Tuesday,

November 13, 2001

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois, Wisconsin,

and Indiana, Ozone; Final Rules

56904 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1The Chicago nonattainment area is classified as

a severe nonattainment for ozone, and is defined in

40 CFR part 81 to include the Counties of Cook,

DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will, and the

Townships of Aux Sable and Goose Lake in Grundy

County and Oswego in Kendall County.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL200–2; FRL–7088–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of Illinois to meet

certain requirements of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) regarding attainment of the

ozone standard in the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area.

These SIP revisions are primarily

required by section 182 of the CAA.

This action fully approves the

following: An ozone attainment

demonstration demonstrating

attainment by November 15, 2007; a

post-1999 ozone Rate-Of-Progress (ROP)

plan with associated ROP mobile source

conformity emission budgets; a

contingency measures plan for both the

ozone attainment demonstration and the

post-1999 ROP plan; a commitment to

conduct a Mid-Course Review (MCR) of

the ozone attainment demonstration;

motor vehicle emission budgets for

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and

Oxides of Nitrogen ( NOX) for the 2007

attainment year, until such time that

revised budgets are submitted and

found to be adequate for conformity

purposes as called for by the State in its

commitment to recalculate and apply

revised emissions budgets for

conformity within two years of the

formal release of MOBILE6; and, a

demonstration that the State has fully

implemented Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM). The EPA is

also revising the existing NOX emissions

control waiver for the Illinois portion of

the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area to exclude from the

waiver NOX emission controls for

certain Electrical Generating Units

(EGUs), major non-EGU boilers and

turbines, and major cement kilns in the

ozone nonattainment area relied on by

the State to attain the ozone standard, as

noted in the State’s ozone attainment

demonstration. The existing NOX

emissions control waiver remains in

place for Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT), New Source

Review (NSR), and certain requirements

of vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) and transportation and general

conformity. The EPA is denying a

related citizen petition for the

termination of the NSR portion of the

NOX waiver.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes

effective on December 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection by appointment

weekdays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central

Time at the offices of the Air Programs

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

18th floor, Chicago, Illinois; Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Room M–1500, 401 M Street

(Mail Code 6102), SW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Doty, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone

Number: (312) 886–6057, E-mail

Address: doty.edward@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean

EPA.

This supplementary information

section is organized as follows:

I. What Is EPA Approving Or Disapproving

In This Action?

II. What Previous Action Has Been Taken Or

Proposed On This SIP Revision?

III. What Are The Requirements For Full

Approval Of This SIP Revision?

IV. How Did Illinois Fulfill These

Requirements For Full Approval?

V. What Other SIP Elements Did EPA Need

To Approve Before It Could Give Full

Approval To This SIP Revision?

VI. What Comments Were Received On The

Proposed Approval Of This SIP Revision,

And What Are EPA’s Responses To

These Comments?

VII. Final EPA Action

VIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Is EPA Approving or

Disapproving in This Action?

The EPA is approving SIP revisions

submitted by the State of Illinois for

purposes of attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard in the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area

(the Illinois portion of which is referred

to in this final rule as the ‘‘Chicago

nonattainment area’’ or, more simply, as

the ‘‘Chicago area’’).1 These SIP

revisions are primarily required by

section 182 of the CAA. This action

approves the following: (1) An ozone

attainment demonstration; (2) a post1999 ozone ROP plan with associated

ROP conformity emission budgets for

2002 and 2007; (3) a contingency

measures plan for both the ozone

attainment demonstration and the post1999 ROP plan; (4) a commitment to

conduct a MCR of the ozone attainment

demonstration; (5) motor vehicle

emission budgets for VOC and NOX for

the 2007 attainment year, until such

time that revised emission budgets are

submitted and found to be adequate for

conformity purposes as called for by the

State in its commitment to recalculate

and apply revised emission budgets for

conformity within two years of the

formal release of MOBILE6; and, (6) a

demonstration that the State has fully

implemented RACM in the Chicago

ozone nonattainment area. These SIP

elements are thoroughly described in a

July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR

36370).

The attainment emissions control

strategy which we are approving in this

final rule is summarized in Table I.

TABLE I.—OZONE ATTAINMENT

EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY

• Clean Air Act Title IV Acid Rain Controls

for NOX—Phase I.

• Rate-Of-Progress Plans (15 Percent ROP

Plan and 9 Percent Post-1996 ROP Plan).

• National Low Emission Vehicle Standards.

• Reformulated Gasoline—Phase II (where

required).

• Federal Phase II Small Engine Standards.

• Federal Marine Engine Standards.

• Federal Heavy Duty Vehicle (≥ 50 horsepower) Standards—Phase I.

• Federal Locomotive Standards—Including

Rebuilds.

• Federal High Compression Engine Standards.

• Federal Tier I Light Duty Vehicle and

Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Standards.

• Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) (where required).

• Basic Vehicle I/M (where required).

• Federal Clean Fuel Fleets Requirements

(where required).

• Federal Tier II and Low Sulfur Gasoline

Standards.

• Utility 0.15 Pounds NOX Per Million Btu of

Heat Input Emission Limits (20 affected

States, including Illinois).

• 60 Percent Reduction of NOX Emissions

From Large Non-Electric Generating Unit

(Non-EGU) Boilers and Turbines (20 affected States, including Illinois).

• 30 Percent Reduction of NOX Emissions

From Large Cement Kilns (20 affected

States, including Illinois).

• Wisconsin—0.28 Pounds NOX Per Million

Btu of Heat Input for Utilities (EGUs) in 8

Counties.

• Missouri—0.25 Pounds NOX Per Million

Btu of Heat Input for EGUs in the Eastern

One-Third of the State.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56905

2The EPA approved Illinois’ original NOX waiver

petition in a final rule on January 26, 1996 (61 FR

2428), covering a waiver from NOX emission control

requirements for RACT, NSR, and certain I/M and

general conformity NOX requirements for the

Chicago nonattainment area. The EPA also granted

an exemption from certain transportation

conformity NOX requirements for the Chicago

nonattainment area on February 12, 1996 (61 FR

5291).

TABLE I.—OZONE ATTAINMENT EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY—Continued

• Missouri—0.35 Pounds NOX Per Million

Btu of Heat Input for EGUs in the Western

Two-Thirds of the State.

This emissions control strategy has

been determined to be adequate to

achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard by November 15, 2007, the

attainment date EPA is approving for

the Chicago nonattainment area.

The post-1999 ROP plan emission

control measures are given in Table II

and III. Note in Comment/Response 39

below that we are not giving full VOC

reduction credit for Transportation

Control Measures as stated in Table VIII

of our July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66

FR 36370, 36388). VOC and NOX

emission reduction credits for all other

ROP emission control measures are as

specified in Table VIII and Table IX in

our July 11, 2001 proposed rule.

TABLE II.—CHICAGO NONATTAINMENT

AREA VOC EMISSION REDUCTION

MEASURES POST-1999 ROP PLAN

Mobile Source Measures:

• Post-1994 Tier I Vehicle Emission Rates.

• Federal Reformulated Gasoline—Phase I

and II.

• Illinois 1992 I/M Improvements.

• Enhanced I/M Program.

• Conventional Transportation Control

Measures.

• National Energy Policy Act of 1992.

