable SIP for the area under section
110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator
determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions
resulting from the implementation of
the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable emission reductions; (4)
the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA; and, (5) the state containing the
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
request?
A. Has the area achieved attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard?
In a final rulemaking dated November
27, 2009, at 76 FR 62243, EPA
determined that the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area had attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This
determination was based on complete,
quality-assured monitoring data in this
area for the calendar years of 2006–
2008.
In its September 16, 2011,
redesignation request, Illinois presents
2 On March 29, 2013, EPA and other parties filed
petitions in the Supreme Court seeking certiorari of
the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. On
June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court consolidated the
petitions and granted certiorari. The Supreme
Court’s decision to grant the petition is not a
decision on the merits but instead a decision to
review the case on its merits. As such, it does not
alter the current status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this
time, CAIR remains in place.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48106
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
quality-assured, state-certified PM2.5
data for the period of 2007–2009. These
data show that the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard through 2009.
We have also obtained quality-assured
and state-certified data for the states of
Illinois and Indiana for 2010, 2011, and
2012. Data recorded in EPA’s AQS show
that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–
IN area initially attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard beginning in
2005–2007, and this area has continued
to attain this standard through 2012.3
Table 1 provides a summary of the
PM2.5 annual air quality data for the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area
for the period of 2007–2012. These data
have been quality-assured and certified
by the states of Illinois and Indiana.
TABLE 1—PM2.5 ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, IL–IN PM2.5
NONATTAINMENT AREA
(In μg/m3)
County
Monitoring site
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Illinois Monitoring Sites
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
.................
.................
.................
.................
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook .................
DuPage .............
Kane .................
Kane .................
Lake ..................
McHenry ...........
Will ....................
Will ....................
Blue Island ................
Chicago—Commonwealth Edison.
Chicago—Springfield
Chicago—Mayfair .....
Chicago—SE Police
Chicago—Washington.
Cicero ........................
Des Plaines ...............
McCook (1) ...............
Northbrook ................
Schiller Park (1) ........
Summit ......................
Naperville ..................
Aurora .......................
Elgin ..........................
Zion ...........................
Cary ..........................
Braidwood .................
Joliet ..........................
14.3
14.3
12.5
11.9
11.7
11.1
11.6
12.3
11.6
11.3
10.9
11.3
15.2
15.5
14.1
15.7
12.0
12.2
11.8
12.5
11.3
12.7
11.0
11.6
12.0 (2)
12.6
12.5
14.0
11.5 (2)
11.8
N/A
12.6
11.9
11.6
N/A
11.5
14.8
12.7
15.6
13.2
15.4
14.8
13.8
13.2
14.5
11.9
11.6
12.1 (2)
14.6
13.3 (2)
11.4
12.9
10.1
13.6 (2)
12.0
11.3
10.3
10.8
9.3
10.1
10.3
11.7
12.8 (2)
11.0
12.6
9.3
12.9
11.6
9.8
10.0
9.8
8.8
9.6
8.7
10.5
11.9
10.6
12.6
9.3
12.6
12.2
11.7
11.3
11.4
9.7
10.2
10.0
11.8
11.4
10.6
12.6
10.2
13.3
11.0
10.5
9.8
10.8
N/A
10.1
10.4
10.2
10.4
10.9
12.6
10.2
13.1
11.3
10.1
10.0
9.9
N/A
10.1
9.3
11.1
12.5
12.4
12.9
12.3
11.9
11.6
11.4
11.2
12.1
11.4
10.7
10.6
10.7
N/A
11.5
10.6
10.5
9.9
Indiana Monitoring Sites
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Porter ................
Franklin School .........
Griffith .......................
Madison Street ..........
Hammond—Purdue ..
Clark High School .....
Ogden Dunes ............
14.4
13.2
14.6
13.8
13.7
13.8
Notes: (1) Annual standard for PM2.5 does
not apply to these sites due to their proximity
to industrial or roadway sources and lack of
representation of general population
exposure; and (2) the data for these sites and
12.0
11.7
12.3
11.7
12.4
10.9
11.3
11.0
12.1
15.9
10.8
11.3
years do not meet data completeness
requirements (see a discussion of this issue
below).
Table 2 gives the three-year averages
of the annual PM2.5 concentrations for
2007–2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, and
2010–2012 for each of the PM2.5
monitoring sites in the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN PM2.5
nonattainment area.
TABLE 2—THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY,
IL–IN PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA
County
Monitoring site
2007–2009
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Illinois Monitoring Sites
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Blue Island ........................................................................
Chicago—Commonwealth Edison ....................................
Chicago—Springfield ........................................................
Chicago—Mayfair .............................................................
Chicago—SE Police .........................................................
Chicago—Washington ......................................................
Cicero ...............................................................................
Des Plaines ......................................................................
12.8
12.4
12.8
13.5
12.3
13.3
13.1
11.7
11.9
11.8
11.8
12.5
11.8
12.7
12.7
11.0
3 Preliminary data for 2012 show that the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area continues to
attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard through 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
11.6
11.6
11.6
12.4
N/A
12.7
12.0
10.7
11.4
11.6
11.6
12.0
N/A
12.7
11.2
10.7
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
48107
TABLE 2—THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY,
IL–IN PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued
County
Monitoring site
2007–2009
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook .................
Cook .................
DuPage .............
Kane .................
Kane .................
Lake ..................
McHenry ...........
Will ....................
Will ....................
McCook .............................................................................
Northbrook ........................................................................
Schiller Park .....................................................................
Summit ..............................................................................
Naperville ..........................................................................
Aurora ...............................................................................
Elgin ..................................................................................
Zion ...................................................................................
Cary ..................................................................................
Braidwood .........................................................................
Joliet .................................................................................
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
13.7
10.9
14.0
12.8
11.6
11.2
11.6
10.0
10.4
10.4
10.2
12.7
9.6
13.0
11.9
10.9
10.5
10.7
9.3
10.0
9.7
11.3
12.6
9.6
12.9
11.6
10.7
10.4
10.7
N/A
10.0
9.7
10.8
12.6
9.9
13.0
11.5
10.8
10.4
10.7
N/A
10.1
9.9
11.0
11.4
11.2
12.1
11.4
10.7
10.6
11.9
11.7
12.4
13.3
11.7
11.3
11.7
11.5
12.4
13.2
11.1
11.2
11.5
N/A
12.2
11.4
11.0
10.7
Indiana Monitoring Sites
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Lake ..................
Porter ................
Franklin School .................................................................
Griffith ...............................................................................
Madison Street .................................................................
Hammond—Purdue ..........................................................
Clark High School .............................................................
Ogden Dunes ...................................................................
The data in tables 1 and 2 show that
all PM2.5 monitors in the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN area have recorded
PM2.5 concentrations attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard during the most
recent three years of quality-assured,
state-certified of PM2.5 data collection.
As noted above, however, the PM2.5 data
for several sites in table 1 need further
discussion.
First, under 40 CFR 58.30(a)(1), for
monitoring sites with data that are
representative of relatively unique,
generally localized concentrations, the
data are compared only to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and not to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Illinois has two sites,
McCook and Schiller Park, that the IEPA
believes are not representative of
exposure for the general populace due
to the proximity of these sites to
localized industrial or roadway sources.
EPA is not judging whether this
designation is appropriate. The
applicable regulation, at 40 CFR
58.30(a)(2), recognizes that some
microscale sites collect data that are
representative of multiple locations
with localized high concentrations, and
provides in these cases that the data are
appropriate for comparison to the
annual PM2.5 standard. The Schiller
Park site is near a major highway, and
the site may be representative of
multiple locations in the Chicago area
that have similar proximity to major
highways. For this reason, Table 1 above
includes annual mean PM2.5
concentrations for this site. In any case,
this site shows annual mean PM2.5
concentrations that meet the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
With regard to the McCook
monitoring site, we agree with the IEPA
that this is a monitoring site that is
located near a localized industrial
source and produces PM2.5
concentrations that are not generally
representative of exposure for the
general populace on a long-term basis.
As such, in keeping with 40 CFR
58.30(a)(1), the annual mean PM2.5
concentrations at this site should not be
compared to the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard when judging the attainment
status of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL–IN area. In any case, this site also
shows annual mean PM2.5
concentrations that meet the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
EPA concludes that no violation of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard has
been recorded in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area for any three-year
period during 2007–2012. For the
reasons discussed above, EPA proposes
to determine that the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area has attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
Illinois commits to continue
monitoring PM2.5 in the Chicago area
according to an EPA-approved
monitoring plan, as required to confirm
and assure maintenance of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in this area. If
changes in the PM2.5 monitoring system
become necessary, IEPA will work with
EPA to ensure the continued adequacy
of the monitoring system. Illinois will
continue to quality-assure the
monitoring data to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Has the Chicago area and the State
of Illinois met all applicable
requirements of section 110 and part D
of the Clean Air Act, and does the
Chicago area have a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) of the Clean Air
Act for purposes of redesignation to
attainment?
We are proposing to find that Illinois
has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for the purposes of
redesignation of the Chicago area under
section 110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements). We are also proposing to
find that the Illinois SIP meets all SIP
requirements currently applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. We
are proposing to find that all applicable
requirements of the Illinois SIP, for
purposes of redesignation, have been
implemented, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. As
discussed below, in this section, EPA is
proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002
NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions
inventory and 2007 VOC and ammonia
emissions inventory as meeting the
section 172(C)(3) requirement for a
comprehensive emissions inventory.
In making these proposed
determinations, we have ascertained
which SIP requirements are applicable
for purposes of redesignation, and have
concluded that there are SIP measures
meeting these requirements and that
they are approved or will be approved
by the time of final rulemaking on the
State’s PM2.5 redesignation request.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48108
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1. Illinois Has Met All Applicable
Requirements for Purposes of
Redesignation of the Chicago Area
Under Section 110 and Part D of the
Clean Air Act
a. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a
SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a
state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and, among other things, must:
(1) Include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; (2)
provide for establishment and operation
of appropriate devices, methods,
systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide
for implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; (4) include provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; (5) include criteria for
stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring and reporting; (6)
include provisions for air quality
modeling; and (7) provide for public
and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain measures to
prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP requirements
are not linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification. EPA
believes that the requirements linked
with an area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, we believe that
these requirements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
Further, we believe that section
110(a)(2) elements other than those
described above that are not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
and that are not linked with an area’s
attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements regardless of an
area’s designation and after the area is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and
part D requirements that are linked with
an area’s designation and classification
are the relevant measures which we
must consider in evaluating a
redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA’s policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826,
May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion of this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour
ozone redesignation (65 FR 3780, June
19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
We have reviewed the Illinois SIP and
have concluded that it meets the general
SIP requirements under section 110 of
the CAA to the extent they are
applicable to the state’s request for
redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of the Illinois SIP
addressing section 110 requirements,
including provisions addressing
particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.720. In
a submittal dated December 12, 2007,
Illinois addressed infrastructure SIP
elements required under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA for PM2.5 under the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA
approved this submittal on August 12,
2011, at 76 FR 41075. The requirements
of section 110(a)(2), however, are
statewide SIP requirements that are not
linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status
of the Chicago area. Therefore, EPA
believes that these infrastructure
elements are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of
the state’s PM2.5 redesignation request.
b. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, if EPA
approves the base year emissions
inventories, discussed in section V.F
below, the Illinois SIP will meet the SIP
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D of the CAA
for the Chicago area.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections
172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable
for nonattainment areas.
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
The applicable subpart 1
requirements are contained in sections
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
172(c)(1)–(9) of the CAA. A thorough
discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992).
Section 172(c)(1) requires the state
plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable.
EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all states with
nonattainment areas to consider all
available control measures and to adopt
and implement such measures as are
reasonably available for implementation
in these areas as components of the
areas’ attainment demonstrations (the
attainment demonstrations must address
RACM). Because attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS has been achieved
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN
area, no additional RACM measures are
needed to provide for attainment, and
the section 172(c)(1) requirements are
no longer considered to be applicable as
a prerequisite for approval of Illinois’
redesignation request, provided the area
continues to attain the standard until
the redesignation of the Chicago area
occurs. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
Section 172(c)(2) requires plans for all
nonattainment areas to provide for
reasonable further progress (RFP)
toward attainment of the NAAQS. This
requirement is not relevant for purposes
of redesignation because the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area has
monitored attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS (General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40
CFR 51.1009. In addition, because the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the requirement for RFP under
section 172(c)(2), as well as the
requirement for contingency measures
under section 172(c)(9), is not
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Id.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
and EPA approval of a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions. Illinois submitted a 2002
base year emissions inventory for
primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in June
2006, and documented this emissions
inventory in a June 2006 publication
titled ‘‘Illinois Base Year Particulate
Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002’’. As
discussed below in section V.F, EPA is
proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 base
year emission inventories as meeting the
section 172(c)(3) emission inventory
requirement for the Chicago area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
emissions for major new and modified
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
stationary sources to be allowed in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires
source permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources in the nonattainment
area. EPA approved Illinois NSR
program 4 on December 17, 1992 (57 FR
59928), September 27, 1995 (60 FR
49780), and May 13, 2003 (68 FR
25504). Further, EPA has determined
that, since PSD requirements 5 will
apply after redesignation, the Chicago
area and the state of Illinois need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the state
demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without implementation of part
D NSR. A more detailed rationale for
this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
titled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment’’ (Nichols
memorandum). Illinois has
demonstrated that the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN area will be able to
maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard without the continued
implementation of the state’s part D
NSR program. Therefore, EPA concludes
that Illinois need not have a fully
approved part D NSR program as an
applicable requirement for approval of
the state’s redesignation request. The
state’s PSD program will become
effective in the Chicago area upon
redesignation to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standard. See redesignation
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and, Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain emission control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of
the standard. Because attainment has
been reached in the Chicago area, no
additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment of the standard.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, in
section V.B.1.a, we conclude that the
Illinois SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes
of redesignation.
4 The NSR program controls the growth and
permitting of major source emissions in
nonattainment areas.
5 PSD requirements control the growth of new
source emissions in areas designated as attainment
for a NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Subpart 1 Section 176(c)(4)(D)
Conformity SIP Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities including
highway projects, conform to the air
quality planning goals of the SIPs. The
requirement to determine conformity
applies to transportation plans,
programs and projects developed,
funded or approved under title 23 of the
U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity), as well as to
all other federally-supported or funded
projects (general conformity). State
conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability, which
EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA
requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) for two
reasons. First, the requirement to submit
SIP revisions to comply with the
conformity provisions of the CAA
continues to apply to areas after
redesignation to attainment since such
areas would be subject to section 175A
maintenance plans. Second, EPA’s
Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in
the absence of Federally-approved state
rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are
redesignated to attainment and, because
they must implement conformity under
Federal rules if state rules are not yet
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable
to view these requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also 60 FR
62748, 62749–62750 (December 7, 1995)
(Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Illinois’ general
conformity SIP on December 23, 1997
(62 FR 67000). Illinois does not have a
Federally-approved transportation
conformity SIP. However, Illinois
performs conformity analyses pursuant
to EPA’s Federal conformity rules.
Illinois has submitted on-road mobile
source emission budgets for the Chicago
area of 5,100 tons per year (TPY) of
primary PM2.5 and 127,951 TPY of NOX
for 2008 and 2,377 TPY of primary
PM2.5 and 44,224 TPY of NOX for 2025,
respectively. Illinois must use these
MVEBs in any conformity determination
that is effective on or after the effective
date of the PM2.5 maintenance plan
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48109
approval and effective date of EPA’s
approval of the redesignation of the
Chicago area to attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
2. The Chicago Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
Upon final approval of Illinois’s
comprehensive 2002 emissions
inventories, EPA will have fully
approved the Illinois SIP for the Chicago
area under section 110(k) of the CAA for
all requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation to attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA may
rely on prior SIP approvals when
rulemaking on a redesignation request
(See page 3 of the September 4, 1992,
John Calcagni memorandum titled
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’
(Calcagni memorandum); Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001)), plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 Fr
25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003).
Since the passage of the CAA in 1970,
Illinois has adopted and submitted, and
EPA has fully approved, SIP provisions
addressing various required SIP
elements under the particulate matter
standards. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Illinois’s 2002
base year emissions inventories for the
Chicago area as meeting the requirement
of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
3. Nonattainment Requirements
No Illinois SIP provision applicable
for redesignation of the Chicago area is
currently disapproved, conditionally
approved or partially approved.
4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C.
Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5
Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the
CAA
a. Background
As discussed above, on January 4,
2013, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit
remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72
FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that
EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48110
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
of part D of title I of the CAA, rather
than to the particulate matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title
I.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
b. Proposal on This Issue
In this portion of the redesignation
proposed rule, EPA addresses the effect
of the Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling on
the proposed redesignation. As
explained below, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Court’s January 4,
2013, decision does not prevent EPA
from redesignating the Chicago area to
attainment. Even in light of the Court’s
decision, redesignation for this area is
appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s
longstanding interpretations of the
CAA’s provisions regarding
redesignation. EPA first explains its
longstanding interpretation that
requirements that are imposed, or that
become due, after a complete
redesignation request is submitted for
an area that is attaining the standard, are
not applicable for purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request.
Second, EPA then shows that, even if
EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements
to Illinois’ redesignation request and
disregards the provisions of its 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule recently
remanded by the Court, the state’s
request for redesignation of this area
still qualifies for approval. EPA’s
discussion takes into account the effect
of the Court’s ruling on the Chicago
area’s maintenance plan, which EPA
views as approvable when subpart 4
requirements are considered.
i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes
of Evaluating the Redesignation Request
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, the Court’s
January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s
reasons for implementing the PM2.5
NAAQS solely in accordance with the
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded
that matter to EPA, so that it could
address implementation of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D
of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For
the purposes of evaluating Illinois’
redesignation request for the Chicago
area, to the extent that implementation
under subpart 4 would impose
additional requirements for areas
designated nonattainment, EPA believes
that those requirements are not
‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and, thus, EPA is
not required to consider subpart 4
requirements with respect to the
Chicago area redesignation. Under its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA,
EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E)
to mean, as a threshold matter, that the
part D provisions which are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
‘‘applicable’’ and which must be
approved in order for EPA to
redesignate an area include only those
which came due prior to a state’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. See Calcagni memorandum. See
also ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro
memorandum); Final Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459,
12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68
FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541
(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s
redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation and expressly rejecting
Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of
‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is
‘‘whatever should have been in the plan
at the time of attainment rather than
whatever actually was in the plan and
already implemented or due at the time
of attainment’’).6 In this case, at the time
that Illinois submitted its redesignation
request, requirements under subpart 4
were not due, and indeed, were not yet
known to apply.
EPA’s view that, for purposes of
evaluating the Chicago area
redesignation, the subpart 4
requirements were not due at the time
the state submitted the redesignation
request is in keeping with the EPA’s
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements
for subpart 1 ozone nonattainment areas
redesignated subsequent to the D.C.
Circuit’s decision in South Coast Air
Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the
Court found that EPA was not permitted
to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard solely under subpart 1, and
held that EPA was required under the
statute to implement the standard under
the ozone-specific requirements of
subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the
South Coast decision, in evaluating and
acting upon redesignation requests for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that
were submitted to EPA for areas under
subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding
interpretation of the CAA that
‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes
of evaluating a redesignation, are those
6 Applicable requirements of the CAA that come
due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as
a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of
the CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of
Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047,
22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions,
EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart
2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for
the purposes of evaluating whether the
area should be redesignated under
section 107(d)(3)(E).
EPA’s interpretation derives from the
provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3).
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an
area to be redesignated, a state must
meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to
the area under section 110 and part D’’.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the
EPA must have fully approved the
‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking
redesignation. These two sections read
together support EPA’s interpretation of
‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements
that came due prior to submission of a
complete redesignation request. First,
holding states to an ongoing obligation
to adopt new CAA requirements that
arise after the states submit their
redesignation requests, in order to be
redesignated, would make it
problematic or impossible for EPA to act
on redesignation requests in accordance
with the 18-month deadline Congress
set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no
reasonable limitation, states, after
submitting redesignation requests,
would be forced continuously to make
additional SIP submissions that in turn
would require EPA to undertake further
notice-and-comment rulemaking actions
to act on those submissions. This would
create a regime of unceasing rulemaking
that would delay action on the
redesignation requests beyond the 18month timeframe provided by the Act
for this purpose.
Second, a fundamental premise for
redesignating a nonattainment area to
attainment is that the area has attained
the relevant NAAQS due to emission
reductions from existing controls. Thus,
an area, for which a redesignation
request has been submitted, would have
already attained the NAAQS as a result
of satisfying statutory requirements that
came due prior to the submission of the
request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented
requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view
the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request as including only those SIP
requirements that have already come
due. These are the requirements that led
to attainment of the NAAQS. To require,
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
for redesignation approval, that a state
also satisfy additional SIP requirements
coming due after the state submits its
complete redesignation request, and
while EPA is reviewing it, would
compel the state to do more than is
necessary to attain the NAAQS, without
a showing that the additional
requirements are necessary for
maintenance.
In the context of this redesignation,
the timing and nature of the Court’s
January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v.
EPA compound the consequences of
imposing requirements that come due
after the redesignation request is
submitted. The state submitted its
redesignation request on October 15,
2010, but the Court did not issue its
decision remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule concerning the
applicability of the provisions of
subpart 4 until January 2013.
To require the state’s fully-completed
and pending redesignation request to
comply now with requirements of
subpart 4 that the Court announced only
in January 2013, would be to give
retroactive effect to such requirements
when the state had no notice that it was
required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit
recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v.
Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),7
where it upheld the District Court’s
ruling refusing to make retroactive
EPA’s determination that the St. Louis
area did not meet its attainment
deadline. In that case, petitioners urged
the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment
determination effective as of the date
that the statute required, rather than the
later date on which EPA actually made
the determination. The Court rejected
this view, stating that applying it
‘‘would likely impose large costs on
States, which would face fines and suits
for not implementing air pollution
prevention plans . . . even though they
were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable
to penalize the state of Illinois by
rejecting its redesignation request for an
area that is already attaining the 1997
PM2.5 standard and that met all
applicable requirements known to be in
effect at the time of the redesignation
request. For EPA now to reject the
redesignation request solely because the
state did not expressly address subpart
7 Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and
distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that
addressed retroactivity in a quite different context,
where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give
its regulations retroactive effect. National
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d
145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d
958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
4 requirements, of which it had no
notice, would inflict the same
unfairness condemned by the Court in
Sierra Club v. Whitman.
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Illinois’
Redesignation Request
Even if EPA were to take the view that
the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision
requires that, in the context of pending
redesignations, subpart 4 requirements
were due and in effect at the time the
state submitted its redesignation
request, EPA proposes to determine that
the Chicago area still qualifies for
redesignation to attainment. As
explained below, EPA believes that the
redesignation request for the Chicago
area, though not expressed in terms of
subpart 4 requirements, substantively
meets the requirements of that subpart
for purposes of redesignating the area to
attainment.
With respect to evaluating the
relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating
the Chicago area, EPA notes that subpart
4 incorporates components of subpart 1
of part D, which contain general air
quality planning requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment. See
Section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself,
contains specific planning and
scheduling requirements for PM10 8
nonattainment areas, and under the
Court’s January 4, 2013, decision in
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory
requirements also apply for PM2.5
nonattainment areas. EPA has
longstanding general guidance that
interprets the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, making recommendations to states
for meeting the statutory requirements
for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See,
‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments
of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General
Preamble, EPA discussed the
relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4
SIP requirements, and pointed out that
subpart 1 requirements were to an
extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally
related to, the more specific PM–10
requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16,
1992). The subpart 1 requirements
include, among other things, provisions
for attainment demonstrations, RACM,
RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
For the purposes of this redesignation,
in order to identify additional
requirements which would apply under
subpart 4, we are considering the
Chicago area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5
8 PM
10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48111
nonattainment area. Under section 188
of the CAA, all areas designated as
nonattainment areas under subpart 4
would initially be classified by
operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’
nonattainment areas, and would remain
as moderate nonattainment areas unless
and until EPA reclassifies the areas as
‘‘serious’’ nonattainment areas.
Accordingly, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to limit the evaluation of
the potential impacts of subpart 4
requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment
areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart
4 apply to moderate nonattainment
areas and include the following: (1) an
approved permit program for
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM
(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4)
quantitative milestones demonstrating
RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section
189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4,
as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A),
refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit
provisions requirements of sections 172
and 173 to PM10, without adding to
them. Consequently, EPA believes that
section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself
impose, for redesignation purposes, any
additional requirements for moderate
areas beyond those contained in subpart
1.9 In any event, in the context of
redesignation, EPA has long relied on
the interpretation that a fully approved
nonattainment NSR program is not
considered an applicable requirement
for redesignation, provided that the area
can maintain the standard with a PSD
program after redesignation. A detailed
rationale for this view is described in
the Nichols memorandum. See also
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
With respect to the specific
attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,10 when EPA evaluates a
redesignation request under either
subpart 1 and/or subpart 4, any area that
is attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed
as having satisfied the attainment
planning requirements for these
9 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request is discussed below.
10 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM,
milestone requirements, and contingency measures.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48112
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
subparts. For redesignations, EPA has,
for many years, interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable
for areas attaining the standard. In the
General Preamble, EPA stated that:
The requirements for RFP will not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to
attainment since, at a minimum, the air
quality data for the area must show that the
area has already attained. Showing that the
State will make RFP towards attainment will,
‘therefore, have no meaning at that point.
‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498,
13564, April 16, 1992). The General
Preamble also explained that:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the
standard and is eligible for redesignation.
Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance
plans . . . provides specific requirements for
contingency measures that effectively
supersede the requirements of section
172(c)(9) for these areas.
Id.
EPA similarly stated in its 1992
Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The
requirements for reasonable further
progress and other measures needed for
attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the
standard.’’
It is evident that, even if we were to
consider the Court’s January 4, 2013,
decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that
attainment-related requirements specific
to subpart 4 should be imposed
retroactively 11 and, thus, are now past
due, those requirements do not apply to
an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5
standard, for the purpose of evaluating
a pending request to redesignate the
area to attainment. EPA has consistently
enunciated this interpretation of
applicable requirements under section
107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble
was published more than twenty years
ago. Courts have recognized the scope of
EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ in the redesignation
context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, even outside the context of
redesignations, EPA has viewed the
obligations to submit attainment-related
SIP planning requirements of subpart 4
as inapplicable for areas that EPA
determines are attaining the standard.
EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also
11 As EPA has explained above, we do not believe
that the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision should be
interpreted so as to impose these requirements on
the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman,
supra.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA
provided, among other things, that a
state was ‘‘not required to address VOC
[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment
plan precursor[s] and to evaluate
sources of VOC [and ammonia]
emissions in the State for control
measures.’’ EPA intended these to be
rebuttable presumptions. EPA
established these presumptions at the
time because of uncertainties regarding
the emission inventories for these
pollutants and the effectiveness of
specific control measures in various
regions of the country in reducing PM2.5
concentrations. EPA also left open the
possibility for such regulation of VOC
and ammonia in specific areas where
that was necessary.
The Court, in its January 4, 2013,
decision, made reference to both section
189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated
that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we
need not address the petitioners’
challenge to the presumptions in [40
CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic
compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5
precursors, as subpart 4 expressly
governs precursor presumptions.’’
NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion,
however, the Court observed:
governed by the requirements of subpart
4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They
describe the effects of a determination of
attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See
‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso
Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR
27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso
Junction proposed PM10 redesignation,
(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952,
40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR
63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In
short, EPA in this context, has also long
concluded that to require states to meet
superfluous SIP planning requirements
is not necessary and not required by the
CAA, so long as those areas continue to
attain the relevant NAAQS.
Elsewhere in this notice, EPA
proposes to determine that the area has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Under
its longstanding interpretation, EPA is
proposing to determine here that the
area meets the attainment-related plan
requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude
that the requirements to submit an
attainment demonstration under
189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section
189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are
satisfied for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request.
Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate
matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5
and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is
presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)].
iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5
Precursors
The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA
remanded to EPA the two rules at issue
in the case with instructions to EPA to
re-promulgate them consistent with the
requirements of subpart 4. EPA, in this
section, addresses the Court’s opinion
with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While
past implementation of subpart 4 for
PM10 has allowed for control of PM10
precursors, such as NOX from major
stationary, mobile, and area sources, in
order to attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable, CAA
section 189(e) specifically provides that
control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall
also apply to PM10 precursors from
those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources
of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which
exceed the standard in the area.’’
EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation
rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit,
contained rebuttable presumptions
concerning certain PM2.5 precursors
applicable to attainment plans and
control measures related to those plans.
Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons,
EPA believes that its proposed
redesignation of the Chicago area is
consistent with the Court’s decision on
this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the
Court, citing section 189(e), stated that
‘‘for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4,
a precursor is ‘presumptively
regulated,’’’ the Court expressly
declined to decide the specific
challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule provisions
regarding ammonia and VOC as
precursors. The Court had no occasion
to reach whether and how it was
substantively necessary to regulate any
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5
nonattainment area, and did not address
what might be necessary for purposes of
acting upon a redesignation request.
However, even if EPA takes the view
that the requirements of subpart 4 were
deemed applicable at the time the state
submitted the redesignation request,
and disregards the implementation
rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding
ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors,
the regulatory consequence would be to
consider the need for regulation of all
precursors from any sources in the area
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
to demonstrate attainment and to apply
the section 189(e) provisions to major
stationary sources of precursors. In the
case of the Chicago area, EPA believes
that doing so is consistent with
proposing redesignation of the area for
the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The Chicago
area has attained the 1997 PM2.5
standard without any specific additional
controls of VOC and ammonia
emissions from any sources in the area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are
specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which
requires, with important exceptions,
control requirements for major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors.12
Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior
implementation rule, all major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors
were subject to regulation, with the
exception of major stationary sources of
ammonia and VOC. Thus, we must
address here whether additional
controls of ammonia and VOC from
major stationary sources are required
under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in
order to redesignate the area for the
1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained
below, we do not believe that any
additional controls of ammonia and
VOC are required in the context of this
redesignation.
In the General Preamble, EPA
discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542.
With regard to precursor regulation
under section 189(e), the General
Preamble explicitly stated that control
of VOC under other CAA requirements
may suffice to relieve a state from the
need to adopt precursor controls under
section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA, in
this proposal, proposes to determine
that the SIP has met the provisions of
section 189(e) with respect to ammonia
and VOC as precursors. This proposed
supplemental determination is based on
our findings that: (1) The Chicago area
contains no major stationary sources of
ammonia; and (2) existing major
stationary sources of VOC are
adequately controlled under other
provisions of the CAA regulating the
ozone NAAQS.13 In the alternative, EPA
proposes to determine that, under the
express exception provisions of section
189(e), and in the context of the
12 Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for
purposes of demonstrating attainment as
expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to
evaluate all economically and technologically
feasible control measures for direct PM emissions
and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures
that are deemed reasonably available.
13 The Chicago area has reduced VOC emissions
through the implementation of various control
programs including VOC RACT regulations and
various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control
programs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard, at present ammonia and VOC
precursors from major stationary
sources do not contribute significantly
to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5
standard in this area. See 57 FR 13539–
13542.
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule provisions in 40
CFR 51.1002 were not directed at
evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the
context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to
bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
By contrast, redesignation to attainment
primarily requires the area to have
already attained due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can
continue to maintain the standard.
Thus, even if we regard the Court’s
January 4, 2013, decision as calling for
‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia
and VOC for the control of PM2.5 under
the attainment planning provisions of
subpart 4, those provisions in and of
themselves do not require additional
controls of these precursors for an area
that already qualifies for redesignation.
Nor does EPA believe that requiring
Illinois to address precursors differently
than they have already would result in
a substantively different outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its
consideration here of precursor
requirements under subpart 4 is in the
context of a redesignation to attainment,
EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart
4 requirements with respect to
precursors in attainment plans for PM10
contemplates that states may develop
attainment plans that regulate only
those precursors that are necessary for
purposes of attainment in the area in
question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be
regulated for attainment and control
purposes.14 Courts have upheld this
approach to the requirements of subpart
4 for PM10.15 EPA believes that
application of this approach to PM2.5
precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Chicago area
has already attained the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS with its current approach to
regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA
believes that it is reasonable to
14 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans for California-San Joaquin
Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area
Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual
PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004)
(approving a PM10 attainment plan that imposed
controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did
not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia
emissions).
15 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA
et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48113
conclude, in the context of this
redesignation, that there is no need to
revisit the attainment control strategy
with respect to the treatment of
precursors. Even if the Court’s decision
is construed to impose an obligation, in
evaluating this redesignation request, to
consider additional precursors under
subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s
approval here of Illinois’ request for
redesignation of the Chicago area. In the
context of a redesignation, the area has
shown that it has attained the standard.
Moreover, the state has shown and EPA
has proposed to determine that
attainment in this area is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions on all precursors necessary
to provide for continued attainment. It
follows logically that no further control
of additional precursors is necessary.
Accordingly, EPA does not view the
January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as
precluding redesignation of the Chicago
area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS at this time.
In sum, even if Illinois were required
to address precursors for the Chicago
area under subpart 4 rather than under
subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA’s
remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule, EPA would still conclude that the
area had met all applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
C. Are the air quality improvements in
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN
Area due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions?
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA
requires the state to demonstrate that
the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. EPA finds that Illinois has
demonstrated that the observed PM2.5
air quality improvement in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. In making this
demonstration, Illinois first determined
and documented the change in primary
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area
between 2002 (a standard-violation
year) and 2008 (an attainment year).
Illinois demonstrated that the reduction
in emissions and the corresponding
improvement in air quality over the
intervening period (2002–2008) can be
attributed to a number of regulatory
control measures that have been
implemented in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area and in surrounding
contributing areas in the recent years.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48114
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
1. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
The following is a discussion of the
permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the
Chicago area and in upwind areas.
a. Federal Emission Control Measures
Reductions in PM2.5 precursor
emissions have occurred statewide in
Illinois and in upwind areas as a result
of the following Federal emission
control measures, with additional
emission reductions expected in the
future. Federal emission control
measures include the following.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for
Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards
40 CFR part 86, subpart S. These
emission control requirements result in
lower VOC, NOX, and SO2 emissions
from new cars and light duty trucks,
including sport utility vehicles. The
Federal rules were phased in between
2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated
that, by the end of the phase-in period,
the following vehicle NOX emission
reductions will occur nationwide:
passenger cars (light duty vehicles), 77
percent; light duty trucks, minivans,
and sports utility vehicles, 86 percent;
and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans,
and heavier trucks, 69 to 95 percent.
VOC emission reductions will be
approximately 12 percent for passenger
cars, 18 percent for smaller sports utility
vehicles, light trucks, and minivans, and
15 percent for larger sports utility vans,
and heavier trucks. Some of the
emission reductions resulting from new
vehicle standards occurred during the
2008–2010 attainment period; however,
additional emission reductions will
continue to occur throughout the
maintenance period as new vehicles
replace older vehicles. The Tier 2
standards also reduced the sulfur
content of gasoline to 30 parts per
million (ppm) beginning in January
2006.
ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
EPA issued this rule on January 18,
2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule went into
effect in 2004 and includes standards
limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel.
A second phase took effect in 2007 and
resulted in reduced PM2.5 emissions
from heavy-duty highway diesel engines
and further reduced the highway diesel
fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm. The full
implementation of this rule is estimated
to achieve a 90 percent reduction in
direct PM2.5 emissions (including direct
emissions of sulfates) and a 95 percent
reduction of NOX emissions for new
engines using low sulfur diesel fuel,
compared to existing engines using
higher sulfur content fuel. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
reductions in fuel sulfur content
occurred by the 2008–2010 attainment
period. Some of the emissions
reductions resulting from new vehicle
standards also occurred during the
2008–2010 attainment period; however,
additional emission reductions will
continue to occur throughout the
maintenance period as the fleet of older
heavy-duty diesel engines turns over.