• Federal Non-Road Small Engine Standards.

• National Low Emissions Vehicle Program.

• Federal Clean Fuel Fleet Vehicle Program.

• Tier II Vehicle Standards/Low Sulfur Fuel

Standards.

Point Source Measures:

• Emissions Reduction Market System

(ERMS).

Area Source Measures:

• 1999 Cold Cleaning Degreaser Limits.

TABLE III.—ILLINOIS OZONE ATTAINMENT AREA NOX EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES POST-1999 ROP

PLAN

• CAA Tier I Vehicle Emission Standards.

• Tier II Vehicle Standards/Low Sulfur Fuel

Standards.

• National Low Emission Vehicle/Heavy Duty

Gasoline Vehicle Standards.

• Federal Off-Road Engine Standards.

• Title IV Acid Rain Controls on EGUs.

• NOX SIP Call-based Rules for EGUs, NonEGU Boilers and Turbines, and Cement

Kilns.

These VOC and NOX emission control

measures have been determined to be

adequate to achieve the required ROP by

the milestone years (2002, 2005, and

2007) in the Chicago nonattainment

area. Note that the plan depends on the

substitution of NOX emission controls in

the attainment portion of Illinois for

VOC emission reduction requirements

in the Chicago nonattainment area. This

substitution is more thoroughly

discussed in the July 11, 2001 proposed

rule.

For contingency measures, the

adopted emission control measures and

their associated VOC emission

reduction levels in tons per day (TPD),

as given in the SIP, are presented in

Table IV. These emission reductions are

in excess of those emission reductions

included in the ozone attainment

demonstration, and, therefore, are

creditable as contingency measures.

These controls are being implemented

without the need for future rule

development by the State.

TABLE IV.—ILLINOIS CONTINGENCY

MEASURE EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Control measure

VOC emission reduction (TPD)

Mobile Source Measures .......... 10.8

Tier II/Low Sulfur Fuel Program 1.4

On-Board Diagnostics .............. 23.5

Non-Road Engine Standards ... 14.0

Total ...................................... 49.7

We proposed to approve Illinois’

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

(MVEB) for the Chicago nonattainment

area in the July 11, 2001 proposed rule

(66 FR 36370), and approve the MVEB

in this final rule. The VOC emissions

budget for 2002 is 183.4 tons per day,

and the VOC emissions budget for 2005

is 163.4 tons per day. The emissions

budgets for the 2007 attainment year are

154.91 tons per day for VOC and 293.92

tons per day for NOX. These emissions

budgets were found adequate effective

May 31, 2000, as posted on the EPA

website at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once

there, click on the ‘‘conformity’’ button).

The EPA is revising the existing NOX

emissions control waiver for the

Chicago nonattainment area to exclude

from the waiver those NOX emission

controls for certain EGUs, major nonEGU boilers and turbines, and major

cement kilns in the Chicago

nonattainment area relied on by the

State to attain the ozone standard, as

noted in the State’s ozone attainment

demonstration. The existing NOX

emissions control waiver remains in

place for RACT, NSR, and certain

requirements of vehicle I/M and

transportation and general conformity.

The EPA is denying a related citizen

petition for the termination of the NSR

portion of the NOX waiver.

The basis for the NOX waiver, as

retained, is revised from that used in the

original approval of the NOX waiver.2

Originally the NOX waiver was based on

a demonstration that NOX emission

controls in the Chicago nonattainment

area are not beneficial toward the

attainment of the ozone standard in this

area, complying with the waiver criteria

based on section 182(f)(1)(A) of the

CAA. The revised basis is based on

section 182(f)(2)(A) of the CAA, which

provides for a waiver of excess NOX

emission reductions. The State has

demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard without application of

the waivered NOX emission controls.

Today’s action finalizes EPA’s

approval of Illinois’ 1-hour ozone

attainment demonstration and post-1999

ROP SIP revisions as meeting the

requirements of sections 182(c)(2) and

(d) of the CAA.

II. What Previous Action Has Been

Taken or Proposed on This SIP

Revision?

EPA published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPR) for the Illinois ozone

attainment demonstration SIP for the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area on December 16,

1999 (64 FR 70496). In that NPR, we

proposed to conditionally approve the

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration

SIP revision submitted by Illinois on

April 30, 1998. This proposed

conditional approval was based on the

State’s submitted ozone modeling

analysis and the State’s commitment to

adopt and submit a final ozone

attainment demonstration and a post1999 ROP plan, including the necessary

State air pollution control regulations,

by December 31, 2000. We proposed, in

the alternative, to disapprove this

attainment demonstration plan, if, by

December 31, 1999, the State did not

select an emissions control strategy

associated with its submitted ozone

modeling analysis and did not submit

adequate motor vehicle emissions

budgets for VOC and NOX for the

Chicago nonattainment area that

complied with EPA’s conformity

56906 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

regulations and that supported the

attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard. We also required the State to

submit, by December 31, 1999, an

enforceable commitment to conduct a

mid-course review of the ozone

attainment plan in 2003.

The State met the submittal

requirements of the proposed

conditional approval, and submitted a

final ozone attainment demonstration

and post-1999 ROP plan on December

26, 2000. We reviewed this submittal,

along with a related citizens petition

requesting removal of the NSR portion

of the existing NOX emissions control

waiver for the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area, in a NPR on July

11, 2001 (66 36370). In this NPR, we

proposed to approve the State’s

submittal and to deny the citizen’s NOX

waiver petition.

Since the State largely replaced the

April 30, 1998 ozone attainment

demonstration with the December 26,

2000 submittal, the July 11, 2001 NPR

primarily focused on the December 2000

ozone attainment demonstration. As

such, this final rule also focuses on the

December 26, 2000 version of the ozone

attainment demonstration and the

comments received on our July 11, 2001

NPF. This Notice of Final Rulemaking

(NFR), however, also addresses the

public comments received with regard

to our December 16, 1999 NPR.

III. What Are the Requirements for Full

Approval of This SIP Revision?

The ozone attainment demonstration

and post-1999 ROP plan must meet

applicable criteria as detailed in the

CAA. The specific requirements of the

CAA for ozone attainment

demonstrations and post-1996 ROP

plans in serious and severe ozone

nonattainment areas are specified in

sections 182(c)(2) and 182(d) of the

CAA. Section 172 of the CAA provides

the general requirements for air quality

plans for nonattainment areas. Refer to

our July 11, 2001 NPR for further details

of requirements for ozone attainment

demonstrations and ROP plans.

IV. How Did Illinois Fulfill the

Requirements for Full Approval?

On December 26, 2000, as noted

elsewhere in this final rule, the State of

Illinois submitted a SIP revision

covering the State’s adopted ozone

attainment demonstration, post-1999

ROP plan, associated motor vehicle

emission budgets, and adopted

emissions control strategy. This

submittal, along with the submittal of

adopted NOX emission control

regulations as discussed below, meets

the requirements of the CAA for

submission of attainment

demonstrations and ROP plans.

V. What Other SIP Elements Did EPA

Need To Approve Before It Could Give

Full Approval to This SIP Revision?