This rule will also lower SO2 emissions
from engines using the low sulfur diesel
fuel, resulting in lower PM2.5
concentrations; however, EPA has not
estimated the level of this emission
reduction and the level of its impact on
PM2.5 concentrations.
iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards
On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA
promulgated a rule to establish emission
standards for large non-road diesel
engines, such as those used in
construction, agriculture, or mining
operations, and to regulate the sulfur
content in non-road diesel fuel. The
engine emission standards in this rule
are to be phased in between 2008 and
2014. This rule reduced the allowable
sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel by
over 99 percent. Prior to 2006, non-road
diesel fuel averaged approximately
3,400 ppm in sulfur content. This rule
limited non-road diesel fuel content to
500 ppm starting in 2007, with a further
reduction to 15 ppm starting in 2010.
The combined engine standards and
fuel sulfur content limits reduce NOX
and PM2.5 emissions (including direct
emissions of sulfates) from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90 percent
compared to pre-control non-road
engines using the higher sulfur content
fuel. This rule achieved all of the
reductions in fuel sulfur content by
2010. Some emission reductions from
the new engine emission standards were
realized over the 2008–2010 period;
although most of the engine emission
reductions will occur during the
maintenance period as the fleet of nonroad diesel engines turns over.
iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines
and Recreational Engine Standards
On November 8, 2002 67 FR 68243),
EPA promulgated emission standards
for groups of previously unregulated
non-road engines. These engines
include large spark-ignition engines,
such as those used in forklifts and
airport ground-service equipment;
recreational vehicles using sparkignition engines, such as off-highway
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and
snowmobiles; and, recreational marine
diesel engines. Emission standards for
large spark-ignition engines were
implemented in two tiers, with Tier I
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
starting in 2004 and Tier 2 starting in
2007. Recreational vehicle emission
standards were phased in from 2004
through 2012. Marine diesel engine
standards were phased in from 2006
through 2009.
With full implementation of all of the
non-road spark-ignition engine and
recreational engine standards, an overall
72 percent reduction in VOC, 80 percent
reduction in NOX, and 56 percent
reduction in carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions are expected by 2020. Some
of these emission reductions occurred
by the 2008–2010 attainment period,
and additional emission reductions will
occur during the maintenance period as
the fleets turn over.
b. Control Measures Statewide in
Illinois and in Upwind Areas
Due to the significance of sulfates and
nitrates as components of PM2.5 in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area,
the PM2.5 air quality in this area is
strongly affected by regulation of SO2
and NOX emissions from power plants
in areas upwind of the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN area. The emission
control regulations impacting the
upwind area include the following.
i. NOX SIP Call
On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356),
EPA issued a NOX SIP call requiring the
District of Columbia and 22 states to
reduce emissions of NOX from Electric
Generating Units (EGUs), large
industrial boilers, and cement kilns.
Affected states were required to comply
with Phase I of the SIP call beginning in
2004, and with Phase II beginning in
2007. NOX emission reductions
resulting from regulations developed in
response to the NOX SIP call are
permanent and enforceable. The state of
Illinois and other nearby upwind states,
including Michigan, Indiana, and
Kentucky were subject to the NOX SIP
call.
ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
EPA proposed CAIR on January 30,
2004, at 69 FR 4566, promulgated CAIR
on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and
promulgated associated Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April
28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, in order to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and
improve air quality in areas across
Eastern United States. However, on July
11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated and
remanded both CAIR and the associated
CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir.
2008). EPA petitioned for a rehearing,
and the D.C. Circuit issued an order
remanding CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
EPA without vacatur. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). The D.C. Circuit, thereby, left
CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily
preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaced it
with a rule consistent with the Court’s
opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed
EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’
consistent with the July 11, 2008
opinion, but declined to impose a
schedule on EPA for completing this
action. Id.
EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR
48208, August 8, 2011) to replace CAIR.
See 76 FR 59517. As noted above, CAIR
requires significant reductions in
emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric
generating units to limit the interstate
transport of these pollutants and the
ozone and fine particulate matter they
form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR
70093.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In
that decision, it also ordered EPA to
continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending
the promulgation of a valid
replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696
F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all
petitions for rehearing on January 24,
2013. EPA and other parties have filed
petitions for certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the
U.S. Supreme Court granted the
petitions for certiorari. Nonetheless,
EPA intends to continue to act in
accordance with the EME Homer City
opinion until the U.S. Supreme Court
issues its decision.
In light of these unique circumstances
and for the reasons explained below, to
the extent that attainment is due to
emission reductions associated with
CAIR, EPA is here proposing to
determine that these emission
reductions are sufficiently permanent
and enforceable for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) (and for
purposes of assessing maintenance of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area,
as discussed below, for CAA section
175A).
c. Consent Decrees
Two petroleum refineries, the CITGO
and Exxon Mobil refineries, have units
subject to Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) requirements for
purposes of achieving reduced haze
levels: The CITGO refinery in Lemont,
Illinois and the Exxon Mobil refinery
south of Joliet, Illinois. Both refineries
will be required to reduce emissions by
a Federal consent decree resolving an
enforcement action brought by EPA
against a number of refineries. The
consent decrees require the CITGO and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Exxon Mobil refineries (and other
refineries in Illinois) to operate controls
at the Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) level. Illinois
evaluated the subject-to-BART units at
the CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries
in the consent decree. It found that the
NOX and SO2 emission limits for these
units satisfy BART.
A consent decree between the United
States and CITGO Petroleum
Corporation was entered in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on October 6, 2004 (No. H–04–
3883). The consent decree requires the
company to operate Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) and a wet scrubbing
system at its Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Unit (FCCU) that will reduce NOX
emissions by more than 90 percent and
SO2 emissions by 85 percent. The
controls on the FCCU are expected to
result in a reduction of NOX emissions
from 1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and SO2
emissions from 10,982.5 to 107.9 TPY
by 2013. CITGO has also added a tail gas
recovery unit that reduces SO2
emissions from its sulfur train units
from 4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent
reduction. The emission controls on all
units at CITGO’s Lemont refinery will
reduce NOX emissions by 1,268 TPY
and SO2 emissions by 15,123 TPY.
A consent decree between the United
States and Exxon Mobil Corporation
was entered in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on
October 11, 2005 (No. O5–C–5809). The
consent decree for Exxon Mobil requires
SCR operation on its FCCU in addition
to maintenance of the existing wet
scrubbing system. The controls on the
FCCU result in a 1,636.2 TPY decrease
in NOX emissions from 1,818.0 to 181.8
TPY and a 9,667.7 TPY decrease in SO2
emissions from 9,865.0 to 197.3 TPY.
Exxon Mobil has also added a tail gas
recovery unit on its south sulfur
recovery unit. That unit reduces SO2
emissions by 9,153.8 TPY to 186.8 TPY.
The emission controls at Exxon Mobil’s
Joliet refinery will reduce NOX
emissions by 1,695 TPY and SO2
emissions by 18,821 TPY.
These two consent decrees are
Federally enforceable and also require
that the refineries submit permit
applications to Illinois to incorporate
the required emission limits into
Federally enforceable air permits (other
than Title V). Therefore, emission limits
established by the consent decrees may
be relied upon by Illinois for addressing
the BART requirement for these
facilities and for crediting toward the
reduction of PM2.5 levels in the Chicago
area and maintenance of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48115
2. Emission Reductions
a. Illinois’ Demonstration That
Significant Emission Reductions Have
Occurred in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN Area and In Upwind
Areas
To demonstrate that significant
emission reductions have resulted in
attainment, Illinois compared the
Chicago area NOX, SO2, and primary
PM2.5 emissions for 2002 with those of
2008. As noted above, the 2008
emissions represent those for a year in
which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL–IN area was attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard (2008 is the
middle year of the 2007–2009 period in
which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL–IN area initially attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard), and 2002
represents a year in which the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area was
violating this standard.
The derivation of the 2002 (base year)
emissions is discussed in more detail
below in section V.F. The derivation of
the 2008 (attainment year) emissions is
discussed in more detail here.
The 2008 emissions were based on
actual source activity levels. The point
source emissions were compiled from
Illinois’ 2008 Annual Emissions Reports
(AERs) submitted to the IEPA by
individual source facilities. Area source
emissions were calculated using the
most recently available emission
calculation methodologies, emission
factors developed by EPA, and activity
data (population, employment, fuel use,
etc.) specific to 2008. On-road mobile
source emissions were calculated using
EPA’s MOVES emissions model with
2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data
provided by the Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT). Off-road mobile
source emissions were calculated using
either EPA’s NONROAD emission
model (for all non-road sources except
commercial marine vessels,
locomotives, and aircraft) or information
supplied by contractors (for marine
vessels, locomotives, and aircraft).
Biogenic emissions were not included
in the emission inventories since these
emissions are assumed to remain
constant over time (biogenic emissions
are not included in the 2002, 2008,
2015, and 2025 emissions summarized
in this proposed rule).
The 2002 and 2008 Chicago area
emissions (covering only the Illinois
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area) are summarized in
tables 3 through 5 below. All emissions
are in units of TPY. All summarized
emissions are documented in Illinois’
August 17, 2011 ‘‘Maintenance Plan for
the Chicago Nonattainment Area for the
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48116
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (Revised).’’
TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2008 NOX EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR
(TPY)
Source sector
2002
2008
Net change
2002–2008
Point Sources ..............................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...............................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................
54,050
32,325
187,632
87,426
35,939
32,318
127,951
51,184
¥18,111
¥7
¥59,681
¥36,242
Total ......................................................................................................................................
361,433
247,391
¥114,042
TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2008 PRIMARY PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA BY SOURCE
SECTOR
(TPY)
Source sector
2002
2008
Net change
2002–2008
Point Sources ..............................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...............................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................
2,757
22,356
6,573
4,834
3,859
9,189
5,100
3,653
1,102
¥13,167
¥1,473
¥1,181
Total ......................................................................................................................................
36,520
21,800
¥14,720
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2008 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR
(TPY)
Source sector
2002
2008
Net change
2002–2008
Point Sources ..............................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...............................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................
121,598
3,290
4,472
3,743
90,706
4,109
537
779
¥30,892
819
¥3,935
¥2964
Total ......................................................................................................................................
133,103
96,130
¥36,973
Tables 3 through 5 show that NOX,
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions in the
Chicago area have decreased
significantly between 2002 and 2008.
In addition to the local PM2.5
precursor emission reductions, we
believe that regional NOX and SO2
emission reductions resulting from the
implementation of EPA’s Acid Rain
Program (ARP) (see 40 CFR parts 72
through 78), NOX SIP call, and CAIR
have significantly contributed to the
PM2.5 air quality improvement in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area.
To assess the change in regional
emissions from states believed to
significantly contribute to annual PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area, we have considered
statewide NOX and SO2 emissions from
EGUs reported for 2002 and 2008 in
EPA’s ARP/CAIR database. To limit the
number of states considered, we have
selected those states with emissions that
have been modeled to have significantly
contributed to elevated PM2.5
concentrations in Cook County, Illinois
(a modeling receptor site considered to
be representative of the regional
transport into the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area. Table 6 summarizes
statewide NOX and SO2 emissions for
EGUs previously summarized in the
proposed rule for the redesignation of
Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard. See 76 FR 59600, 59608–
59609, September 27, 2011.
TABLE 6—STATEWIDE EGU EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2008
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(TPY)
NOX
SO2
State
2002
Illinois .......................................................
Indiana .....................................................
Iowa ..........................................................
Kentucky ..................................................
Michigan ...................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
174,246
281,146
78,956
198,598
132,623
PO 00000
Percent
reduction
2008
Frm 00041
119,930
190,092
49,023
157,903
107,623
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31.2
32.4
37.9
21.4
18.9
2002
2008
353,699
778,868
127,847
482,653
342,998
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
257,357
565,459
109,293
344,356
326,500
Percent
reduction
27.2
27.4
14.5
28.7
4.8
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
48117
TABLE 6—STATEWIDE EGU EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2008—Continued
(TPY)
SO2
NOX
State
2002
Percent
reduction
2008
2002
2008
Percent
reduction
Minnesota .................................................
Ohio ..........................................................
Pennsylvania ............................................
Wisconsin .................................................
86,663
370,497
200,909
88,970
60,230
235,049
183,658
47,794
30.5
36.6
8.6
46.3
101,285
1,132,069
889,765
181,256
71,926
709,914
831,914
129,693
29.0
37.3
6.5
32.1
Total ..................................................
1,612,708
1,151,302
28.6
4,400,440
3,346,412
24.0
As can be seen in table 6, the
implementation of CAIR resulted in
significant reductions in regional,
statewide NOX and SO2 emissions from
EGUs in the states EPA finds are
contributing significantly to the annual
PM2.5 concentrations in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area. Since
CAIR remains in place until EPA can
replace it with an acceptable new
region-wide emissions control rule, we
believe these emission reductions to be
permanent and enforceable.
Based on the information summarized
above, primary PM2.5 and precursor
PM2.5 emissions (SO2 and NOX) have
significantly decreased between 2002
and 2008 in the Chicago area and in
states with EGU emissions significantly
impacting the annual PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago area.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
b. VOC and Ammonia Emission
Reductions
For several reasons, we believe that
VOC emission reductions in the Chicago
area and in upwind states have also
contributed to the observed
improvement in annual PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago area and
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN
area as a whole. In addition, for several
reasons, we also believe that changes in
ammonia emissions have not
significantly impacted the observed
annual PM2.5 concentrations in these
areas.
First, as noted elsewhere in this
proposed rule in EPA’s discussion of
section 189(e) of the CAA, VOC
emissions in the Chicago area have
historically been well-controlled under
SIP requirements related to ozone and
other pollutants.16 Second, total
16 For a thorough discussion of VOC emission
controls and estimates (2002 and 2008) and
projected (2015, 2020, and 2025) VOC emission
levels (summertime emissions) in the Chicago area,
see EPA’s proposed rule for the redesignation of the
Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard (77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012). We
observe here that the estimated/projected
summertime VOC emission reductions in the
Chicago area also generally reflect reductions in
annual emissions of VOC in this area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
ammonia emissions throughout the
Chicago area are very low, estimated to
be 9,885.71 TPY in 2002. See table 12
below. This amount of ammonia
emissions appears especially small in
comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and even direct PM2.5 emissions in
the area in 2002. Third, as described
below, available information shows that
no PM2.5 precursor, including VOC and
ammonia, is expected to increase over
the maintenance period so as to
interfere with or undermine the state’s
maintenance demonstration.
c. Conclusions Regarding Emission
Reductions Between 2002 and 2005 in
the Chicago Area
In summary, emissions data provided
by the state support the conclusion that
significant reductions in the emissions
of SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, and VOC
occurred in the Chicago area between
2002 and 2008. During the same period,
emissions of ammonia are believed to
have had minimal impact on PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago area. We
believe that the emission reductions of
the significant PM2.5 precursors and
primary PM2.5 in the Chicago area and
in upwind states are responsible for the
observed improvement in annual PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area. For the reasons set
forth above, we conclude that the
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard in the Chicago area can be
explained on the basis of permanent and
enforceable emission reductions within
the Chicago area and in the states
regulated by CAIR.
D. Does Illinois have a fully approvable
PM2.5 maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA for the Chicago
area?
In conjunction with Illinois’ request
to redesignate the Chicago area to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard, IEPA submitted a SIP revision
to provide for maintenance of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area through
2025. This maintenance plan
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
demonstrates that emissions in the
Chicago area will remain at or below the
attainment levels throughout the
maintenance period and provides for
corrective action should the 1997
annual standard be violated or
threatened in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area during the
maintenance period. The following
summarizes the details of the
maintenance plan and maintenance
demonstration.
1. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A of
the CAA require that states demonstrate
that the areas to be redesignated will
continue to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS for
at least 10 years after EPA approves the
redesignations of the areas to attainment
of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the
CAA sets forth the required elements of
a maintenance plan. Under section
175A, a state must also commit to
submit a revised maintenance plan
within eight years of redesignation to
provide for maintenance of the standard
for an additional 10 years after the
initial 10-year maintenance period. To
address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a
schedule for implementation, as EPA
deems necessary, to assure prompt
correction of any future violations of the
standard.
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The memorandum
states that a maintenance plan should
address the following items: (1) The
attainment emission inventories; (2) a
maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance of the standard for the 10
years of the maintenance period; (3) a
commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network; (4) the factors and
procedures to be used for verification of
continued attainment of the standard;
and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations of the standard.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48118
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
2. Attainment Inventory
As noted above, IEPA developed NOX,
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emission
inventories for 2008, one of the years
used to demonstrate monitored
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard. The 2008 emissions are
summarized in tables 3 through 5 above.
3. Demonstration of Maintenance
Along with the redesignation request,
IEPA submitted a maintenance plan
dated August 17, 2011, which includes
a demonstration of maintenance for the
Chicago area, as required by section
175A of the CAA. This demonstration
shows maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard through 2025 by
showing that current and future
emissions of NOX, SO2, and primary
PM2.5 emissions for the Chicago area
will remain at or below attainment year
emission levels. A maintenance
demonstration may be based on such an
emissions inventory approach. See Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–
53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413,
25430–25432 (May 12, 2003).
Illinois used emission projections for
2015, 2020, and 2025 to demonstrate
maintenance. For each of the applicable
PM2.5 precursors (pollutants), IEPA
prepared emission estimates for the
same source sectors used by IEPA for
the 2008 attainment year. IEPA assumed
biogenic emissions to remain constant,
and did not consider them in the
maintenance demonstration analysis.
IEPA used EPA’s MOVES mobile
source model and projected traffic levels
and other related mobile source factors
to estimate on-road mobile source
emissions for the maintenance
demonstration years. The projected onroad mobile source emissions assume
the continued use of reformulated
gasoline, the continued phase-in of the
Tier 2 motor vehicle emission
standards, and the operation of an
enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance program in the Chicago
area. Total VMT for 2015, 2020, and
2025 were derived by assuming that the
VMT will increase at a rate of 1.5
percent per year after 2008. The 2008
and 2025 on-road mobile source
emissions were used to establish MVEBs
for the Chicago area. See the additional
discussion of the MVEBs in section V.E
of this proposed rule.