This SIP revision depends

significantly on the new NOX emission

reductions resulting from the

implementation of NOX emission

control regulations for major EGUs,

major non-EGU boilers and turbines,

and major cement kilns. On September

25, 2001, EPA signed final rules

approving Illinois’ NOX emission

control regulations for major EGUs,

major non-EGU boilers and turbines,

and major cement kilns. These final

rules are being published in separate

rulemaking actions. In addition, other

State emission control regulations

affecting the attainment of the ozone

standard and post-1999 ROP in the

Chicago ozone nonattainment area—

such as VOC RACT, I/M, and Illinois’

Emission Reduction Market System,

with an associated VOC emissions cap

for stationary sources—have previously

been adopted by the State and approved

by the EPA.

All required State emission control

regulations and related SIP elements

needed to support the ozone attainment

demonstration and the post-1999 ROP

plan have been approved by the EPA.

Other related SIP actions are being

acted upon in this final notice. These

include Illinois’ commitments to

conduct a Mid-Course Review in 2004

and to recalculate the mobile vehicle

transportation conformity emission

budgets within two years after MOBILE6

is officially released. Illinois committed

to revise within two years after the

official release of MOBILE6, the 2007

attainment demonstration emission

budgets and to revise the ROP

conformity emission budgets. No

conformity determinations can be made

in the second year of the commitment

without adequate MOBILE6-based

emissions budgets. As we proposed on

July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), the final

approval action we are taking today on

the 2007 attainment demonstration

emission budgets will be effective for

conformity purposes only until revised

motor vehicle emissions budgets are

submitted and we have found them to

be adequate. In other words, the

emissions budgets we are approving

today as part of the attainment

demonstration and the post-1999 ROP

plan will apply for conformity purposes

only until there are new, adequate

emissions budgets consistent with the

States commitments to revise the

emissions budgets. The revised

emissions budgets will apply for

conformity purposes as soon as we find

them adequate.

We are limiting the duration of the

approval of the motor vehicle emissions

budgets in this manner because the

State has committed to revise them.

Therefore, once we have confirmed that

the revised motor vehicle emissions

budgets are adequate, they will be more

appropriate than the emissions budgets

we are approving for conformity

purposes now. If the revised motor

vehicle emissions budgets raise issues

about the sufficiency of the attainment

demonstration or post-1999 ROP plan,

EPA will work with the State on a caseby-case basis.

The Mid-Course Review commitment

and MOBILE6-based revision

commitment were discussed in detail in

the July 11, 2001 proposed rule. In

today’s action, EPA is approving these

State commitments.

VI. What Comments Were Received on

the Proposed Approval of These SIP

Revisions, and What Are EPA’s

Response to These Comments?

As noted above, we issued two NPRs,

dated December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70496)

and July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36370), related

to the SIP revisions addressed in this

final rule. We received comments on

both of these NPRs. The following

summarizes and addresses those

comments.

Comment 1

A commenter opposes the proposed

approval of the Chicago ozone

attainment demonstration because the

State of Illinois has not adopted an

emissions control strategy. The

commenter also stated that the MVEB is

by definition inadequate because the

SIP does not demonstrate timely

attainment of the ozone standard nor

does it include the emissions reductions

required for all RACM. The commenter

claims that EPA may not find as

adequate a MVEB that is derived from

a SIP that is inadequate for the purpose

for which it is submitted.

Response 1

With regard to the adoption of an

ozone attainment demonstration, as

noted in the July 11, 2001 proposed rule

(66 FR 36370), this problem has been

resolved. The State has completed the

adoption of the ozone attainment

demonstration and its associated

emissions control strategy. The State has

revised its MVEB to reflect the adopted

ozone attainment demonstration. It is

also noted that the SIP does now

demonstrate timely attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard by the November

15, 2007 deadline for the Chicago-GaryVerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:36 Nov 09, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 13NOR2
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56907

3Memorandum of December 14, 2000 from John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Subject: ‘‘Additional Submission on

RACM from States with Severe 1-hour Ozone

Nonattainment SIPs.’’

Lake County ozone nonattainment area

as noted in the July 11, 2001 proposed

rule.

The EPA reviewed the initial Illinois

SIP submittal (the April 30, 1998

submittal) for the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County ozone nonattainment area and

determined that it did not include

sufficient documentation concerning

available RACM measures. For all of the

severe nonattainment areas for which

EPA proposed approvals in December

1999, EPA consequently issued a policy

guidance memorandum 3 to have these

States address the RACM requirements

through an additional SIP submittal.

(Memorandum of December 14, 2000,

from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

regarding: ‘‘Additional Submission on

RACM from States with Severe 1-hour

Ozone Nonattainment Area SIP.’’)

We conducted a review of Illinois’

December 2000 submittal to determine

whether it demonstrated that Illinois

had implemented RACM in the Chicago

nonattainment area. As noted in the July

11, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 36370),

we have proposed to approve the

December 2000 submittal as

demonstrating that Illinois has

implemented RACM in the Chicago

nonattainment area.

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires

SIPs to contain RACM and provides for

areas to attain as expeditiously as

practicable. EPA has previously

provided guidance interpreting the

requirements of section 172(c)(1). See 57

FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation of section

172(c)(1) that potentially available

measures that would not advance the

attainment date for an area would not be

considered to be RACM. EPA also

indicated in that guidance that States

should consider all potentially available

emission control measures to determine

whether they are potentially available

for implementation in an area and

whether they would advance the

attainment date. Further, States should

indicate in their SIPs whether emission

control measures considered were

reasonably available or not, and, if

measures are reasonably available, they

must be adopted by the States as RACM.

Finally, EPA indicated that States could

reject emission control measures as not

being RACM because they would cause

substantial widespread and long-term

adverse impacts, or would be

economically or technologically

infeasible. The EPA also issued a recent

memorandum re-confirming the

principles in the earlier guidance. The

newer memorandum is titled,

‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM) Requirement

and Attainment Demonstration

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas,’’ from John S. Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS). November 30,

1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/tlpgm.html.

As noted in the July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370, 36398), the

State’s SIP has addressed the

implementation of RACM, and we have

determined that the SIP adequately

meets the RACM requirements of the

CAA. We addressed the implementation

of emission control measures in the

Chicago area for both mobile and

stationary sources. We determined that

the State could not significantly

advance the 1-hour ozone standard

attainment date through the

implementation of emission controls not

already adopted by the State. In

addition, as we noted in the July 11,

2001 proposed rule (66 FR 36370,

36400), although we encourage areas to

implement available RACM as

potentially cost-effective methods to

achieve emission reductions in the short

term, we do not believe that section

172(c)(1) of the CAA requires

implementation of potential RACM

measures that either needlessly require

costly implementation efforts or

produce relatively small emissions

reductions that will not be sufficient to

allow an area to achieve attainment in

advance of full implementation of all

other required measures.

In addition to emission control

measures already implemented locally,

Illinois relies in large part on emission

reductions from outside of the Chicago

area resulting from EPA’s NOX SIP Call

rule or section 126 NOX rule (65 FR

2674, January 18, 2000) to reach

attainment of the ozone standard. In the

NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356), we

concluded that NOX emission

reductions from various upwind States

were necessary to provide for timely

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

in nonattainment areas in various

downwind States, including Illinois on

both counts. The NOX SIP Call

established requirements for control of

sources of significant NOX emissions in

the relevant upwind States. These NOX

emission reductions are not expected to

be fully implemented until May 2004.