Chicago area point and area source
emissions for 2015, 2020, and 2025 were
estimated using the 2008 attainment
year emissions and growth factors
appropriate for each source category.
Off-road emission projections were
developed using the growth factors
contained in EPA’s NONROAD model.
Tables 7 through 9 summarize the
projected NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5
emissions for 2008, 2015, 2020, and
2025 by source sector.
TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 NOX EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE CHICAGO
AREA
Source sector
2008
2015
2020
2025
Net change
2008–2025
Point Sources .......................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...................................................................
35,939
32,318
127,951
51,184
27,082
32,997
68,491
35,927
28,500
33,277
40,599
28,271
29,638
33,687
38,456
27,173
¥6,301
1,369
¥89,495
¥24,011
Totals ............................................................................
247,391
164,497
130,648
128,954
¥118,437
TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 SO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE CHICAGO
AREA
Source sector
2008
2015
2020
2025
Net change
2008–2025
Point Sources .......................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...................................................................
90,706
4,109
537
779
58,092
4,266
504
866
53,452
4,332
477
919
56,310
4,407
488
1,215
¥34,396
298
¥49
436
Totals ............................................................................
96,130
63,727
59,180
62,420
¥33,710
TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 PRIMARY PM2.5 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR
THE CHICAGO AREA
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Source sector
2008
2015
2020
2025
Net change
2008–2025
Point Sources .......................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...................................................................
3,859
9,189
5,100
3,653
4,169
9,676
3,071
2,995
4,391
10,009
2,119
2,398
4,604
10,377
2,067
2,267
745
1,188
¥3,033
¥1,386
Totals ............................................................................
21,800
19,911
18,918
19,316
¥2,484
Comparison of the 2008 and projected
2015, 2020, and 2025 emissions
demonstrates that future NOX, SO2, and
primary PM2.5 emissions through 2025
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
will remain below the 2008 levels in the
Chicago area.
In a September 27, 2011 proposed
rulemaking (76 FR 59600, 59610) for the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
redesignation of Lake and Porter
Counties, Indiana (the Indiana portion
of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN
area) to attainment of the 1997 annual
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48119
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5 standard, we also evaluated the
2008, 2015, 2020, and 2025 emissions
for the entire Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area. Table 10 repeats the
summary of the area’s emission totals as
documented in the September 27, 2011
proposed rule.
TABLE 10—CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, IL–IN AREA 2008 AND PROJECTED EMISSION TOTALS
[TPY]
NOX
Year
2008
2015
2020
2025
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
Tables 7 through 10 show that
emissions will remain at or below 2008
emission levels in the Chicago area and
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN
area through 2025. Therefore, the state
has demonstrated maintenance of the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard for a period
extending ten years and beyond from
the time EPA may be expected to
complete rulemaking on the state’s
PM2.5 redesignation request.
4. Monitoring Network
Illinois commits to continue
monitoring PM2.5 levels according to the
EPA-approved monitoring plan, as
required to ensure maintenance of the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. If changes
are needed in the PM2.5 monitoring
network, the IEPA will work with the
EPA to ensure the adequacy of the
monitoring network.
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in the Chicago
area and in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area depends, in part, on
the state’s efforts toward tracking
indicators of continued attainment
during the maintenance period. Illinois’
plan for verifying continued attainment
of the standard in these areas consists of
continued ambient PM2.5 monitoring in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 58 and continued tracking of
emissions through periodic updates of
PM2.5, SO2 and NOX emissions
inventories for the Chicago area, as
required by the Federal Consolidated
Emission Reporting Rule (codified at 40
CFR 51 subpart A).
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
6. Contingency Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include such
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the state will
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that might occur after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
SO2
278,649.74
187,557.31
156,231.26
149,198.79
152,367.68
107,285.55
98,829.89
99,453.24
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were controlled through the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, Illinois has adopted a contingency
plan for the Chicago area to address
possible future violations of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard. The contingency
plan provides for two levels of action.
A Level I response would be triggered
whenever: (1) The highest monitored
PM2.5 concentration in any year at any
monitoring station in the Chicago
maintenance area exceeds 15 mg/m3; or
(2) the Chicago maintenance area’s total
PM2.5, SO2 or NOX emissions increase
more than 5 percent above the 2008
emissions. A Level I trigger will result
in an evaluation of current PM2.5 air
quality and/or emission trends to
determine if adverse emission trends are
likely to continue. If so, Illinois will
determine what and where controls may
be required, as well as level of
emissions reductions needed, to avoid a
violation of the NAAQS. The study will
be completed within 9 months. If
necessary, control measures will be
adopted within 18 months of
determination of the Level I triggering
and implemented as expeditiously as
practicable, taking into consideration
the ease of implementation and the
technical and economic feasibility of the
selected measures.
A Level II response will be triggered
if a violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard occurs at any monitoring
station in the Chicago maintenance area.
If triggered, Illinois will conduct an
analysis to determine appropriate
measures to address the cause of the
violation. Analysis will be completed
within six months. Selected control
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Primary PM2.5
32,069.68
25,128.65
24,729.26
25,074.10
measures will be implemented within
18 months of the violation. Potential
control measures contained in Illinois’
contingency plan include the following:
• Illinois’ Multi-Pollutant Program for
EGUs
• NOX RACT
• Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
• Broader geographic applicability of
existing control measures
• Tier 2 vehicle standards and low
sulfur fuel standard
• Heavy duty diesel standards and low
sulfur diesel fuel standard
• High-enhanced vehicle inspection/
maintenance (On-board Diagnostics II
(OBDII))
• Federal railroad/locomotive standards
• Federal commercial marine vessel
engine standards
• Architectural/Industrial Maintenance
(AIM) coatings
• Commercial and consumer products
rules
• Aerosol coating rules, and
• Portable fuel container rules.
Note that some of these rules are Federal
rules and are already being
implemented. If a future violation of the
1997 annual PM2.5 occurs, IEPA will
analyze the future emission reduction
potential from these rules to determine
if these future emission reductions will
be sufficient to mitigate the PM2.5 air
quality problem.
EPA believes that Illinois’
contingency plan satisfies the pertinent
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA.
7. Provision for Future Update of the
Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, Illinois commits to submit to EPA
an updated maintenance plan eight
years after EPA redesignates the Chicago
area to attainment of the 1997 annual
standard. The revised maintenance plan
is intended to cover an additional 10year period beyond the initial 10-year
maintenance period. As required by
section 175A of the CAA, Illinois has
also committed to retain and implement
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48120
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the emission control measures
contained in the maintenance plan. If
changes are needed in the control
measures, Illinois commits to submit
these changes to EPA as requested SIP
revisions and to demonstrate that these
emission control measure revisions will
not interfere with the maintenance of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area.
Finally, the state affirms that Illinois
has the legal authority to implement and
enforce the requirements of the
maintenance plan pursuant to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
8. CAIR and CSAPR
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
a. Background—Effect of the August 21,
2012, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
EPA’s CSAPR
EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76
FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace
CAIR, which has been in place since
2005. See 76 FR 59517. CAIR requires
significant reductions in emissions of
SO2 and NOX from EGUs to limit the
interstate transport of these pollutants
and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in
the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The
D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR,
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded that rule to EPA without
vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
CSAPR included regulatory changes
to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and
CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012
and beyond. See 76 FR 48322. Although
the Chicago area redesignation request
and Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance plan
rely on emission reductions associated
with CAIR, EPA is proposing to approve
the redesignation request and PM2.5
maintenance plan based, in part, on the
fact that CAIR is to remain in place until
it is replaced by an acceptable interstate
transport control rule.
On December 30, 2011, the D.C.
Circuit issued an order addressing the
status of CSAPR and CAIR in response
to motions filed by numerous parties
seeking a stay of CSAPR pending
judicial review. In that order, the Court
stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the
petitions for review of that rule in EME
Homer City (No. 11–1302 and
consolidated cases). The Court also
indicated that EPA was expected to
continue to administer CAIR in the
interim until judicial review of CSAPR
was completed.
As discussed above, on August 21,
2012, the D.C. Circuit issued the
decision in EME Homer City to vacate
and remand CSAPR and ordered EPA to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
continue administrating CAIR ‘‘pending
. . . development of a valid
replacement.’’ EME Homer City at 38.
The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and
other parties have filed petitions for
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On
June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted the petitions for certiorari.
Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to
act in accordance with the EME Homer
City opinion until the U.S Supreme
Court issues its decision.
In light of these unique circumstances
and for the reasons explained below, to
the extent that attainment and
maintenance is due to emission
reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is
here determining that those reductions
are sufficiently permanent and
enforceable for purposes of CAA
sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A.
As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR
remains in place and enforceable until
EPA promulgates a valid replacement
rule to substitute for CAIR. As noted
above, the Chicago area PM2.5
redesignation request and maintenance
plan relies on the emission reductions
from CAIR. Illinois adopted CAIR
emission control rules in 2007 and
required compliance with these rules in
two phases, one with compliance
required by 2009, and the final phase
with compliance required by 2015.
CAIR was, thus, in place and getting
emission reductions when the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area was
monitoring attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard during the 2008–
2011 period.
To the extent that Illinois is relying on
CAIR in its maintenance plan to support
continued attainment into the future,
the recent directive from the D.C.
Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that
the emission reductions associated with
CAIR will be permanent and enforceable
for the necessary time period. EPA has
been ordered by the Court to develop a
new rule to address interstate transport
to replace CSAPR and the opinion
makes clear that after promulgating that
new rule EPA must provide states an
opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to
implement that rule. Thus, CAIR will
remain in place until EPA has
promulgated a final rule through a
notice-and- comment rulemaking
process, states have had an opportunity
to draft and submit SIPs in response to
it, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to
determine if they can be approved, and
EPA has taken action on the SIPs,
including promulgating FIPs if
appropriate. The Court’s clear
instruction to EPA is that it must
continue to administer CAIR until a
valid replacement exists, and thus EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
believes that CAIR emission reductions
many be relied upon until the necessary
actions are taken by EPA and states to
administer CAIR’s replacement.
Furthermore, the Court’s instruction
provides an additional backstop: by
definition, any rule that replaces CAIR
and meets the Court’s direction would
require upwind states to have SIPs that
eliminate any significant contributions
to downwind nonattainment and
prevent interference with maintenance
in downwind areas.
Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and
requiring EPA to continue administering
CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that
the consequences of vacating CAIR
‘‘might be more severe now in light of
the reliance interests accumulated over
the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated
reliance interests include the interests of
states that reasonably assumed they
could rely on reductions associated with
CAIR which brought certain
nonattainment areas into attainment
with the NAAQS. If EPA were
prevented from relying on reductions
associated with CAIR in redesignation
actions, states would be forced to
impose additional, redundant
reductions on top of those achieved by
CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the
type of irrational result the Court sought
to avoid by ordering EPA to continue
administering CAIR. For these reasons
also, EPA believes it is appropriate to
allow states to rely on CAIR, and the
existing emissions reductions achieved
by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and
enforceable for regulatory purposes,
such as redesignations. Following
promulgation of the replacement rule
for CSAPR, EPA will review existing
SIPs as appropriate to identify whether
there are any issues that need to be
addressed.
b. Maintenance Plan Precursor
Evaluation Resulting From Court
Decisions
In this proposal EPA is also
considering the impact of the D.C.
Circuit Court’s decision in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), on the
maintenance plan required under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the
CAA. EPA believes that the only
additional consideration related to the
maintenance plan requirements that
results from the D.C. Circuit Court’s
decision is that of assessing the
potential role of VOC and ammonia in
demonstrating continued maintenance
in this area. Based on documentation
provided by the state and supporting
information, EPA believes that the
maintenance plan for the Chicago area
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
need not include any additional
emission reductions of VOC or ammonia
in order to provide for continued
maintenance of the standard.
Emissions inventories used in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA–
452/R–12–005, December 2012) for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC and
ammonia emissions in the Chicago area
are projected to decrease by 59,126 TPY
and 583 TPY, respectively between 2007
and 2020. See table 11 below. While the
RIA emissions inventories are only
projected out to 2020, there is no reason
to believe that these downward trends
would not continue through 2025.
Given that the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area is already attaining
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, even
with the current levels of VOC and
ammonia emissions in the Chicago area,
the downward trends in VOC and
ammonia would be consistent with
continued attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard. Even if ammonia
emissions were to increase
48121
unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025,
the overall emission reductions
projected in SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5,
and VOC would be sufficient to offset
the increase in annual PM2.5
concentrations resulting from the
increase in ammonia emissions. For
these reasons, EPA believes that local
ammonia (and VOC) emissions will not
increase to the extent that they will
cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard during
the maintenance period.
TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR
THE CHICAGO AREA BASED ON RIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
VOC
Ammonia
Source sector
2007
Fires .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Point .........................................................
Totals ................................................
442
109,052
46,784
53,688
16,101
226,067
E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable
MVEBs for the PM2.5 maintenance
period?
1. How are MVEBs developed and what
are the MVEBs for the Chicago area?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA,
transportation plans and Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be
evaluated for conformity with SIPs.
Consequently, Illinois’s PM2.5
Net change
2007–2020
2020
442
107,202
25,007
19,133
15,157
166,941
2007
0
¥1,850
¥21,777
¥34,555
¥944
¥59,126
redesignation request and maintenance
plan provide MVEBs, conformance with
which will assure that motor vehicle
emissions are at or below levels that can
be expected to provide for attainment
and maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard. Illinois’ redesignation
request includes mobile source emission
budgets for NOX and primary PM2.5 for
2008 and 2025. Table 12 shows the 2008
and 2025 MVEBs and 2025 ‘‘safety
2020
31
8,865
58
2,525
332
11,811
31
9,135
71
1,363
628
11,228
Net change
2007–2020
0
270
13
¥1,162
296
¥583
margins’’ (see discussion below) for the
Chicago area. Table 12 also shows the
estimated 2008 and 2025 mobile source
emissions for the Chicago area. Illinois
did not provide MVEBs for SO2 because
it concluded, consistent with EPA’s
presumptions regarding this PM2.5
precursor, that emissions of this
pollutant from motor vehicles are not
significant contributors to the Chicago
area’s PM2.5 air quality problem.
TABLE 12—2008 AND 2025 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA
[TPY]
Estimated emissions
Year
Primary
PM2.5
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
2008 .........................................................
2025 .........................................................
5,100
2,067
Table 12 shows substantial decreases
in on-road mobile source NOX and
primary PM2.5 emissions from 2008 to
2025. These emission reductions are
expected because newer vehicles subject
to more stringent emission standards are
continually replacing older, higher
emitting vehicles. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2008 and 2025 MVEBs for
the Chicago area into the SIP because,
based on our review of the submitted
PM2.5 maintenance plan, we have
determined that the maintenance plan
and MVEBs meet EPA’s criteria found in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) for determining that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Safety margin
Primary
PM2.5
NOX
127,951
38,456
2. What are safety margins?
As noted in table 12, Illinois has
included safety margins in the 2025
MVEBs. A safety margin is the amount
by which the total projected emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Primary
PM2.5
NOX
—
310
MVEBs are adequate for use in
transportation conformity
determinations and are approvable
because, when considered together with
the submitted maintenance plan’s
projected emissions, they provide for
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL–IN area.
Motor vehicle emission
budgets
—
5,768
5,100
2,377
NOX
127,951
44,224
from all sources of a given pollutant are
less than the total emissions which
would satisfy the applicable
requirement for reasonable further
progress, attainment, or maintenance or
a portion thereof (40 CFR 93.124(a)).
The safety margins selected by IEPA
would provide for a 15 percent increase
in mobile source emissions for 2025
above projected levels of these
emissions. These safety margins are
acceptable under EPA’s transportation
conformity requirements because they
would not cause the total emissions in
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
48122
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the Chicago area to exceed the
attainment year levels.
F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related
emissions inventories for the Chicago
area approvable under section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA?
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
states to submit a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of
emissions for nonattainment areas. For
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, states have
typically submitted primary PM2.5, SO2,
and NOX emission inventories covering
one of the years of the three-year period
used to determine the nonattainment
status of an area. For the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard, the annual PM2.5
concentrations for the years of 2001–
2003 were used to establish the
nonattainment status of areas. Illinois
chose to submit PM2.5 emissions for
2002 for purposes of meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. Illinois documented these
emissions and submitted this
documentation to EPA in June 2006.
1. EPA’s Base Year Emissions Inventory
SIP Policy
EPA’s SIP policy for base year
emissions inventories for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard is specified in
three policy statements. EPA’s main SIP
requirements for a base year PM2.5related emissions inventory are
specified in section II.K of EPA’s April
25, 2007 implementation rule for the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard (72 FR
20586, 20647). This rule requires the
base year emissions inventory to be
approved by the EPA as a SIP element
(72 FR 20647), and requires the
emissions inventory to cover the
emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia,
and primary PM2.5 (72 FR 20648). The
coverage of PM2.5 precursor emissions
and emissions of primary PM2.5
(primary PM2.5 is also a precursor for
secondary PM2.5 formation through
atmospheric reactions) is required under
40 CFR part 51 subpart A and 40 CFR
51.1008 (72 FR 20648). Detailed
emissions inventory guidance for PM2.5
(and other pollutants) is contained in
EPA’s ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations’’ (August
2005, EPA–454/R–05–001). Finally, a
November 18, 2002 policy
memorandum titled ‘‘2002 Base Year
Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze
Programs’’ recommends that the PM2.5based emissions inventory be developed
for a base year of 2002. It is noted that
IEPA has generally followed all of these
guidelines in the development of the
base year emissions inventory for the
PM2.5 SIP.
2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related
Emission Inventories for the Chicago
Area
Illinois documented the 2002 primary
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and
CO emissions in a June 2006 document
titled ‘‘Illinois Base Year Particulate
Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002.’’
This document covers emissions for the
entire state of Illinois, and summarizes
the emissions by source type and major
source category for the PM2.5
nonattainment areas of Chicago and
Metro-East St. Louis.