The ozone attainment demonstration

for Illinois indicates that the ozone

reduction benefit expected to be

achieved from the regional NOX

emission reductions is significant. We

have seen no evidence for similar ozone

benefits resulting from Illinois-specific

emission controls not already adopted

by the State that would also

significantly advance the attainment

date for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County

ozone nonattainment area. Therefore,

EPA concludes, based on the available

documentation, that the emission

reductions from additional emission

control measures will not advance

attainment, and, thus, none of the

possible additional emission control

measure can be considered to be RACM

for the purposes of section 172(c)(1) of

the CCA.

Although EPA does not believe that

section 172(c)(1) requires

implementation of additional measures

for the Chicago nonattainment area, this

conclusion is not necessarily valid for

other areas. Thus, a determination of

RACM is necessary on a case-by-case

basis and will depend on the

circumstances for the individual area. In

addition, if in the future EPA moves

forward to implement another ozone

standard, this RACM analysis would not

control what is RACM for these or any

other areas for that other ozone

standard.

EPA has also long advocated that

States consider the kinds of emission

control measures that the commenters

have suggested, and EPA has indeed

provided guidance on those measures.

See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

transp.htm. In order to demonstrate that

they will attain the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,

some areas may need to consider and

adopt a number of emission control

measures—including the kind that

Illinois itself evaluated in its RACM

analysis—that even collectively do not

result in many emission reductions.

Furthermore, EPA encourages areas to

implement technically available and

economically feasible measures to

achieve emissions reductions in the

short term—even if such measures do

not advance the attainment date—since

such measures will likely improve air

quality. Also, over time, emission

control measures that may not be RACM

now for an area may ultimately become

feasible for the same area due to

advances in control technology or more

cost-effective implementation

techniques. Thus, areas should continue

to assess the state of control technology

as they make progress toward

attainment and consider new control

technologies that may in fact result in

more expeditious improvement in air

quality.

We previously responded to

comments concerning the adequacy of

Illinois’ MVEB when we took final

56908 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

action determining the MVEB to be

adequate and do not address those

issues again here. Our findings of

adequacy for the MVEB and responses

to comments can be accessed at

www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once there,

click on the ‘‘conformity’’ button).

Comment 2

A commenter notes that EPA has been

working toward promulgation of a

revised 8-hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) because

the Administrator deemed attaining the

1-hour ozone NAAQS is not adequate to

protect public health. Therefore, EPA

must ensure that measures be

implemented now that will be sufficient

to meet the 1-hour standard and that

make as much progress toward

implementing the 8-hour ozone

standard as the requirements of the CAA

and implementing regulations allow.

Response 2

The 1-hour standard remains in effect

for all of 1-hour ozone nonattainment

areas, and the SIPs that have been

submitted are for the purpose of

achieving that NAAQS. Congress has

provided the States with the authority to

choose the measures necessary to attain

the NAAQS and EPA cannot second

guess the States’ choice if it determines

that the SIPs meet the requirements of

the CAA. EPA believes that the SIPs for

the severe areas meet the requirements

for attainment demonstrations for the 1-

hour standard and thus, could not

disapprove them even if EPA believed

other emission controls might be more

effective for attaining the 8-hour ozone

standard. EPA, however, generally

believes that emission controls

implemented to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard will be beneficial toward

attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard

as well. This is particularly true

regarding the implementation of NOX

emission controls resulting from EPA’s

NOX SIP Call.

Finally, EPA notes that although the

8-hour ozone standard has been adopted

by the EPA, implementation of the

standard has been delayed while certain

aspects of the standard remain before

the United States Circuit Court of

Appeals. The States and EPA have yet

to define the 8-hour ozone

nonattainment areas and the EPA has

yet to issue guidance and requirements

for the implementation of the 8-hour

ozone standard.

Comment 3

A commenter asks that EPA require

full compliance with regulatory

requirements now in place that govern

the development of attainment

strategies, and rigorous implementation

of statutory requirements for RACT and

RACM.

Response 3

As noted in responses to other

comments in this final rule and in the

July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36370) NPR, the

Illinois SIP meets the CAA requirements

for the implementation of RACM. In

addition, it is noted that the State of

Illinois has implemented RACT controls

for VOC sources in the ozone

nonattainment areas in Illinois in full

compliance with CAA requirements. As

noted elsewhere in this final rule and in

the July 11, 2001 proposed rule, the

Chicago nonattainment area is currently

covered by a waiver from NOX RACT

controls.

Given the above, it is concluded that

Illinois has met the requirements for

RACT and RACM as requested by the

commenter.

Comment 4

A commenter urges EPA to reject the

dilatory approaches embodied in the

proposed approvals, and to instead

disapprove the SIP revisions until they

demonstrate, using the approved Urban

Airshed Model (UAM), that the areas

will attain the 1-hour standard at the

earliest possible date.

Response 4

As noted in the July 11, 2001 NPR (66

FR 36370), Illinois has demonstrated

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

using the UAM. Illinois used UAM data

and a statistical approach, as defined in

EPA’s June 1996 Guidance on Use of

Modeled Results to Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS (EPA–

454/B–95–007), to demonstrate

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

in the Chicago nonattainment area by

November 15, 2007.

The commenter is objecting to States

demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard via procedures differing

from the deterministic test as discussed

in the June 1996 guidance. However, as

discussed in more detail in the June

1996 guidance and elsewhere in this

final rule, the deterministic test is not

the only attainment demonstration test

supported by the attainment

demonstration requirements of the CAA.

The CAA is not prescriptive as to the

specific nature of the attainment

demonstration, other than that the use

of a photochemical dispersion model,

such as UAM, is required for serious

and above ozone nonattainment areas.

The CAA does not prevent the

consideration of additional data to

support the attainment demonstration.

In addition, the EPA has found that the

simple use of the photochemical

dispersion model through only the

deterministic test may not be

appropriate for some areas.

See the next comment and our

response to that comment.

Comment 5

A commenter states that none of the

air quality plans for severe ozone

nonattainment areas demonstrate

attainment in the manner required by

section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA. Each

State’s photochemical grid modeling

clearly predicts continued

nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard, with predicted ozone peak

concentrations well above the NAAQS.

The Weight-Of-Evidence (WOE)

approach does not satisfy the CAA’s

mandate to assure attainment of the

ozone standard by the deadline, nor

does it comply with the requirement of

a modeled demonstration of attainment.

EPA may not lawfully approve SIPs

based on modeling that has been

expressly prohibited by the rule.

Note that a number of commenters

made related comments on the ozone

attainment demonstrations (including

those from states other than Illinois)

reviewed in the December 16, 1999

proposed rules. These related comments

are also addressed here.

Response 5

Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the

CAA, serious and severe ozone

nonattainment areas were required to

submit by November 15, 1994,

demonstrations of how they would

attain the 1-hour ozone standard.

Section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA

provides that ‘‘[t]his attainment

demonstration must be based on

photochemical grid modeling or any

other analytical method determined by

the Administrator, in the

Administrator’s discretion, to be at least

as effective.’’ As described in more

detail below, the EPA allows states to

supplement their photochemical

modeling results, with additional

evidence designed to account for

uncertainties in the photochemical

modeling, to demonstrate attainment.