Emissions data for point, area, onroad mobile, off-road mobile, and
biogenic emission sources were
developed for the 2002 emissions
inventories by the IEPA. The primary
sources of data for point sources were
AERs submitted by individual source
facilities and source permit files. The
June 2006 emissions document covers
in detail the derivation of emissions for
each source type identified as a point
source. Table 3–1 (page 34) of Illinois’
June 2006 document includes the point
source emission totals by county for
each of the PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
The Chicago area point source emission
totals are summarized in table 13 below.
Area source emissions were generally
derived by multiplying source categoryspecific emission factors by certain
indicator levels of source activity
(source surrogates), such as county
populations, employment estimates, and
commodity sales estimates. The
emission estimation techniques for each
source category are thoroughly
documented in the June 2006 document.
The June 2006 document estimates the
county-specific emissions by pollutant
and by source type.
As discussed above, IEPA used EPA’s
NONROAD model to estimate 2002 offroad mobile source emissions for all
non-road mobile source types except: (1)
Railroad locomotives; (2) aircraft
operations (including aircraft auxiliary
power units, landings, takeoffs, and
other aircraft operating modes); and, (3)
commercial marine vessels. For the
three source types not covered by
NONROAD modeling, Illinois obtained
source activity data and emissions from
the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium, who contracted with
several consultants to derive emissions
specific to the Chicago, Metro-East St.
Louis and remaining areas in the state
of Illinois.
IEPA used emission factors generated
from EPA’s MOBILE6 computer model
and VMT and vehicle speeds by
roadway facility type (or functional
class), freeway, arterial, etc., supplied
by the local planning agency (Chicago
Area Transportation Study and IDOT for
the Chicago area) to estimate 2002 onroad mobile source emissions. IEPA also
used vehicle age and type distribution
data supplied by IDOT. The vehicle
activity information was derived for
each county to allow the determination
of emissions by county. IEPA summed
up VMT and vehicle emissions for each
month of 2002 to determine annual onroad mobile source emissions by
county. All MOBILE6 inputs and VMT
levels were thoroughly documented. In
addition to on-road emissions, IEPA
also calculated stage II refueling
(refueling of vehicles) emissions for the
Chicago area.
Table 13 (taken from Table B–1 in
Appendix B of IEPA’s June 2006
document shows the 2002 primary
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions
totals by major source category for the
Chicago area.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
TABLE 13—2002 FINE PARTICULATE AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA (TPY) DOCUMENTED IN
ILLINOIS’ JUNE 2006 PM2.5 EMISSIONS DOCUMENTATION
Soure type
Ammonia
Point Sources .......................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................
Off-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................
Totals ............................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
NOX
143.70
3,708.77
5,986.95
46.29
9,885.71
Fmt 4702
54,049.62
32,302.14
167,619.73
87,426.24
341,397.73
Sfmt 4702
Primary PM2.5
2,766.61
22,356.04
3,070.58
4,834.30
33,027.53
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
SO2
121,597.92
3,290.25
3,850.04
3,742.62
132,480.83
VOC
21,190.70
89,090.21
59,599.97
53,272.30
223,153.18
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
After IEPA compiled the June 2006
document, IEPA revised the 2002 onroad mobile source emissions using
EPA’s MOVES mobile source emissions
model. The derivation of the 2008 onroad mobile source emissions using
MOVES is documented in the August
17, 2011, draft of IEPA’s maintenance
plan for the Chicago area. In this same
document, IEPA indicates that the 2002
base year on-road mobile source
emissions were recalculated using the
same techniques. The 2002 emissions
(including the MOVES-based on-road
mobile source emissions) for the
Chicago area are summarized in tables
3, 4, and 5 above.
We find that the state has thoroughly
documented the 2002 emissions for
primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the Chicago area. We also find that
Illinois has used acceptable techniques
and supporting information to derive
these emissions. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 base
year emissions inventory for the
Chicago area for purposes of meeting the
emission inventory requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
VI. 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
merely propose to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and do
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law and
the CAA. For that reason, these
proposed 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions 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 proposed rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because a
determination of attainment is an action
that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on tribes,
impact any existing sources of air
pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the
maintenance of ozone national ambient
air quality standards in tribal lands.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013–18948 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48123
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 42
[FAR Case 2012–028; Docket 2012–0028;
Sequence 1]
RIN 9000–AM40
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Contractor Comment Period, Past
Performance Evaluations
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement provisions of law limiting
the periods allowed for contractor
comments on past performance
evaluations and making past
performance evaluations available to
source selection officials sooner.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat at one of the addressees
shown below on or before October 7,
2013 to be considered in the formation
of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to FAR Case 2012–028 by any
of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2012–028’’.
Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’
that corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2012–
028’’. Follow the instructions provided
at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen.
Please include your name, company
name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2012–
028’’ on your attached document.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F
Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20405–0001.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FAR Case 2012–028, in all
correspondence related to this case. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48103-48123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18948]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0899; FRL-9842-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Redesignation of the Chicago Area to Attainment of the 1997
Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request submitted by the state of
Illinois on October 15, 2010, and supplemented on September 16, 2011,
and May 6, 2013. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
requested EPA to redesignate the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-
Lake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL-IN) nonattainment area to attainment
of the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and requested EPA
approval of Illinois' PM2.5 maintenance plan and
PM2.5-related emission inventories for this area as
revisions of the Illinois SIP. The Illinois portion (Chicago area) of
this nonattainment area is: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will
Counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and
Oswego Township in Kendall County. EPA is proposing to grant the
state's redesignation request and to approve the requested Illinois SIP
revisions, including the state's plan for maintaining attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area through 2025. EPA is
also proposing to approve Illinois' 2008 and 2025 Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for the Chicago area. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve
Illinois' 2002 NOX, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2),
Volatile Organic Compound, ammonia, and primary PM2.5
emission inventories for this area. In the context of this proposal to
redesignate the Chicago area, EPA addresses a number of additional
issues, including the effects of two decisions of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court):
The Court's August 21, 2012, decision to vacate and remand to EPA the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); and the Court's January 4,
2013, decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0899, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
EMail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 408-2279.
Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning
and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0899. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
[[Page 48104]]
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects and viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. 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 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 (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, or
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:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?
A. Has the area achieved attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard?
B. Has the Chicago area and the State of Illinois met all
applicable requirements of section 110 and part D of the Clean Air
Act, and does the Chicago area have a fully approved SIP under
section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act for purposes of redesignation to
attainment?
1. Illinois Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of
Redesignation of the Chicago Area Under Section 110 and Part D of
the Clean Air Act
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
b. Part D Requirements
2. The Chicago Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
3. Nonattainment Requirements
4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision
Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the CAA
a. Background
b. Proposal on This Issue
i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the
Redesignation Request
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Illinois' Redesignation Request
iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
C. Are the air quality improvements in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions?
1. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
a. Federal Emission Control Measures
i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards
ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards
iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine
Standards
b. Control Measures Statewide in Illinois and in Upwind Areas
i. NOX SIP Call
ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
c. Consent Decrees
2. Emission Reductions
a. Illinois' Demonstration That Significant Emission Reductions
Have Occurred in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Area and in
Upwind Areas
b. VOC and Ammonia Emission Reductions
c. Conclusions Regarding Emission Reductions Between 2002 and
2005 in the Chicago Area
D. Does Illinois have a fully approvable PM2.5
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA for the Chicago
area?
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
2. Attainment Inventory
3. Demonstration of Maintenance
4. Monitoring Network
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
6. Contingency Plan
7. Provision for Future Update of the Annual PM2.5
Maintenance Plan
8. CAIR and CSAPR
a. Background--Effect of the August 21, 2012, D.C. Circuit
Decision Regarding EPA's CSAPR
b. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation Resulting From Court
Decisions
E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable MVEBs for the
PM2.5 maintenance period?
1. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the
Chicago area?
2. What are safety margins?
F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related emissions
inventories for the Chicago area approvable under section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA?
1. EPA's Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Policy
2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission Inventories
for the Chicago Area
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the proposed rule.
II. What actions is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to take several actions related to the
redesignation of the Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that the Chicago-
Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality assured, certified 2007-2012
air quality data. EPA is proposing to grant the redesignation of the
Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA proposes to find that Illinois' PM2.5 maintenance
plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and is proposing to approve Illinois' PM2.5 maintenance plan
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago area as a
revision to the Illinois SIP. The PM2.5 maintenance plan
provides for the maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area through 2025. The state of
Illinois has committed to revising this maintenance plan to cover an
additional 10 years within eight years after EPA approves the
redesignation of the Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve Illinois' 2008 and 2025 primary
PM2.5 (fine
[[Page 48105]]
particulates directly emitted by on-road motor vehicles) and
NOX MVEBs for the Chicago area. In addition, EPA is
proposing to find these MVEBs as adequate for purposes of
transportation and general conformity demonstrations and
determinations.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve Illinois' 2002 primary
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC), and ammonia emission inventories for the Chicago area
as satisfying the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a
current, accurate, and comprehensive emission inventory.
III. What is the background for these actions?
Fine particulate pollution can be emitted directly from a source
(primary PM2.5) or formed secondarily through chemical
reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants \1\ emitted
from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary fine
particulates formed from reactions involving SO2 emissions
from power plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common
type of secondary particulate, are formed from combustion emissions of
NOX (primarily Nitrogen Oxide (NO) and Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)) from power plants, mobile sources, and other
combustion sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Generally NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia
(NH3), and primary PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for
PM2.5 on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. In this rulemaking,
EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) of ambient air, based on a three-year
average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at each
monitoring site (the site's PM2.5 design value for the
annual standard). In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\, based on a
three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site.
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air
quality data for calendar years 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA
designated the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area as nonattainment
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This area includes the
Chicago area in Illinois and Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana.
On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]g/m\3\ (2006 annual
PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour PM2.5
standard to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, based again on the three-year average of
the annual 98th percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations. In response to legal challenges of the 2006 annual
PM2.5 standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded this standard to EPA for
further consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National
Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Since the Chicago area is designated as nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard, today's proposed action addresses
redesignation of this area only for the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard.
On November 27, 2009, EPA made a final determination that the
Chicago area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (76
FR 62243). This determination of attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard was based on quality-assured annual-averaged
PM2.5 concentrations for PM2.5 monitoring sites
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area for the period of 2006-
2008. Based on our review of complete, quality-assured, and state-
certified ambient PM2.5 monitoring data from 2009-2012 in
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area, we are proposing to determine
that the Chicago area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
On October 15, 2010, IEPA submitted a request to EPA for the
redesignation of the Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and for EPA approval of a SIP revision
containing emission inventories and a maintenance plan for the area.
The maintenance plan also includes 2008 and 2025 MVEBs for the Chicago
area. In a supplemental submission to EPA on September 16, 2011, the
IEPA revised the on-road mobile source emissions and MVEBs in the
original submittal to reflect the use of EPA's MOVES model to calculate
mobile source emissions. In a supplemental submission to EPA on May 6,
2013, the IEPA submitted VOC and ammonia emission inventories to
supplement the emission inventories that had previously been submitted
to explain the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area and to demonstrate future
maintenance of the PM2.5 standard in this area.
In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account two recent
decisions of the D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two Court decisions,
the D.C. Circuit, on August 21, 2012, issued EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and remanded
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and ordered EPA to continue
administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ``pending . . .
development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38. The D.C.
Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013.\2\ In
the second decision, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ``Implementation of the New Source Rule (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final
rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On March 29, 2013, EPA and other parties filed petitions in
the Supreme Court seeking certiorari of the D.C. Circuit's decision
in EME Homer City. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court consolidated
the petitions and granted certiorari. The Supreme Court's decision
to grant the petition is not a decision on the merits but instead a
decision to review the case on its merits. As such, it does not
alter the current status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR
remains in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment of a NAAQS. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has
fully approved an applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of
the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions
resulting from the implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air
pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA; and, (5) the state containing the area has met all
requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's request?
A. Has the area achieved attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard?
In a final rulemaking dated November 27, 2009, at 76 FR 62243, EPA
determined that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area had attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This determination was based
on complete, quality-assured monitoring data in this area for the
calendar years of 2006-2008.
In its September 16, 2011, redesignation request, Illinois presents
[[Page 48106]]
quality-assured, state-certified PM2.5 data for the period
of 2007-2009. These data show that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard through 2009.
We have also obtained quality-assured and state-certified data for
the states of Illinois and Indiana for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Data
recorded in EPA's AQS show that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
area initially attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
beginning in 2005-2007, and this area has continued to attain this
standard through 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Preliminary data for 2012 show that the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard through 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 provides a summary of the PM2.5 annual air
quality data for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area for the
period of 2007-2012. These data have been quality-assured and certified
by the states of Illinois and Indiana.
Table 1--PM2.5 Annual Average Concentrations for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
(In [mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Monitoring site 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Monitoring Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook.......................... Blue Island............. 14.3 12.5 11.7 11.6 11.6 10.9
Cook.......................... Chicago--Commonwealth 14.3 11.9 11.1 12.3 11.3 11.3
Edison.
Cook.......................... Chicago--Springfield.... 15.2 12.0 11.3 12.0 (2) 11.5 (2) 11.9
Cook.......................... Chicago--Mayfair........ 15.5 12.2 12.7 12.6 11.8 11.6
Cook.......................... Chicago--SE Police...... 14.1 11.8 11.0 12.5 N/A N/A
Cook.......................... Chicago--Washington..... 15.7 12.5 11.6 14.0 12.6 11.5
Cook.......................... Cicero.................. 14.8 13.3 (2) 12.8 (2) 11.9 11.4 10.4
Cook.......................... Des Plaines............. 12.7 11.4 11.0 10.6 10.6 10.9
Cook.......................... McCook (1).............. 15.6 12.9 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6
Cook.......................... Northbrook.............. 13.2 10.1 9.3 9.3 10.2 10.2
Cook.......................... Schiller Park (1)....... 15.4 13.6 (2) 12.9 12.6 13.3 13.1
Cook.......................... Summit.................. 14.8 12.0 11.6 12.2 11.0 11.3
DuPage........................ Naperville.............. 13.8 11.3 9.8 11.7 10.5 10.1
Kane.......................... Aurora.................. 13.2 10.3 10.0 11.3 9.8 10.0
Kane.......................... Elgin................... 14.5 10.8 9.8 11.4 10.8 9.9
Lake.......................... Zion.................... 11.9 9.3 8.8 9.7 N/A N/A
McHenry....................... Cary.................... 11.6 10.1 9.6 10.2 10.1 10.1
Will.......................... Braidwood............... 12.1 (2) 10.3 8.7 10.0 10.4 9.3
Will.......................... Joliet.................. 14.6 11.7 10.5 11.8 10.2 11.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana Monitoring Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake.......................... Franklin School......... 14.4 12.0 11.3 12.5 11.4 10.7
Lake.......................... Griffith................ 13.2 11.7 11.0 12.4 11.2 N/A
Lake.......................... Madison Street.......... 14.6 12.3 12.1 12.9 12.1 11.5
Lake.......................... Hammond--Purdue......... 13.8 11.7 15.9 12.3 11.4 10.6
Lake.......................... Clark High School....... 13.7 12.4 10.8 11.9 10.7 10.5
Porter........................ Ogden Dunes............. 13.8 10.9 11.3 11.6 10.6 9.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) Annual standard for PM2.5 does not apply
to these sites due to their proximity to industrial or roadway
sources and lack of representation of general population exposure;
and (2) the data for these sites and years do not meet data
completeness requirements (see a discussion of this issue below).
Table 2 gives the three-year averages of the annual
PM2.5 concentrations for 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011,
and 2010-2012 for each of the PM2.5 monitoring sites in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Table 2--Three-Year Averages of Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5
Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Monitoring site 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Monitoring Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook...................... Blue Island......... 12.8 11.9 11.6 11.4
Cook...................... Chicago--Commonwealt 12.4 11.8 11.6 11.6
h Edison.
Cook...................... Chicago--Springfield 12.8 11.8 11.6 11.6
Cook...................... Chicago--Mayfair.... 13.5 12.5 12.4 12.0
Cook...................... Chicago--SE Police.. 12.3 11.8 N/A N/A
Cook...................... Chicago--Washington. 13.3 12.7 12.7 12.7
Cook...................... Cicero.............. 13.1 12.7 12.0 11.2
Cook...................... Des Plaines......... 11.7 11.0 10.7 10.7
[[Page 48107]]
Cook...................... McCook.............. 13.7 12.7 12.6 12.6
Cook...................... Northbrook.......... 10.9 9.6 9.6 9.9
Cook...................... Schiller Park....... 14.0 13.0 12.9 13.0
Cook...................... Summit.............. 12.8 11.9 11.6 11.5
DuPage.................... Naperville.......... 11.6 10.9 10.7 10.8
Kane...................... Aurora.............. 11.2 10.5 10.4 10.4
Kane...................... Elgin............... 11.6 10.7 10.7 10.7
Lake...................... Zion................ 10.0 9.3 N/A N/A
McHenry................... Cary................ 10.4 10.0 10.0 10.1
Will...................... Braidwood........... 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.9
Will...................... Joliet.............. 10.2 11.3 10.8 11.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana Monitoring Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake...................... Franklin School..... 11.4 11.9 11.7 11.5
Lake...................... Griffith............ 11.2 11.7 11.5 N/A
Lake...................... Madison Street...... 12.1 12.4 12.4 12.2
Lake...................... Hammond--Purdue..... 11.4 13.3 13.2 11.4
Lake...................... Clark High School... 10.7 11.7 11.1 11.0
Porter.................... Ogden Dunes......... 10.6 11.3 11.2 10.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data in tables 1 and 2 show that all PM2.5 monitors
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area have recorded
PM2.5 concentrations attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard during the most recent three years of
quality-assured, state-certified of PM2.5 data collection.
As noted above, however, the PM2.5 data for several sites in
table 1 need further discussion.
First, under 40 CFR 58.30(a)(1), for monitoring sites with data
that are representative of relatively unique, generally localized
concentrations, the data are compared only to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and not to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Illinois has two sites, McCook and Schiller Park, that the IEPA
believes are not representative of exposure for the general populace
due to the proximity of these sites to localized industrial or roadway
sources. EPA is not judging whether this designation is appropriate.
The applicable regulation, at 40 CFR 58.30(a)(2), recognizes that some
microscale sites collect data that are representative of multiple
locations with localized high concentrations, and provides in these
cases that the data are appropriate for comparison to the annual
PM2.5 standard. The Schiller Park site is near a major
highway, and the site may be representative of multiple locations in
the Chicago area that have similar proximity to major highways. For
this reason, Table 1 above includes annual mean PM2.5
concentrations for this site. In any case, this site shows annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations that meet the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard.
With regard to the McCook monitoring site, we agree with the IEPA
that this is a monitoring site that is located near a localized
industrial source and produces PM2.5 concentrations that are
not generally representative of exposure for the general populace on a
long-term basis. As such, in keeping with 40 CFR 58.30(a)(1), the
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at this site should not be
compared to the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard when judging the
attainment status of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. In any
case, this site also shows annual mean PM2.5 concentrations
that meet the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
EPA concludes that no violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard has been recorded in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area
for any three-year period during 2007-2012. For the reasons discussed
above, EPA proposes to determine that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-
IN area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
Illinois commits to continue monitoring PM2.5 in the
Chicago area according to an EPA-approved monitoring plan, as required
to confirm and assure maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard in this area. If changes in the PM2.5 monitoring
system become necessary, IEPA will work with EPA to ensure the
continued adequacy of the monitoring system. Illinois will continue to
quality-assure the monitoring data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
part 58.
B. Has the Chicago area and the State of Illinois met all applicable
requirements of section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act, and does
the Chicago area have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the
Clean Air Act for purposes of redesignation to attainment?
We are proposing to find that Illinois has met all currently
applicable SIP requirements for the purposes of redesignation of the
Chicago area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements).
We are also proposing to find that the Illinois SIP meets all SIP
requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under
part D of title I of the CAA, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. We are proposing to find that all
applicable requirements of the Illinois SIP, for purposes of
redesignation, have been implemented, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. As discussed below, in this section, EPA
is proposing to approve Illinois' 2002 NOX, SO2,
and PM2.5 emissions inventory and 2007 VOC and ammonia
emissions inventory as meeting the section 172(C)(3) requirement for a
comprehensive emissions inventory.
In making these proposed determinations, we have ascertained which
SIP requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and have
concluded that there are SIP measures meeting these requirements and
that they are approved or will be approved by the time of final
rulemaking on the State's PM2.5 redesignation request.
[[Page 48108]]
1. Illinois Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of
Redesignation of the Chicago Area Under Section 110 and Part D of the
Clean Air Act
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: (1) Include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; (2) provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; (4) include
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; (5) include criteria for stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring and reporting; (6) include provisions for air
quality modeling; and (7) provide for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
SIP requirements are not linked with a particular area's designation
and classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with an
area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we
believe that these requirements are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
Further, we believe that section 110(a)(2) elements other than
those described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and that are not linked with an area's attainment status
are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A
state remains subject to these requirements regardless of an area's
designation and after the area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures which we must consider in evaluating a redesignation request.
This approach is consistent with EPA's policy on applicability of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and
Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also the discussion of this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone
redesignation (65 FR 3780, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
We have reviewed the Illinois SIP and have concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable to the state's request for redesignation. EPA has
previously approved provisions of the Illinois SIP addressing section
110 requirements, including provisions addressing particulate matter,
at 40 CFR 52.720. In a submittal dated December 12, 2007, Illinois
addressed infrastructure SIP elements required under section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA for PM2.5 under the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard. EPA approved this submittal on August 12, 2011, at 76 FR
41075. The requirements of section 110(a)(2), however, are statewide
SIP requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5
nonattainment status of the Chicago area. Therefore, EPA believes that
these infrastructure elements are not applicable requirements for
purposes of review of the state's PM2.5 redesignation
request.
b. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, if EPA approves the base year emissions
inventories, discussed in section V.F below, the Illinois SIP will meet
the SIP requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under
part D of the CAA for the Chicago area.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets
forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable for nonattainment
areas.
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
The applicable subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9) of the CAA. A thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Section 172(c)(1) requires the state plans for all nonattainment
areas to provide for the implementation of Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this
requirement to impose a duty on all states with nonattainment areas to
consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such
measures as are reasonably available for implementation in these areas
as components of the areas' attainment demonstrations (the attainment
demonstrations must address RACM). Because attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS has been achieved in the Chicago-Gary-
Lake County, IL-IN area, no additional RACM measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and the section 172(c)(1) requirements are no
longer considered to be applicable as a prerequisite for approval of
Illinois' redesignation request, provided the area continues to attain
the standard until the redesignation of the Chicago area occurs. See 40
CFR 51.1004(c).
Section 172(c)(2) requires plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the
NAAQS. This requirement is not relevant for purposes of redesignation
because the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (General Preamble,
57 FR 13564). See also 40 CFR 51.1009. In addition, because the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirement for RFP under section
172(c)(2), as well as the requirement for contingency measures under
section 172(c)(9), is not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Id.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and EPA approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions.
Illinois submitted a 2002 base year emissions inventory for primary
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in June 2006, and
documented this emissions inventory in a June 2006 publication titled
``Illinois Base Year Particulate Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002''.
As discussed below in section V.F, EPA is proposing to approve
Illinois' 2002 base year emission inventories as meeting the section
172(c)(3) emission inventory requirement for the Chicago area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
emissions for major new and modified
[[Page 48109]]
stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5)
requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources in the nonattainment area. EPA
approved Illinois NSR program \4\ on December 17, 1992 (57 FR 59928),
September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49780), and May 13, 2003 (68 FR 25504).
Further, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements \5\ will apply
after redesignation, the Chicago area and the state of Illinois need
not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the state demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without implementation of part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, titled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment'' (Nichols memorandum). Illinois has
demonstrated that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area will be able
to maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard without the
continued implementation of the state's part D NSR program. Therefore,
EPA concludes that Illinois need not have a fully approved part D NSR
program as an applicable requirement for approval of the state's
redesignation request. The state's PSD program will become effective in
the Chicago area upon redesignation to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standard. See redesignation rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and, Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The NSR program controls the growth and permitting of major
source emissions in nonattainment areas.
\5\ PSD requirements control the growth of new source emissions
in areas designated as attainment for a NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain emission control
measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because
attainment has been reached in the Chicago area, no additional measures
are needed to provide for attainment of the standard.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, in section V.B.1.a, we
conclude that the Illinois SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Subpart 1 Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity SIP Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
of the SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity), as well as to all other federally-
supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity SIP
revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment since such areas would be subject to section 175A
maintenance plans. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved
state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under Federal rules if
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750
(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Illinois' general conformity SIP on December 23, 1997
(62 FR 67000). Illinois does not have a Federally-approved
transportation conformity SIP. However, Illinois performs conformity
analyses pursuant to EPA's Federal conformity rules. Illinois has
submitted on-road mobile source emission budgets for the Chicago area
of 5,100 tons per year (TPY) of primary PM2.5 and 127,951
TPY of NOX for 2008 and 2,377 TPY of primary
PM2.5 and 44,224 TPY of NOX for 2025,
respectively. Illinois must use these MVEBs in any conformity
determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the
PM2.5 maintenance plan approval and effective date of EPA's
approval of the redesignation of the Chicago area to attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
2. The Chicago Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
Upon final approval of Illinois's comprehensive 2002 emissions
inventories, EPA will have fully approved the Illinois SIP for the
Chicago area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals when
rulemaking on a redesignation request (See page 3 of the September 4,
1992, John Calcagni memorandum titled ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memorandum);
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984,
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)),
plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a
redesignation action. See 68 Fr 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003).
Since the passage of the CAA in 1970, Illinois has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved, SIP provisions addressing
various required SIP elements under the particulate matter standards.
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Illinois's 2002 base year
emissions inventories for the Chicago area as meeting the requirement
of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard.
3. Nonattainment Requirements
No Illinois SIP provision applicable for redesignation of the
Chicago area is currently disapproved, conditionally approved or
partially approved.
4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the CAA
a. Background
As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25,
2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)''
final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1
[[Page 48110]]
of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than to the particulate matter-
specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I.
b. Proposal on This Issue
In this portion of the redesignation proposed rule, EPA addresses
the effect of the Court's January 4, 2013 ruling on the proposed
redesignation. As explained below, EPA is proposing to determine that
the Court's January 4, 2013, decision does not prevent EPA from
redesignating the Chicago area to attainment. Even in light of the
Court's decision, redesignation for this area is appropriate under the
CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions
regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding
interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due,
after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is
attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies
the subpart 4 requirements to Illinois' redesignation request and
disregards the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation
rule recently remanded by the Court, the state's request for
redesignation of this area still qualifies for approval. EPA's
discussion takes into account the effect of the Court's ruling on the
Chicago area's maintenance plan, which EPA views as approvable when
subpart 4 requirements are considered.
i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation
Request
With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing
the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of
part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating Illinois' redesignation request for the Chicago area, to the
extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that
those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and, thus, EPA is not required to consider
subpart 4 requirements with respect to the Chicago area redesignation.
Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted
section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D
provisions which are ``applicable'' and which must be approved in order
for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior
to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See
Calcagni memorandum. See also ``State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12,
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\6\ In
this case, at the time that Illinois submitted its redesignation
request, requirements under subpart 4 were not due, and indeed, were
not yet known to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Chicago area
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the
state submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone
nonattainment areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's
decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the Court found that EPA was not
permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under
subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to
implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart
2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and
acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable
requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those
actions, EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be
``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should
be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA Section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arise after the states submit their redesignation
requests, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting redesignation requests, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation requests beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area, for which
a redesignation request has been submitted, would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require,
[[Page 48111]]
for redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the
consequences of imposing requirements that come due after the
redesignation request is submitted. The state submitted its
redesignation request on October 15, 2010, but the Court did not issue
its decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
concerning the applicability of the provisions of subpart 4 until
January 2013.
To require the state's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court
announced only in January 2013, would be to give retroactive effect to
such requirements when the state had no notice that it was required to
meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir.
2002),\7\ where it upheld the District Court's ruling refusing to make
retroactive EPA's determination that the St. Louis area did not meet
its attainment deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the Court to
make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that
the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually
made the determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the state of
Illinois by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is
already attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard and that met all
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the
redesignation request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request
solely because the state did not expressly address subpart 4
requirements, of which it had no notice, would inflict the same
unfairness condemned by the Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a
recent D.C. Circuit decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite
different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to
give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing
denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Illinois' Redesignation Request
Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013,
decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations,
subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the state
submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the
Chicago area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As
explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the
Chicago area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements,
substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of
redesignating the area to attainment.
With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Chicago area, EPA notes
that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which
contain general air quality planning requirements for areas designated
as nonattainment. See Section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself, contains
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10 \8\
nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013, decision in
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the ``General
Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart
1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related
to, the more specific PM-10 requirements.'' 57 FR 13538 (April 16,
1992). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things,
provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions
inventories, and contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, we are
considering the Chicago area to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5
nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated
as nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and would remain
as moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the
areas as ``serious'' nonattainment areas. Accordingly, EPA believes
that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impacts
of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) an approved
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C));
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose, for redesignation purposes, any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\9\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided that
the area can maintain the standard with a PSD program after
redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in the
Nichols memorandum. See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR
12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458,
20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request
is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\10\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either
subpart 1 and/or subpart 4, any area that is attaining the
PM2.5 standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment
planning requirements for these
[[Page 48112]]
subparts. For redesignations, EPA has, for many years, interpreted
attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining
the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, and contingency measures.
The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality
data for the area must show that the area has already attained.
Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
`therefore, have no meaning at that point.
``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990''; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992). The
General Preamble also explained that:
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . .
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.
Id.
EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that, ``The
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed
for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the standard.''
It is evident that, even if we were to consider the Court's January
4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related
requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively \11\
and, thus, are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area
that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard, for the purpose
of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to attainment.
EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of applicable
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was
published more than twenty years ago. Courts have recognized the scope
of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the
redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the
Court's January 4, 2013, decision should be interpreted so as to
impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club
v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines
are attaining the standard. EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy''
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the
requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the
effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See ``Determination of Attainment
for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,'' (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010).
See also Coso Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, (75 FR
36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55,
July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-47 October 30, 2006). In short,
EPA in this context, has also long concluded that to require states to
meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary and not
required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain the
relevant NAAQS.
Elsewhere in this notice, EPA proposes to determine that the area
has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Under its longstanding
interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the area meets
the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4.
Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration
under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section
172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request.
iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at
issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA, in this section,
addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5
precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10
has allowed for control of PM10 precursors, such as
NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources, in
order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA
section 189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for
major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to
PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ``do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
standard in the area.''
EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the
D.C. Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain
PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control
measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA
provided, among other things, that a state was ``not required to
address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan
precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in
the State for control measures.'' EPA intended these to be rebuttable
presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time because of
uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these pollutants
and the effectiveness of specific control measures in various regions
of the country in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also
left open the possibility for such regulation of VOC and ammonia in
specific areas where that was necessary.
The Court, in its January 4, 2013, decision, made reference to both
section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that, ``In light of our
disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the
presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and
ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly
governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
Elsewhere in the Court's opinion, however, the Court observed:
Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a
precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a
PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a
precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7513a(e)
[section 189(e)].
Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed
redesignation of the Chicago area is consistent with the Court's
decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing
section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area governed by
subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,''' the Court
expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and
VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach whether and how
it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a
particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address
what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation
request.
However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's
rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5
precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need
for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the area
[[Page 48113]]
to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to
major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Chicago
area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing
redesignation of the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The
Chicago area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard without
any specific additional controls of VOC and ammonia emissions from any
sources in the area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\12\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of major
stationary sources of ammonia and VOC. Thus, we must address here
whether additional controls of ammonia and VOC from major stationary
sources are required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to
redesignate the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As
explained below, we do not believe that any additional controls of
ammonia and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve
a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e).
57 FR 13542. EPA, in this proposal, proposes to determine that the SIP
has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to ammonia and
VOC as precursors. This proposed supplemental determination is based on
our findings that: (1) The Chicago area contains no major stationary
sources of ammonia; and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC
are adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating
the ozone NAAQS.\13\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine
that, under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in
the context of the redesignation of the area, which is attaining the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia and VOC
precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5 standard in
this area. See 57 FR 13539-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Chicago area has reduced VOC emissions through the
implementation of various control programs including VOC RACT
regulations and various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013, decision
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of ammonia and VOC for the
control of PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of
subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not require
additional controls of these precursors for an area that already
qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring
Illinois to address precursors differently than they have already would
result in a substantively different outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\14\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\15\ EPA believes that application of
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Chicago area has already attained the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of
PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to
conclude, in the context of this redesignation, that there is no need
to revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the
treatment of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to
impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect
EPA's approval here of Illinois' request for redesignation of the
Chicago area. In the context of a redesignation, the area has shown
that it has attained the standard. Moreover, the state has shown and
EPA has proposed to determine that attainment in this area is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically
that no further control of additional precursors is necessary.
Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013, decision of the
Court as precluding redesignation of the Chicago area to attainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans for California-San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area;
Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10
Standards,'' 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10
attainment plan that imposed controls on direct PM10 and
NOX emissions and did not impose controls on
SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
\15\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, even if Illinois were required to address precursors for
the Chicago area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA's remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule, EPA would still conclude that the area had met all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section
107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
C. Are the air quality improvements in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL-IN Area due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions?
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires the state to
demonstrate that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. EPA finds that Illinois has
demonstrated that the observed PM2.5 air quality improvement
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. In making this demonstration, Illinois
first determined and documented the change in primary PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2 emissions in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area between 2002 (a standard-violation year) and 2008
(an attainment year). Illinois demonstrated that the reduction in
emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over the
intervening period (2002-2008) can be attributed to a number of
regulatory control measures that have been implemented in the Chicago-
Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area and in surrounding contributing areas in
the recent years.
[[Page 48114]]
1. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
The following is a discussion of the permanent and enforceable
measures that have been implemented in the Chicago area and in upwind
areas.
a. Federal Emission Control Measures
Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred
statewide in Illinois and in upwind areas as a result of the following
Federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions
expected in the future. Federal emission control measures include the
following.
i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards
40 CFR part 86, subpart S. These emission control requirements
result in lower VOC, NOX, and SO2 emissions from
new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The
Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has
estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following
vehicle NOX emission reductions will occur nationwide:
passenger cars (light duty vehicles), 77 percent; light duty trucks,
minivans, and sports utility vehicles, 86 percent; and, larger sports
utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks, 69 to 95 percent. VOC
emission reductions will be approximately 12 percent for passenger
cars, 18 percent for smaller sports utility vehicles, light trucks, and
minivans, and 15 percent for larger sports utility vans, and heavier
trucks. Some of the emission reductions resulting from new vehicle
standards occurred during the 2008-2010 attainment period; however,
additional emission reductions will continue to occur throughout the
maintenance period as new vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 2
standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per
million (ppm) beginning in January 2006.
ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
EPA issued this rule on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule
went into effect in 2004 and includes standards limiting the sulfur
content of diesel fuel. A second phase took effect in 2007 and resulted
in reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway diesel
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to
15 ppm. The full implementation of this rule is estimated to achieve a
90 percent reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions (including
direct emissions of sulfates) and a 95 percent reduction of
NOX emissions for new engines using low sulfur diesel fuel,
compared to existing engines using higher sulfur content fuel. The
reductions in fuel sulfur content occurred by the 2008-2010 attainment
period. Some of the emissions reductions resulting from new vehicle
standards also occurred during the 2008-2010 attainment period;
however, additional emission reductions will continue to occur
throughout the maintenance period as the fleet of older heavy-duty
diesel engines turns over. This rule will also lower SO2
emissions from engines using the low sulfur diesel fuel, resulting in
lower PM2.5 concentrations; however, EPA has not estimated
the level of this emission reduction and the level of its impact on
PM2.5 concentrations.
iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards
On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA promulgated a rule to establish
emission standards for large non-road diesel engines, such as those
used in construction, agriculture, or mining operations, and to
regulate the sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel. The engine
emission standards in this rule are to be phased in between 2008 and
2014. This rule reduced the allowable sulfur content in non-road diesel
fuel by over 99 percent. Prior to 2006, non-road diesel fuel averaged
approximately 3,400 ppm in sulfur content. This rule limited non-road
diesel fuel content to 500 ppm starting in 2007, with a further
reduction to 15 ppm starting in 2010. The combined engine standards and
fuel sulfur content limits reduce NOX and PM2.5
emissions (including direct emissions of sulfates) from large non-road
diesel engines by over 90 percent compared to pre-control non-road
engines using the higher sulfur content fuel. This rule achieved all of
the reductions in fuel sulfur content by 2010. Some emission reductions
from the new engine emission standards were realized over the 2008-2010
period; although most of the engine emission reductions will occur
during the maintenance period as the fleet of non-road diesel engines
turns over.
iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine Standards
On November 8, 2002 67 FR 68243), EPA promulgated emission
standards for groups of previously unregulated non-road engines. These
engines include large spark-ignition engines, such as those used in
forklifts and airport ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles
using spark-ignition engines, such as off-highway motorcycles, all-
terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and, recreational marine diesel
engines. Emission standards for large spark-ignition engines were
implemented in two tiers, with Tier I starting in 2004 and Tier 2
starting in 2007. Recreational vehicle emission standards were phased
in from 2004 through 2012. Marine diesel engine standards were phased
in from 2006 through 2009.
With full implementation of all of the non-road spark-ignition
engine and recreational engine standards, an overall 72 percent
reduction in VOC, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56
percent reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are expected by
2020. Some of these emission reductions occurred by the 2008-2010
attainment period, and additional emission reductions will occur during
the maintenance period as the fleets turn over.
b. Control Measures Statewide in Illinois and in Upwind Areas
Due to the significance of sulfates and nitrates as components of
PM2.5 in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area, the
PM2.5 air quality in this area is strongly affected by
regulation of SO2 and NOX emissions from power
plants in areas upwind of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. The
emission control regulations impacting the upwind area include the
following.
i. NOX SIP Call
On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP
call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce
emissions of NOX from Electric Generating Units (EGUs),
large industrial boilers, and cement kilns. Affected states were
required to comply with Phase I of the SIP call beginning in 2004, and
with Phase II beginning in 2007. NOX emission reductions
resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX
SIP call are permanent and enforceable. The state of Illinois and other
nearby upwind states, including Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky were
subject to the NOX SIP call.
ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR)
EPA proposed CAIR on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR 4566, promulgated
CAIR on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and promulgated associated
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April 28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328,
in order to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and
improve air quality in areas across Eastern United States. However, on
July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded both CAIR and the
associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA petitioned for a rehearing, and the D.C.
Circuit issued an order remanding CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to
[[Page 48115]]
EPA without vacatur. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). The D.C. Circuit, thereby, left CAIR in place in order to
``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until
EPA replaced it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at
1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with
the July 11, 2008 opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing this action. Id.
EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace
CAIR. See 76 FR 59517. As noted above, CAIR requires significant
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from
electric generating units to limit the interstate transport of these
pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form in the
atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate
CSAPR. In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have filed
petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013,
the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari.
Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to act in accordance with the EME
Homer City opinion until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision.
In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons
explained below, to the extent that attainment is due to emission
reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is here proposing to determine
that these emission reductions are sufficiently permanent and
enforceable for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) (and for
purposes of assessing maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area, as discussed
below, for CAA section 175A).
c. Consent Decrees
Two petroleum refineries, the CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries,
have units subject to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for purposes of achieving reduced haze levels: The CITGO
refinery in Lemont, Illinois and the Exxon Mobil refinery south of
Joliet, Illinois. Both refineries will be required to reduce emissions
by a Federal consent decree resolving an enforcement action brought by
EPA against a number of refineries. The consent decrees require the
CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries (and other refineries in Illinois) to
operate controls at the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) level.
Illinois evaluated the subject-to-BART units at the CITGO and Exxon
Mobil refineries in the consent decree. It found that the
NOX and SO2 emission limits for these units
satisfy BART.
A consent decree between the United States and CITGO Petroleum
Corporation was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on October 6, 2004 (No. H-04-3883). The consent
decree requires the company to operate Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) and a wet scrubbing system at its Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
(FCCU) that will reduce NOX emissions by more than 90
percent and SO2 emissions by 85 percent. The controls on the
FCCU are expected to result in a reduction of NOX emissions
from 1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and SO2 emissions from 10,982.5 to
107.9 TPY by 2013. CITGO has also added a tail gas recovery unit that
reduces SO2 emissions from its sulfur train units from
4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent reduction. The emission controls on
all units at CITGO's Lemont refinery will reduce NOX
emissions by 1,268 TPY and SO2 emissions by 15,123 TPY.
A consent decree between the United States and Exxon Mobil
Corporation was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on October 11, 2005 (No. O5-C-5809). The consent
decree for Exxon Mobil requires SCR operation on its FCCU in addition
to maintenance of the existing wet scrubbing system. The controls on
the FCCU result in a 1,636.2 TPY decrease in NOX emissions
from 1,818.0 to 181.8 TPY and a 9,667.7 TPY decrease in SO2
emissions from 9,865.0 to 197.3 TPY. Exxon Mobil has also added a tail
gas recovery unit on its south sulfur recovery unit. That unit reduces
SO2 emissions by 9,153.8 TPY to 186.8 TPY. The emission
controls at Exxon Mobil's Joliet refinery will reduce NOX
emissions by 1,695 TPY and SO2 emissions by 18,821 TPY.
These two consent decrees are Federally enforceable and also
require that the refineries submit permit applications to Illinois to
incorporate the required emission limits into Federally enforceable air
permits (other than Title V). Therefore, emission limits established by
the consent decrees may be relied upon by Illinois for addressing the
BART requirement for these facilities and for crediting toward the
reduction of PM2.5 levels in the Chicago area and
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area.
2. Emission Reductions
a. Illinois' Demonstration That Significant Emission Reductions Have
Occurred in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Area and In Upwind
Areas
To demonstrate that significant emission reductions have resulted
in attainment, Illinois compared the Chicago area NOX,
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions for 2002 with
those of 2008. As noted above, the 2008 emissions represent those for a
year in which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area was attaining
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (2008 is the middle year of
the 2007-2009 period in which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area
initially attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard), and 2002
represents a year in which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area was
violating this standard.
The derivation of the 2002 (base year) emissions is discussed in
more detail below in section V.F. The derivation of the 2008
(attainment year) emissions is discussed in more detail here.
The 2008 emissions were based on actual source activity levels. The
point source emissions were compiled from Illinois' 2008 Annual
Emissions Reports (AERs) submitted to the IEPA by individual source
facilities. Area source emissions were calculated using the most
recently available emission calculation methodologies, emission factors
developed by EPA, and activity data (population, employment, fuel use,
etc.) specific to 2008. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated
using EPA's MOVES emissions model with 2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) data provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT). Off-road mobile source emissions were calculated using either
EPA's NONROAD emission model (for all non-road sources except
commercial marine vessels, locomotives, and aircraft) or information
supplied by contractors (for marine vessels, locomotives, and
aircraft). Biogenic emissions were not included in the emission
inventories since these emissions are assumed to remain constant over
time (biogenic emissions are not included in the 2002, 2008, 2015, and
2025 emissions summarized in this proposed rule).
The 2002 and 2008 Chicago area emissions (covering only the
Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area) are
summarized in tables 3 through 5 below. All emissions are in units of
TPY. All summarized emissions are documented in Illinois' August 17,
2011 ``Maintenance Plan for the Chicago Nonattainment Area for the
[[Page 48116]]
1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(Revised).''
Table 3--Comparison of 2002 and 2008 NOX Emission Totals for the Chicago Area by Source Sector
(TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Source sector 2002 2008 2002-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................................... 54,050 35,939 -18,111
Area Sources.................................................... 32,325 32,318 -7
On-Road Mobile Sources.......................................... 187,632 127,951 -59,681
Off-Road Mobile Sources......................................... 87,426 51,184 -36,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 361,433 247,391 -114,042
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Comparison of 2002 and 2008 Primary PM2.5 Emission Totals for the Chicago Area by Source Sector
(TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Source sector 2002 2008 2002-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................................... 2,757 3,859 1,102
Area Sources.................................................... 22,356 9,189 -13,167
On-Road Mobile Sources.......................................... 6,573 5,100 -1,473
Off-Road Mobile Sources......................................... 4,834 3,653 -1,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 36,520 21,800 -14,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Comparison of 2002 and 2008 SO2 Emission Totals for the Chicago Area by Source Sector
(TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Source sector 2002 2008 2002-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................................... 121,598 90,706 -30,892
Area Sources.................................................... 3,290 4,109 819
On-Road Mobile Sources.......................................... 4,472 537 -3,935
Off-Road Mobile Sources......................................... 3,743 779 -2964
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 133,103 96,130 -36,973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 3 through 5 show that NOX, SO2, and
primary PM2.5 emissions in the Chicago area have decreased
significantly between 2002 and 2008.
In addition to the local PM2.5 precursor emission
reductions, we believe that regional NOX and SO2
emission reductions resulting from the implementation of EPA's Acid
Rain Program (ARP) (see 40 CFR parts 72 through 78), NOX SIP
call, and CAIR have significantly contributed to the PM2.5
air quality improvement in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. To
assess the change in regional emissions from states believed to
significantly contribute to annual PM2.5 concentrations in
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area, we have considered statewide
NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs reported for 2002
and 2008 in EPA's ARP/CAIR database. To limit the number of states
considered, we have selected those states with emissions that have been
modeled to have significantly contributed to elevated PM2.5
concentrations in Cook County, Illinois (a modeling receptor site
considered to be representative of the regional transport into the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. Table 6 summarizes statewide
NOX and SO2 emissions for EGUs previously
summarized in the proposed rule for the redesignation of Lake and
Porter Counties, Indiana to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard. See 76 FR 59600, 59608-59609, September 27,
2011.
Table 6--Statewide EGU Emissions for 2002 and 2008
(TPY)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SO2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Percent Percent
2002 2008 reduction 2002 2008 reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois................................................ 174,246 119,930 31.2 353,699 257,357 27.2
Indiana................................................. 281,146 190,092 32.4 778,868 565,459 27.4
Iowa.................................................... 78,956 49,023 37.9 127,847 109,293 14.5
Kentucky................................................ 198,598 157,903 21.4 482,653 344,356 28.7
Michigan................................................ 132,623 107,623 18.9 342,998 326,500 4.8
[[Page 48117]]
Minnesota............................................... 86,663 60,230 30.5 101,285 71,926 29.0
Ohio.................................................... 370,497 235,049 36.6 1,132,069 709,914 37.3
Pennsylvania............................................ 200,909 183,658 8.6 889,765 831,914 6.5
Wisconsin............................................... 88,970 47,794 46.3 181,256 129,693 32.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,612,708 1,151,302 28.6 4,400,440 3,346,412 24.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in table 6, the implementation of CAIR resulted in
significant reductions in regional, statewide NOX and
SO2 emissions from EGUs in the states EPA finds are
contributing significantly to the annual PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. Since CAIR
remains in place until EPA can replace it with an acceptable new
region-wide emissions control rule, we believe these emission
reductions to be permanent and enforceable.
Based on the information summarized above, primary PM2.5
and precursor PM2.5 emissions (SO2 and
NOX) have significantly decreased between 2002 and 2008 in
the Chicago area and in states with EGU emissions significantly
impacting the annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Chicago
area.
b. VOC and Ammonia Emission Reductions
For several reasons, we believe that VOC emission reductions in the
Chicago area and in upwind states have also contributed to the observed
improvement in annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Chicago
area and in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area as a whole. In
addition, for several reasons, we also believe that changes in ammonia
emissions have not significantly impacted the observed annual
PM2.5 concentrations in these areas.
First, as noted elsewhere in this proposed rule in EPA's discussion
of section 189(e) of the CAA, VOC emissions in the Chicago area have
historically been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to
ozone and other pollutants.\16\ Second, total ammonia emissions
throughout the Chicago area are very low, estimated to be 9,885.71 TPY
in 2002. See table 12 below. This amount of ammonia emissions appears
especially small in comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and even direct PM2.5 emissions in the area
in 2002. Third, as described below, available information shows that no
PM2.5 precursor, including VOC and ammonia, is expected to
increase over the maintenance period so as to interfere with or
undermine the state's maintenance demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a thorough discussion of VOC emission controls and
estimates (2002 and 2008) and projected (2015, 2020, and 2025) VOC
emission levels (summertime emissions) in the Chicago area, see
EPA's proposed rule for the redesignation of the Chicago area to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 6743, February
9, 2012). We observe here that the estimated/projected summertime
VOC emission reductions in the Chicago area also generally reflect
reductions in annual emissions of VOC in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Conclusions Regarding Emission Reductions Between 2002 and 2005 in
the Chicago Area
In summary, emissions data provided by the state support the
conclusion that significant reductions in the emissions of
SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, and VOC
occurred in the Chicago area between 2002 and 2008. During the same
period, emissions of ammonia are believed to have had minimal impact on
PM2.5 concentrations in the Chicago area. We believe that
the emission reductions of the significant PM2.5 precursors
and primary PM2.5 in the Chicago area and in upwind states
are responsible for the observed improvement in annual PM2.5
concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. For the
reasons set forth above, we conclude that the attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in the Chicago area can be explained
on the basis of permanent and enforceable emission reductions within
the Chicago area and in the states regulated by CAIR.
D. Does Illinois have a fully approvable PM2.5 maintenance
plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA for the Chicago area?
In conjunction with Illinois' request to redesignate the Chicago
area to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, IEPA
submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area
through 2025. This maintenance plan demonstrates that emissions in the
Chicago area will remain at or below the attainment levels throughout
the maintenance period and provides for corrective action should the
1997 annual standard be violated or threatened in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area during the maintenance period. The following
summarizes the details of the maintenance plan and maintenance
demonstration.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A of the CAA require that states
demonstrate that the areas to be redesignated will continue to meet the
PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA approves the
redesignations of the areas to attainment of the NAAQS. Section 175A of
the CAA sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan. Under
section 175A, a state must also commit to submit a revised maintenance
plan within eight years of redesignation to provide for maintenance of
the standard for an additional 10 years after the initial 10-year
maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with
a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt
correction of any future violations of the standard.
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states
that a maintenance plan should address the following items: (1) The
attainment emission inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration
showing maintenance of the standard for the 10 years of the maintenance
period; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network;
(4) the factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the standard; and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations of the standard.
[[Page 48118]]
2. Attainment Inventory
As noted above, IEPA developed NOX, SO2, and
primary PM2.5 emission inventories for 2008, one of the
years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard. The 2008 emissions are summarized in tables
3 through 5 above.
3. Demonstration of Maintenance
Along with the redesignation request, IEPA submitted a maintenance
plan dated August 17, 2011, which includes a demonstration of
maintenance for the Chicago area, as required by section 175A of the
CAA. This demonstration shows maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard through 2025 by showing that current and
future emissions of NOX, SO2, and primary
PM2.5 emissions for the Chicago area will remain at or below
attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration may be
based on such an emissions inventory approach. See Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR
25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
Illinois used emission projections for 2015, 2020, and 2025 to
demonstrate maintenance. For each of the applicable PM2.5
precursors (pollutants), IEPA prepared emission estimates for the same
source sectors used by IEPA for the 2008 attainment year. IEPA assumed
biogenic emissions to remain constant, and did not consider them in the
maintenance demonstration analysis.
IEPA used EPA's MOVES mobile source model and projected traffic
levels and other related mobile source factors to estimate on-road
mobile source emissions for the maintenance demonstration years. The
projected on-road mobile source emissions assume the continued use of
reformulated gasoline, the continued phase-in of the Tier 2 motor
vehicle emission standards, and the operation of an enhanced vehicle
inspection and maintenance program in the Chicago area. Total VMT for
2015, 2020, and 2025 were derived by assuming that the VMT will
increase at a rate of 1.5 percent per year after 2008. The 2008 and
2025 on-road mobile source emissions were used to establish MVEBs for
the Chicago area. See the additional discussion of the MVEBs in section
V.E of this proposed rule.
Chicago area point and area source emissions for 2015, 2020, and
2025 were estimated using the 2008 attainment year emissions and growth
factors appropriate for each source category. Off-road emission
projections were developed using the growth factors contained in EPA's
NONROAD model.
Tables 7 through 9 summarize the projected NOX,
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions for 2008, 2015,
2020, and 2025 by source sector.
Table 7--Comparison of 2008, 2015, 2020, and 2025 NOX Emissions by Source Sector (TPY) for the Chicago Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Source sector 2008 2015 2020 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 35,939 27,082 28,500 29,638 -6,301
Area Sources.................... 32,318 32,997 33,277 33,687 1,369
On-Road Mobile.................. 127,951 68,491 40,599 38,456 -89,495
Off-Road Mobile................. 51,184 35,927 28,271 27,173 -24,011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 247,391 164,497 130,648 128,954 -118,437
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Comparison of 2008, 2015, 2020, and 2025 SO2 Emissions by Source Sector (TPY) for the Chicago Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Source sector 2008 2015 2020 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 90,706 58,092 53,452 56,310 -34,396
Area Sources.................... 4,109 4,266 4,332 4,407 298
On-Road Mobile.................. 537 504 477 488 -49
Off-Road Mobile................. 779 866 919 1,215 436
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 96,130 63,727 59,180 62,420 -33,710
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Comparison of 2008, 2015, 2020, and 2025 Primary PM2.5 Emissions by Source Sector (TPY) for the Chicago
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Source sector 2008 2015 2020 2025 2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 3,859 4,169 4,391 4,604 745
Area Sources.................... 9,189 9,676 10,009 10,377 1,188
On-Road Mobile.................. 5,100 3,071 2,119 2,067 -3,033
Off-Road Mobile................. 3,653 2,995 2,398 2,267 -1,386
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 21,800 19,911 18,918 19,316 -2,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of the 2008 and projected 2015, 2020, and 2025 emissions
demonstrates that future NOX, SO2, and primary
PM2.5 emissions through 2025 will remain below the 2008
levels in the Chicago area.