This approach is consistent with the

requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) of

the CAA that the attainment

demonstration ‘‘be based on

photochemical grid modeling,’’ because

the modeling results constitute the

principal component of EPA’s analysis,

with supplemental information

designed to account for uncertainties in

the model. This interpretation and

application of the photochemical

modeling requirement of section

182(c)(2)(A) finds further justification in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56909

4The August 12, 1996 version of ‘‘Appendix W

to Part 51—Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ was

the rule in effect for these attainment

demonstrations. EPA is proposing updates to this

rule, that will not take effect until the rulemaking

process for them is complete.

5 Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to

Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS.

EPA–454/B–95–007, June 1996.

6 Ibid.

7 ‘‘Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence

Through Identification of Additional Emission

Reductions, Not Modeled.’’ U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and

Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.

the broad deference Congress granted

EPA to develop appropriate methods for

determining attainment, as indicated in

the last phrase of section 182(c)(2)(A).

The flexibility granted to EPA under

section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA is

reflected in the regulations EPA

promulgated for modeled attainment

demonstrations. These regulations

provide, ‘‘The adequacy of a control

strategy shall be demonstrated by means

of applicable air quality models, data

bases, and other requirements specified

in [40 CFR part 51 Appendix W]

(Guideline on Air Quality Models).’’ 4 40

CFR 51.112(a)(1). However, the

regulations further provide, ‘‘Where an

air quality model specified in appendix

W * * * is inappropriate, the model

may be modified or another model

substituted [with approval by EPA, and

after] notice and opportunity for public

comment * * *.’’ Appendix W, in turn,

provides that, ‘‘The Urban Airshed

Model (UAM) is recommended for

photochemical or reactive pollutant

modeling applications involving entire

urban areas,’’ but further refers to EPA’s

modeling guidance for data

requirements and procedures for

operating the model. 40 CFR 51 App. W

section 6.2.1.a. The modeling guidance

discusses the data requirements and

operating procedures, as well as

interpretation of model results as they

relate to the attainment demonstration.

This provision references guidance

published in 1991, but EPA envisioned

the guidance would change as we

gained experience with model

applications, which is why the guidance

is referenced, but does not appear, in

Appendix W. With updates in 1996 and

1999, the evolution of EPA’s guidance

has led us to use both the

photochemical grid model, and

additional analytical methods approved

by EPA.

The modeled attainment test

compares model predicted 1-hour daily

maximum ozone concentrations in all

grid cells for the attainment year to the

level of the NAAQS. The results may be

interpreted through either of two

modeled attainment or exceedance tests:

The deterministic test or the statistical

test. Under the deterministic test, a

predicted (attainment year, 2007 for the

Chicago nonattainment area) 1-hour

ozone concentration above 0.124 parts

per million (ppm) indicates that the area

is expected to exceed the standard in

the attainment year and a prediction at

or below 0.124 ppm indicates that the

area is expected to not exceed the

standard. Under the statistical test,

attainment is demonstrated when all

predicted (i.e., modeled) 1-hour ozone

concentrations inside the modeling

domain are at, or below, an acceptable

upper limit above the NAAQS permitted

under certain conditions (depending on

the severity of the episode modeled).5

In 1996, EPA issued guidance 6 to

update the 1991 guidance referenced in

40 CFR 50 App. W, to make the

modeled attainment test more closely

reflect the form of the NAAQS (i.e., the

statistical test described above), to

consider the area’s ozone design value

and the meteorological conditions

accompanying observed exceedances,

and to allow consideration of other

evidence to address uncertainties in the

modeling databases and application.

When the modeling does not

conclusively demonstrate attainment,

EPA has concluded that additional

analyses may be presented to help

determine whether the area will attain

the standard. As with other predictive

tools, there are inherent uncertainties

associated with air quality modeling

and its results. The inherent

imprecision of the model means that it

may be inappropriate to view the

specific numerical result of the model as

the only determinant of whether the SIP

controls are likely to lead to attainment.

The EPA’s guidance recognizes these

limitations, and provides a means for

considering other evidence to help

assess whether attainment of the

NAAQS is likely to be achieved. The

process by which this is done is called

a Weight-Of-Evidence (WOE)

determination. Under a WOE

determination, the state can rely on, and

EPA will consider in addition to the

results of the modeled attainment test,

other factors such as other modeled

output (e.g., changes in the predicted

frequency and pervasiveness of 1-hour

ozone NAAQS exceedances, and

predicted change in the ozone design

value); actual observed air quality

trends (i.e., analyses of monitored air

quality data); estimated emissions

trends; and the responsiveness of the

model predictions to further emission

controls.

In 1999, EPA issued additional

guidance 7 that makes further use of

model results for base case and future

emission estimates to predict a future

design value. This guidance describes

the use of an additional component of

the WOE determination, which requires,

under certain circumstances, additional

emission reductions that are or will be

approved into the SIP, but that were not

included in the modeling analysis, that

will further reduce the modeled ozone

design value. An area is considered to

monitor attainment if each monitor site

has air quality observed ozone design

values (4th highest daily maximum

ozone using the three most recent

consecutive years of data) at or below

the level of the standard. Therefore, it is

appropriate for EPA, when making a

determination that a control strategy

will provide for attainment, to

determine whether or not the model

predicted future design value is

expected to be at or below the level of

the standard. Since the form of the 1-

hour NAAQS allows exceedances, it did

not seem appropriate for EPA to require

the test for attainment to be ‘‘no

exceedances’’ in the future model

predictions. The method outlined in

EPA’s 1999 guidance uses the highest

measured design value across all sites in

the nonattainment area for each of three

years. These three ‘‘design values’’

represent the air quality observed

during the time period used to predict

ozone for the base emissions. This is

appropriate because the model predicts

the change in ozone from the base

period to the future attainment date.

The three yearly design values (highest

across the area) are averaged to account

for annual fluctuations in meteorology.

The result is an estimate of an area’s

base year design value. The base year

design value is multiplied by a ratio of

the peak model predicted ozone

concentrations in the attainment year

(i.e., average of daily maximum

concentrations from all days modeled)

to the peak model predicted ozone

concentrations in the base year (i.e.,

average of daily maximum

concentrations from all days modeled).

The result is an attainment year design

value based on the relative change in

peak model predicted ozone

concentrations from the base year to the

attainment year. Modeling results also

show that emission control strategies

designed to reduce areas of peak ozone

concentrations generally result in

similar ozone reductions in all core

areas of the modeling domain, thereby

56910 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

8Not applicable to the Chicago area ozone

attainment demonstration addressed in this final

rule, but applicable for other ozone nonattainment

areas for which EPA is also publishing final rules.

providing some assurance of attainment

at all monitors.

In the event that the attainment year

design value is above the standard, the

1999 guidance provides a method for

identifying additional emission

reductions, not modeled, which at a

minimum provide an estimated

attainment year design value at the level

of the standard. This step uses a locally

derived factor which assumes a linear

relationship between ozone and the

precursors.

A commenter on our December 1999

proposed ozone rules criticized the 1999

guidance as flawed on grounds that it

allows the averaging of the three highest

air quality sites across a region, whereas

EPA’s 1991 and 1996 modeling

guidance requires that attainment be

demonstrated at each site. This has the

effect of allowing lower air quality

concentrations to be averaged against

higher concentrations thus reducing the

total emission reduction needed to

attain at the higher site. The commenter

does not appear to have described the

guidance accurately. The guidance does

not recommend averaging across a

region or spatial averaging of observed

data. The guidance does recommend

determination of the highest site in the

region for each of the three-year periods,

determined by the base year modeled.

For example, if the base year is 1990, it

is the amount of emissions in 1990 that

must be adjusted or evaluated (by

accounting for growth and controls) to

determine whether attainment results.

These 1990 emissions contributed to

three ozone design value periods (1988–

90, 1989–91 and 1990–92). Under the

approach of the guidance document,

EPA determined the design value for

each of those three-year periods, and

then averaged those three design values,

to determine the area’s base ozone

design value. This approach is

appropriate because, as just noted, the

1990 emissions contributed to each of

those periods, and there is no reason to

believe the 1990 (episodic) emissions

resulted in the highest or lowest of the

three design values. Averaging the three

years is beneficial for another reason: It

allows consideration of a broader range

of meteorological conditions—those that

occurred throughout the 1988–1992

period, rather than the meteorology that

occurs in one particular year or even

one particular ozone episode within that

year. Furthermore, EPA relied on threeyear averaging only for purposes of

determining one component, i.e.—the

small amount of additional emission

reductions not modeled—of the WOE

determination. The WOE determination,

in turn, is intended to be part of a

qualitative assessment of whether

additional factors (including the

additional emissions reductions not

modeled), taken as a whole, indicate

that the area is more likely than not to

attain.

A commenter on our December 1999

proposed ozone rules criticized the

component of this WOE factor that

estimates ambient improvement because

it does not incorporate complete

modeling of the additional emissions

reductions. However, the regulations do

not mandate, nor does EPA guidance

suggest, that States must model all

control measures being implemented.

Moreover, a component of this

technique—the estimation of the future

ozone design value—should be

considered a model predicted estimate.

Therefore, results from this technique

are an extension of ‘‘photochemical

grid’’ modeling and are consistent with

Section 182(c)(2)(A). Also, a commenter

believes EPA has not provided sufficient

opportunity to evaluate the calculations

used to estimate additional emission

reductions. EPA provided a full 60-day

period for comment on all aspects of the

proposed rules. EPA has received

several comments on the technical

aspects of the approach and the results

of its application, as discussed above

and in the responses to the individual

SIPs.

A commenter states that application

of the method of attainment analysis in

the December 16, 1999 guidance will

yield a lower control estimate than if we

relied entirely on reducing maximum

predictions in every grid cell to less

than or equal to 124 ppb on every

modeled day. However, the

commenter’s approach may

overestimate needed emission controls

because the form of the standard allows

up to 3 exceedances in 3 years at every

monitoring site, and, therefore, in every

grid cell. If the model over-predicts

observed concentrations, predicted

controls may be further overestimated.

EPA has considered other evidence, as

described above through the weight of

evidence determination.

When reviewing a SIP, the EPA must

make a determination that the control

measures adopted are reasonably likely

to lead to attainment. Reliance on the

WOE factors allows EPA to make this

determination based on a greater body

of information presented by the States

and available to EPA. EPA’s decision

was further strengthened by each State’s

commitment to check progress towards

attainment in a mid-course review and

to adopt additional measures, if the

anticipated progress is not being made.

A commenter further criticized EPA’s

technique for estimating the ambient

impact of additional emissions

reductions not modeled on grounds that

EPA employed a rollback modeling

technique that, according to the

commenter, is precluded under EPA

regulations. The commenter explained

that 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.e.

provides, ‘‘Proportional (rollback/

forward) modeling is not an acceptable

procedure for evaluating ozone control

strategies.’’ Section 14.0 of appendix W

defines ‘‘rollback’’ as ‘‘a simple model

that assumes that if emissions from each

source affecting a given receptor are

decreased by the same percentage,

ambient air quality concentrations

decrease proportionately.’’ Under this

approach if 20 percent improvement in

ozone is needed for the area to reach

attainment, it is assumed a 20 percent

reduction in VOC emissions would be

required. There was no approach for

identifying NOX reductions. The

‘‘proportional rollback’’ approach is

based on a purely empirically/

mathematically derived relationship.

EPA did not rely on this approach in its

evaluation of the attainment

demonstrations. The prohibition in

Appendix W applies to the use of a

rollback method which is empirically/

mathematically derived and

independent of model estimates or

observed air quality and emissions

changes as the sole method for

evaluating control strategies. For the

demonstrations under proposal, EPA

used a locally derived (as determined by

the model and/or observed changes in

air quality) ratio of change in emissions

to change in ozone to estimate

additional emission reductions to

achieve an additional increment of

ambient improvement in ozone. For

example, if monitoring or modeling

results indicate that ozone was reduced

by 25 ppb during a particular period,

and that VOC and NOX emissions fell by

20 tons per day and 10 tons per day

respectively during that period, EPA

developed a ratio of ozone improvement

related to reductions in VOC and NOX.

This formula assumes a linear

relationship between the precursors and

ozone for a small amount of ozone

improvement, but it is not a

‘‘proportional rollback’’ technique.

Further, EPA uses these locally derived

adjustment factors as a component to

estimate the extent to which additional

emissions reductions 8—not the core

control strategies—would reduce ozone

levels and thereby strengthen the weight

of evidence test. EPA uses the UAM to

evaluate the core control strategies. This

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56911

9The rulemaking referred to here is not a

proposed rule covering the ozone attainment

demonstration for the Chicago nonattainment area.

Rather, the rulemaking referred to here is a

proposed rule for an area found to have a shortfall

in a state’s ozone attainment demonstration. This

type of proposed rule generally applied to one of

the Northeastern States. This paragraph of the

response is not applicable to the Illinois ozone

attainment demonstration.

limited use of adjustment factors is

more technically sound than the

unacceptable use of proportional

rollback to determine the ambient

impact of the entire set of emissions

reductions required under the

attainment SIP. The limited use of

adjustment factors is acceptable for

practical reasons: it obviates the need to

expend more time and resources to

perform additional modeling. In

addition, the adjustment factor is a

locally derived relationship between

ozone and its precursors based on air

quality observations and/or modeling

which is more consistent with

recommendations referenced to in

Appendix W and does not assume a

direct proportional relationship between

ozone and its precursors. In addition,

the requirement that areas perform a

mid-course review (a check of progress

toward attainment) provides a margin of

safety.

A commenter expressed concerns that

EPA used a modeling technique

(proportional rollback) that was

expressly prohibited by 40 CFR part 51

Appendix W without expressly

proposing to do so in a notice of

proposed rulemaking. However, the

commenter is mistaken. As explained

above, EPA did not use or rely on a

proportional rollback technique in the

relevant rulemaking 9 but used UAM to

evaluate the core control strategies and

then applied its WOE guidance.

Therefore, because EPA did not use an

‘‘alternative model’’ to UAM, it did not

trigger an obligation to modify

Appendix W. Furthermore, EPA did

propose to use the November 1999

guidance, ‘‘Guidance for Improving

Weight of Evidence Through

Identification of Additional Emission

Reductions, Not Modeled,’’ in the

December 16, 1999 NPR and has

responded to all comments received on

that guidance elsewhere in this final

rule.