In a September 27, 2011 proposed rulemaking (76 FR 59600, 59610)
for the redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana (the Indiana
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area) to attainment of
the 1997 annual
[[Page 48119]]
PM2.5 standard, we also evaluated the 2008, 2015, 2020, and
2025 emissions for the entire Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area.
Table 10 repeats the summary of the area's emission totals as
documented in the September 27, 2011 proposed rule.
Table 10--Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Area 2008 and Projected Emission Totals
[TPY]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX SO2 Primary PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008...................................................... 278,649.74 152,367.68 32,069.68
2015...................................................... 187,557.31 107,285.55 25,128.65
2020...................................................... 156,231.26 98,829.89 24,729.26
2025...................................................... 149,198.79 99,453.24 25,074.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 7 through 10 show that emissions will remain at or below
2008 emission levels in the Chicago area and in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area through 2025. Therefore, the state has demonstrated
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard for a period
extending ten years and beyond from the time EPA may be expected to
complete rulemaking on the state's PM2.5 redesignation
request.
4. Monitoring Network
Illinois commits to continue monitoring PM2.5 levels
according to the EPA-approved monitoring plan, as required to ensure
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. If changes
are needed in the PM2.5 monitoring network, the IEPA will
work with the EPA to ensure the adequacy of the monitoring network.
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
in the Chicago area and in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area
depends, in part, on the state's efforts toward tracking indicators of
continued attainment during the maintenance period. Illinois' plan for
verifying continued attainment of the standard in these areas consists
of continued ambient PM2.5 monitoring in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and continued tracking of emissions
through periodic updates of PM2.5, SO2 and
NOX emissions inventories for the Chicago area, as required
by the Federal Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR
51 subpart A).
6. Contingency Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur
after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the
contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time
limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific
indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need
to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a
requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to
control of the pollutant(s) that were controlled through the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the
CAA.
As required by section 175A of the CAA, Illinois has adopted a
contingency plan for the Chicago area to address possible future
violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The
contingency plan provides for two levels of action. A Level I response
would be triggered whenever: (1) The highest monitored PM2.5
concentration in any year at any monitoring station in the Chicago
maintenance area exceeds 15 [micro]g/m\3\; or (2) the Chicago
maintenance area's total PM2.5, SO2 or
NOX emissions increase more than 5 percent above the 2008
emissions. A Level I trigger will result in an evaluation of current
PM2.5 air quality and/or emission trends to determine if
adverse emission trends are likely to continue. If so, Illinois will
determine what and where controls may be required, as well as level of
emissions reductions needed, to avoid a violation of the NAAQS. The
study will be completed within 9 months. If necessary, control measures
will be adopted within 18 months of determination of the Level I
triggering and implemented as expeditiously as practicable, taking into
consideration the ease of implementation and the technical and economic
feasibility of the selected measures.
A Level II response will be triggered if a violation of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard occurs at any monitoring station in
the Chicago maintenance area. If triggered, Illinois will conduct an
analysis to determine appropriate measures to address the cause of the
violation. Analysis will be completed within six months. Selected
control measures will be implemented within 18 months of the violation.
Potential control measures contained in Illinois' contingency plan
include the following:
Illinois' Multi-Pollutant Program for EGUs
NOX RACT
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Broader geographic applicability of existing control measures
Tier 2 vehicle standards and low sulfur fuel standard
Heavy duty diesel standards and low sulfur diesel fuel
standard
High-enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance (On-board
Diagnostics II (OBDII))
Federal railroad/locomotive standards
Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards
Architectural/Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings
Commercial and consumer products rules
Aerosol coating rules, and
Portable fuel container rules.
Note that some of these rules are Federal rules and are already being
implemented. If a future violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5
occurs, IEPA will analyze the future emission reduction potential from
these rules to determine if these future emission reductions will be
sufficient to mitigate the PM2.5 air quality problem.
EPA believes that Illinois' contingency plan satisfies the
pertinent requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
7. Provision for Future Update of the Annual PM2.5
Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Illinois commits to
submit to EPA an updated maintenance plan eight years after EPA
redesignates the Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 annual
standard. The revised maintenance plan is intended to cover an
additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance
period. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Illinois has also
committed to retain and implement
[[Page 48120]]
the emission control measures contained in the maintenance plan. If
changes are needed in the control measures, Illinois commits to submit
these changes to EPA as requested SIP revisions and to demonstrate that
these emission control measure revisions will not interfere with the
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area.
Finally, the state affirms that Illinois has the legal authority to
implement and enforce the requirements of the maintenance plan pursuant
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
8. CAIR and CSAPR
a. Background--Effect of the August 21, 2012, D.C. Circuit Decision
Regarding EPA's CSAPR
EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to
replace CAIR, which has been in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. CAIR
requires significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and
NOX from EGUs to limit the interstate transport of these
pollutants and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in the
atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR,
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded that rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
CSAPR included regulatory changes to sunset (i.e., discontinue)
CAIR and CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR
48322. Although the Chicago area redesignation request and Illinois'
PM2.5 maintenance plan rely on emission reductions
associated with CAIR, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation
request and PM2.5 maintenance plan based, in part, on the
fact that CAIR is to remain in place until it is replaced by an
acceptable interstate transport control rule.
On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing
the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order,
the Court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review
of that rule in EME Homer City (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases).
The Court also indicated that EPA was expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until judicial review of CSAPR was
completed.
As discussed above, on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued the
decision in EME Homer City to vacate and remand CSAPR and ordered EPA
to continue administrating CAIR ``pending . . . development of a valid
replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all
petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have
filed petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24,
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari.
Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to act in accordance with the EME
Homer City opinion until the U.S Supreme Court issues its decision.
In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons
explained below, to the extent that attainment and maintenance is due
to emission reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is here determining
that those reductions are sufficiently permanent and enforceable for
purposes of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A.
As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR remains in place and
enforceable until EPA promulgates a valid replacement rule to
substitute for CAIR. As noted above, the Chicago area PM2.5
redesignation request and maintenance plan relies on the emission
reductions from CAIR. Illinois adopted CAIR emission control rules in
2007 and required compliance with these rules in two phases, one with
compliance required by 2009, and the final phase with compliance
required by 2015. CAIR was, thus, in place and getting emission
reductions when the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area was monitoring
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard during the
2008-2011 period.
To the extent that Illinois is relying on CAIR in its maintenance
plan to support continued attainment into the future, the recent
directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that the
emission reductions associated with CAIR will be permanent and
enforceable for the necessary time period. EPA has been ordered by the
Court to develop a new rule to address interstate transport to replace
CSAPR and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule
EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to
implement that rule. Thus, CAIR will remain in place until EPA has
promulgated a final rule through a notice-and- comment rulemaking
process, states have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs in
response to it, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be
approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating
FIPs if appropriate. The Court's clear instruction to EPA is that it
must continue to administer CAIR until a valid replacement exists, and
thus EPA believes that CAIR emission reductions many be relied upon
until the necessary actions are taken by EPA and states to administer
CAIR's replacement. Furthermore, the Court's instruction provides an
additional backstop: by definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and
meets the Court's direction would require upwind states to have SIPs
that eliminate any significant contributions to downwind nonattainment
and prevent interference with maintenance in downwind areas.
Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of states that reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR which brought certain nonattainment
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions,
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type
of irrational result the Court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is
appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR, and the existing emissions
reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and enforceable
for regulatory purposes, such as redesignations. Following promulgation
of the replacement rule for CSAPR, EPA will review existing SIPs as
appropriate to identify whether there are any issues that need to be
addressed.
b. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation Resulting From Court Decisions
In this proposal EPA is also considering the impact of the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), on the maintenance plan required under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA. EPA believes that the
only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan
requirements that results from the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is
that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in
demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. Based on
documentation provided by the state and supporting information, EPA
believes that the maintenance plan for the Chicago area
[[Page 48121]]
need not include any additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia
in order to provide for continued maintenance of the standard.
Emissions inventories used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
(EPA-452/R-12-005, December 2012) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
show that VOC and ammonia emissions in the Chicago area are projected
to decrease by 59,126 TPY and 583 TPY, respectively between 2007 and
2020. See table 11 below. While the RIA emissions inventories are only
projected out to 2020, there is no reason to believe that these
downward trends would not continue through 2025. Given that the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area is already attaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard, even with the current levels of VOC
and ammonia emissions in the Chicago area, the downward trends in VOC
and ammonia would be consistent with continued attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard. Even if ammonia emissions were to
increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, the overall emission
reductions projected in SO2, NOX, primary
PM2.5, and VOC would be sufficient to offset the increase in
annual PM2.5 concentrations resulting from the increase in
ammonia emissions. For these reasons, EPA believes that local ammonia
(and VOC) emissions will not increase to the extent that they will
cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period.
Table 11--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emissions Totals by Source Sector (TPY) for the Chicago Area Based on RIA Emissions Estimates for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Ammonia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source sector Net change Net change
2007 2020 2007-2020 2007 2020 2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fires................................................... 442 442 0 31 31 0
Area.................................................... 109,052 107,202 -1,850 8,865 9,135 270
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 46,784 25,007 -21,777 58 71 13
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 53,688 19,133 -34,555 2,525 1,363 -1,162
Point................................................... 16,101 15,157 -944 332 628 296
Totals.............................................. 226,067 166,941 -59,126 11,811 11,228 -583
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable MVEBs for the PM2.5
maintenance period?
1. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Chicago area?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be evaluated for
conformity with SIPs. Consequently, Illinois's PM2.5
redesignation request and maintenance plan provide MVEBs, conformance
with which will assure that motor vehicle emissions are at or below
levels that can be expected to provide for attainment and maintenance
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Illinois' redesignation
request includes mobile source emission budgets for NOX and
primary PM2.5 for 2008 and 2025. Table 12 shows the 2008 and
2025 MVEBs and 2025 ``safety margins'' (see discussion below) for the
Chicago area. Table 12 also shows the estimated 2008 and 2025 mobile
source emissions for the Chicago area. Illinois did not provide MVEBs
for SO2 because it concluded, consistent with EPA's
presumptions regarding this PM2.5 precursor, that emissions
of this pollutant from motor vehicles are not significant contributors
to the Chicago area's PM2.5 air quality problem.
Table 12--2008 and 2025 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Chicago Area
[TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated emissions Safety margin Motor vehicle emission
---------------------------------------------------------------- budgets
Year -------------------------------
Primary PM2.5 NOX Primary PM2.5 NOX Primary PM2.5 NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.................................................... 5,100 127,951 -- -- 5,100 127,951
2025.................................................... 2,067 38,456 310 5,768 2,377 44,224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12 shows substantial decreases in on-road mobile source
NOX and primary PM2.5 emissions from 2008 to
2025. These emission reductions are expected because newer vehicles
subject to more stringent emission standards are continually replacing
older, higher emitting vehicles. EPA is proposing to approve the 2008
and 2025 MVEBs for the Chicago area into the SIP because, based on our
review of the submitted PM2.5 maintenance plan, we have
determined that the maintenance plan and MVEBs meet EPA's criteria
found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) for determining that MVEBs are adequate
for use in transportation conformity determinations and are approvable
because, when considered together with the submitted maintenance plan's
projected emissions, they provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area.
2. What are safety margins?
As noted in table 12, Illinois has included safety margins in the
2025 MVEBs. A safety margin is the amount by which the total projected
emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total
emissions which would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable
further progress, attainment, or maintenance or a portion thereof (40
CFR 93.124(a)). The safety margins selected by IEPA would provide for a
15 percent increase in mobile source emissions for 2025 above projected
levels of these emissions. These safety margins are acceptable under
EPA's transportation conformity requirements because they would not
cause the total emissions in
[[Page 48122]]
the Chicago area to exceed the attainment year levels.
F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related emissions
inventories for the Chicago area approvable under section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA?
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of emissions for
nonattainment areas. For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, states
have typically submitted primary PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX emission inventories covering one of the years of the
three-year period used to determine the nonattainment status of an
area. For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, the annual
PM2.5 concentrations for the years of 2001-2003 were used to
establish the nonattainment status of areas. Illinois chose to submit
PM2.5 emissions for 2002 for purposes of meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Illinois documented these
emissions and submitted this documentation to EPA in June 2006.
1. EPA's Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Policy
EPA's SIP policy for base year emissions inventories for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard is specified in three policy
statements. EPA's main SIP requirements for a base year
PM2.5-related emissions inventory are specified in section
II.K of EPA's April 25, 2007 implementation rule for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard (72 FR 20586, 20647). This rule requires the
base year emissions inventory to be approved by the EPA as a SIP
element (72 FR 20647), and requires the emissions inventory to cover
the emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and
primary PM2.5 (72 FR 20648). The coverage of
PM2.5 precursor emissions and emissions of primary
PM2.5 (primary PM2.5 is also a precursor for
secondary PM2.5 formation through atmospheric reactions) is
required under 40 CFR part 51 subpart A and 40 CFR 51.1008 (72 FR
20648). Detailed emissions inventory guidance for PM2.5 (and
other pollutants) is contained in EPA's ``Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (August 2005,
EPA-454/R-05-001). Finally, a November 18, 2002 policy memorandum
titled ``2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs'' recommends that the
PM2.5-based emissions inventory be developed for a base year
of 2002. It is noted that IEPA has generally followed all of these
guidelines in the development of the base year emissions inventory for
the PM2.5 SIP.
2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission Inventories for the
Chicago Area
Illinois documented the 2002 primary PM2.5,
NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and CO emissions in a
June 2006 document titled ``Illinois Base Year Particulate Matter and
Haze Inventory for 2002.'' This document covers emissions for the
entire state of Illinois, and summarizes the emissions by source type
and major source category for the PM2.5 nonattainment areas
of Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis.
Emissions data for point, area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile,
and biogenic emission sources were developed for the 2002 emissions
inventories by the IEPA. The primary sources of data for point sources
were AERs submitted by individual source facilities and source permit
files. The June 2006 emissions document covers in detail the derivation
of emissions for each source type identified as a point source. Table
3-1 (page 34) of Illinois' June 2006 document includes the point source
emission totals by county for each of the PM2.5
nonattainment areas. The Chicago area point source emission totals are
summarized in table 13 below.
Area source emissions were generally derived by multiplying source
category-specific emission factors by certain indicator levels of
source activity (source surrogates), such as county populations,
employment estimates, and commodity sales estimates. The emission
estimation techniques for each source category are thoroughly
documented in the June 2006 document. The June 2006 document estimates
the county-specific emissions by pollutant and by source type.
As discussed above, IEPA used EPA's NONROAD model to estimate 2002
off-road mobile source emissions for all non-road mobile source types
except: (1) Railroad locomotives; (2) aircraft operations (including
aircraft auxiliary power units, landings, takeoffs, and other aircraft
operating modes); and, (3) commercial marine vessels. For the three
source types not covered by NONROAD modeling, Illinois obtained source
activity data and emissions from the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium, who contracted with several consultants to derive emissions
specific to the Chicago, Metro-East St. Louis and remaining areas in
the state of Illinois.
IEPA used emission factors generated from EPA's MOBILE6 computer
model and VMT and vehicle speeds by roadway facility type (or
functional class), freeway, arterial, etc., supplied by the local
planning agency (Chicago Area Transportation Study and IDOT for the
Chicago area) to estimate 2002 on-road mobile source emissions. IEPA
also used vehicle age and type distribution data supplied by IDOT. The
vehicle activity information was derived for each county to allow the
determination of emissions by county. IEPA summed up VMT and vehicle
emissions for each month of 2002 to determine annual on-road mobile
source emissions by county. All MOBILE6 inputs and VMT levels were
thoroughly documented. In addition to on-road emissions, IEPA also
calculated stage II refueling (refueling of vehicles) emissions for the
Chicago area.
Table 13 (taken from Table B-1 in Appendix B of IEPA's June 2006
document shows the 2002 primary PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emissions totals by major source category for the Chicago
area.
Table 13--2002 Fine Particulate and Precursor Emissions for the Chicago Area (TPY) Documented in Illinois' June
2006 PM2.5 Emissions Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soure type Ammonia NOX Primary PM2.5 SO2 VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 143.70 54,049.62 2,766.61 121,597.92 21,190.70
Area Sources.................... 3,708.77 32,302.14 22,356.04 3,290.25 89,090.21
On-Road Mobile Sources.......... 5,986.95 167,619.73 3,070.58 3,850.04 59,599.97
Off-Road Mobile Sources......... 46.29 87,426.24 4,834.30 3,742.62 53,272.30
Totals...................... 9,885.71 341,397.73 33,027.53 132,480.83 223,153.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48123]]
After IEPA compiled the June 2006 document, IEPA revised the 2002
on-road mobile source emissions using EPA's MOVES mobile source
emissions model. The derivation of the 2008 on-road mobile source
emissions using MOVES is documented in the August 17, 2011, draft of
IEPA's maintenance plan for the Chicago area. In this same document,
IEPA indicates that the 2002 base year on-road mobile source emissions
were recalculated using the same techniques. The 2002 emissions
(including the MOVES-based on-road mobile source emissions) for the
Chicago area are summarized in tables 3, 4, and 5 above.
We find that the state has thoroughly documented the 2002 emissions
for primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the
Chicago area. We also find that Illinois has used acceptable techniques
and supporting information to derive these emissions. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Illinois' 2002 base year emissions inventory for
the Chicago area for purposes of meeting the emission inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
VI. 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 merely propose to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that reason, these
proposed 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 economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because a determination of attainment is an action that affects the
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air
quality standards in tribal lands.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: July 22, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-18948 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