A commenter also expressed concern

that EPA applied unacceptably broad

discretion in fashioning and applying

the WOE determinations. For all of the

attainment submittals proposed for

approval in December 1999 concerning

serious and severe ozone nonattainment

areas, EPA first reviewed the UAM

results. In all cases, the UAM results did

not pass the deterministic test. In two

cases—Milwaukee and Chicago—the

UAM results passed the statistical test;

in the rest of the cases, the UAM results

failed the statistical test. The UAM has

inherent limitations that, in EPA’s view,

were manifest in all these cases. These

limitations include: Only selected time

periods were modeled, not the entire

three-year period used as the definitive

means for determining an area’s

attainment status. Also, there are

inherent uncertainties in the model

formulation and model inputs such as

hourly emission estimates, emissions

growth projections, biogenic emission

estimates, and derived wind speeds and

directions. As a result, for all areas, even

Milwaukee and Chicago, EPA examined

additional analyses to indicate whether

additional SIP controls would yield

meaningful reductions in ozone values.

These analyses did not point to the need

for additional emission reductions for

Springfield, Greater Connecticut,

Metropolitan Washington DC, Chicago

and Milwaukee, but did point to the

need for additional reductions, in

varying amounts, in the other areas. As

a result, the other areas submitted

control requirements to provide the

indicated level of emissions reductions.

EPA applied the same methodology in

these areas, but because of differences in

the application of the model to the

circumstances of each individual area,

the results differed on a case-by-case

basis.

As another WOE factor, for areas

within the NOX SIP Call domain, results

from the EPA regional modeling for

NOX controls as well as the Tier2/Low

Sulfur program were considered. Also,

for all of the areas, EPA considered

recent changes in air quality and

emissions. For some areas, this was

helpful because there were emission

reductions in the most recent years that

could be related to observed changes in

air quality, while for other areas there

appeared to be little change in either air

quality or emissions. For areas in which

air quality trends, associated with

changes in emissions levels, could be

discerned, these observed changes were

used to help decide whether or not the

emission controls in the plan would

provide progress towards attainment.

A commenter also complained that

EPA has applied the WOE

determinations to adjust modeling

results only when those results indicate

nonattainment, and not when they

indicate attainment. First, we disagree

with the premise of this comment: EPA

does not apply the WOE factors to

adjust model results. EPA applies the

WOE factors as additional analysis to

compensate for uncertainty in the air

quality modeling. Second, EPA has

applied WOE determinations to all of

the attainment demonstrations proposed

for approval in December 1999.

Although for most of them, the air

quality modeling results by themselves

indicated nonattainment, for two

metropolitan areas—Chicago and

Milwaukee, including parts of the States

of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, the

air quality modeling did indicate

attainment on the basis of the statistical

test.

A commenter further criticized EPA’s

application of the WOE determination

on grounds that EPA ignores evidence

indicating that continued nonattainment

is likely, such as, according to the

commenter, monitoring data indicating

that ozone levels in many cities during

1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS by

margins as wide or wider than those

predicted by the UAM. EPA has

reviewed the evidence provided by the

commenter. The 1999 monitor values do

not constitute substantial evidence

indicating that the SIPs will not provide

for attainment. These values do not

reflect either the local or regional

control programs which are scheduled

for implementation in the next several

years. Once implemented, these controls

are expected to lower emissions and

thereby lower ozone values. Moreover,

there is little evidence to support the

statement that ozone levels in many

cities during 1999 continue to exceed

the NAAQS by margins as wide or

wider than those predicted by the UAM.

Since areas did not model 1999 ozone

levels using 1999 meteorology and 1999

emissions which reflect emission

reductions anticipated for control

measures that are or will be approved

into the SIP, there is no way to

determine how the UAM predictions for

1999 compare to the 1999 air quality.

Therefore, we can not determine

whether the monitor values exceed the

NAAQS by a wider margin than the

UAM predictions for 1999. In summary,

there is little evidence to support the

conclusion that high exceedances in

1999 will continue to occur after

adopted control measures are

implemented.

In addition, a commenter argued that

in applying the WOE determinations,

EPA ignored factors showing that the

SIPs under-predict future emissions,

and the commenter included as

examples certain mobile source

emissions sub-inventories. EPA did not

ignore possible under-prediction in

mobile emissions. EPA is presently

evaluating mobile source emissions data

as part of an effort to update the

computer model for estimating mobile

source emissions. EPA is considering

various changes to the model, and is not

56912 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

10 ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rules,’’

March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office

of air Quality Planning and Standards to Air

Division Directors, Regions I–X.

11 ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the

Autobody Refinishing Rule,’’ November 27, 1994,

John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division

Directors, Regions I–X.

12 ‘‘Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and

Commercial Products under Section 183(e) of the

Clean Air Act,’’ June 22, 1995, John S. Seitz,

prepared to conclude at this time that

the net effect of all these various

changes would be to increase or

decrease emissions estimates. For

attainment demonstration SIPs that rely

on the Tier 2/Sulfur program for

attainment or otherwise (i.e., reflect

these programs in their motor vehicle

emissions budgets), States have

committed to revise their motor vehicle

emissions budgets after the MOBILE6

model is released. EPA will work with

States on a case-by-case basis if the new

emission estimates raise issues about

the sufficiency of the attainment

demonstration. If analysis indicates

additional measures are needed, EPA

will take the appropriate action.

Comment 6

A commenter notes that the SIP

revisions addressed in the December 16,

1999 proposed rules claim emission

reduction credits from relatively recent

national EPA rulemakings for surface

coatings and consumer products. In

most cases, the emission reduction

credit claimed is based on EPA

estimates of emission reductions from

proposed versions of these rules. The

final versions of these rules, however,

are weaker than the proposed rules in a

number of key respects. Therefore, the

emission credits claimed for these

national rules must be recalculated to

reflect only the actual emission

reductions that can be expected under

the EPA rules as finally adopted.

Response 6

We respond to this comment by

addressing each of EPA’s rules for

surface coatings and consumer

products.

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coatings

On March 22, 1995, EPA issued a

memorandum 10 that provided that

States could claim a 20 percent

reduction in VOC emissions from the

AIM coatings category in ROP and

attainment plans based on the

anticipated promulgation of a national

AIM coatings rule. In developing the

attainment and ROP SIPs for their

nonattainment areas, States relied on

this memorandum to estimate emission

reductions from the anticipated national

AIM rule. EPA promulgated the final

AIM rule in September 1998, codified at

40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D. In the

preamble to EPA’s final AIM coatings

regulation, EPA estimated that the

regulation will result in a 20 percent

reduction of nationwide VOC emissions

from AIM coatings categories (63 FR

48855). The estimated VOC reductions

from the final AIM rule resulted in the

same level as those estimated in the

March 1995 EPA policy memorandum.

In accordance with EPA’s final

regulation, States have assumed a 20

percent reduction from AIM coatings

source categories in their attainment

and ROP plans. AIM coatings

manufacturers were required to be in

compliance with the final regulation

within one year of promulgation, except

for certain pesticide formulations which

were given an additional year to

comply. Thus, all manufacturers were

required to comply, at the latest, by

September 2000. Industry confirmed in

comments on the proposed AIM rule

that 12 months between the issuance of

the final rule and the compliance

deadline would be sufficient to ‘‘use up

existing label stock’’ and ‘‘adjust

inventories’’ to conform to the rule. 63

FR 48848 (September 11, 1998). In

addition, EPA determined that, after the

compliance date, the volume of

nonconforming products would be very

low (less than one percent) and would

be withdrawn from retail shelves

anyway. Therefore, EPA believes that

compliant coatings were in use by the

Fall of 1999 with full reductions to be

achieved by September 2000 and that it

was appropriate for the States to take

credit for a 20 percent VOC emission

reduction in their SIPs.

Autobody Refinish Coatings Rule

Consistent with a November 27, 1994

EPA policy,11 to many States claimed a

37 percent VOC emission reduction

from this source category based on a

proposed rule. However, EPA’s final

rule, ‘‘National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for

Automobile Refinish Coatings,’’

published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR

48806), did not regulate lacquer

topcoats and will result in a smaller

VOC emission reduction of around 33

percent overall nationwide. The 37

percent VOC emission reduction from

EPA’s proposed rule was an estimate of

the total nationwide emission reduction.

Since this number is an overall national

average, the actual reduction achieved

in any particular area could vary

depending on the level of control which

already existed in the area prior to the

implementation of the national rule. For

example, in California, the reduction

from the national rule is zero because

California’s rules are more stringent

than the national rule. In the proposed

rule, the estimated percentage reduction

for areas that were unregulated before

the implementation of the national rule

was about 40 percent. However, as a

result of the lacquer topcoat exemption

added between proposal and final rule,

the VOC reduction is now estimated to

be 36 percent for previously unregulated

areas. Thus, most previously

unregulated areas will need to make up

the approximately 1 percent difference

between the 37 percent estimate of VOC

emission reductions assumed by States,

following EPA guidance based on the

proposal, and the 36 percent VOC

emission reduction actually achieved by

the final rule for previously unregulated

areas. EPA’s best estimate of the

reduction potential of the final rule was

spelled out in a September 19, 1996

memorandum entitled ‘‘Emissions

Calculations for the Automobile

Refinish Coatings Final Rule’’ from

Mark Morris to Docket No. A–95–18.

Note that the 1 percent shortfall in

VOC emission reductions in this case is

limited to automobile refinishing

operations only. The 1 percent shortfall

does not apply to the State’s VOC

emission reduction estimates, as a

whole. The State’s ozone attainment

demonstrations and ROP plan rely on

VOC emission reductions from many

emission source categories. Therefore,

the actual shortfall in the SIP’s VOC

emission reduction strategy, as a whole

and on a percentage basis, is

significantly less than 1 percent, only a

small fraction of 1 percent. Considering

the ROP plan, this small shortfall is

more than compensated for through an

excess in NOX emission reductions,

which go well beyond what is required

to achieve ROP for each milestone year.

Considering the ozone attainment

demonstration, a review of modeled

ozone concentration changes against

predicted changes in VOC and NOX

emissions shows that a very small

change in emissions of well less than 1

percent should produce an undetectable

impact on the modeled ozone

concentrations. Therefore, this small

shortfall is not a basis for disapproving

either the ROP plan or the ozone

attainment demonstration.

Consumer Products Rule

Consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA

guidance,12 States claimed a 20 percent

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56913

Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions

I–X.

VOC emission reduction from this

source category based on EPA’s

proposed rule. The final rule, ‘‘National

Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Consumer Products,’’ (63

FR 48819), published on September 11,

1998, has resulted in a 20 percent VOC

emission reduction after the December

10, 1998 compliance date. Moreover,

these reductions largely occurred by the

Fall of 1999. In the consumer products

rule, EPA determined and the consumer

products industry concurred, that a

significant proportion of subject

products have been reformulated in

response to State regulations and in

anticipation of the final rule. 63 FR

48819. That is, industry reformulated

the products covered by the consumer

products rule in advance of the final

rule. Therefore, EPA believes that

complying products in accordance with

the rule were in use by the Fall of 1999.

It is appropriate for the States to take

credit for a 20 percent VOC emission

reduction for the consumer products

rule in their SIPs.

Comment 7

A commenter states that the

attainment and ROP demonstrations in

most States are flawed because they

assume a vehicle fleet mix that does not

accurately reflect the growing

proportion of sport utility vehicles

(SUVs) and gasoline trucks, which

pollute more than conventional cars.

EPA and the States have not followed a

consistent practice in updating ozone

modeling to account for changes in

vehicle fleets. The underestimation of

emissions from this can be significant.

Therefore, if the motor vehicle

emissions inventory has not been

updated to prepare the current SIP

submission, the SIP should be

disapproved.

Response 7

All of the SIPs on which we are taking

final action are based on the most recent

vehicle registration data available at the

time the SIP was submitted. The SIPs

use the same vehicle fleet characteristics

that were used in the most recent

periodic inventory update. The MVEB

for the Illinois ozone attainment

demonstration SIP revision is based on

vehicle registration data from 1996,

which was the most recent data

available at the time the SIP revision

was submitted. EPA requires the most

recent available data to be used, but we

do not require it to be updated on a

specific schedule. Therefore, different

SIPs base their fleet mix on different

years of data. Our guidance does not

suggest that SIPs should be disapproved

on this basis. Nevertheless, we do

expect that revisions to these SIPs that

are submitted using MOBILE6 (as

required in those cases where the SIP is

relying on emissions reductions from

the Tier 2 standards) will use updated

vehicle registration data appropriate for

use with MOBILE6, whether it is

updated local data or the updated

national default data that will be part of

MOBILE6.

Comment 8

Several commenters note that the

CAA requires nonattainment plans to

provide for implementation of all RACM

as expeditiously as practicable. The SIPs

at issue in the December 16, 1999

proposed rules do not meet these

requirements. The plans contain only a

limited set of emission control

measures, and fail to offer any

justification for the States’ failure to

adopt numerous available measures that

were specifically identified by EPA and

others. In addition, the SIPs contain no

demonstration or claim that the

emission control schedules are the

earliest practicable ones.

These commenters note that the Phase

II NOX limits agreed to by the Ozone

Transport Commission States are clearly

RACM, as they are widely in effect.

States that have adopted such measures

have not adopted enforceable NOX

RACT limits for all relevant facilities

within their jurisdiction. It is not

sufficient for States to assert that they

will adopt additional NOX emission

controls if needed. The CAA requires

each SIP to include all RACM now, and

to show that such measures have been

adopted in legally enforceable forms.

Response 8

EPA has previously provided

guidance interpreting the RACM

requirements of 172(c)(1). See 57 FR

13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation that

potentially available measures that

would not advance the attainment date

for an area would not be considered

RACM. EPA concluded that a measure

would not be reasonably available if it

would not advance attainment. EPA also

indicated in that guidance that states

should consider all potentially available

measures to determine whether they

were reasonably available for

implementation in the area, and

whether they would advance the

attainment date. Further, states should

indicate in their SIP submittals whether

measures considered were reasonably

available or not, and if measures are

reasonably available they must be

adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA

indicated that states could reject

potential RACM measures either

because they would not advance the

attainment date, would cause

substantial widespread and long-term

adverse impacts, or for various reasons

related to local conditions, such as

economics or implementation concerns.

The EPA also issued a recent

memorandum on this topic, ‘‘Guidance

on the Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) Requirement and

Attainment Demonstration Submissions

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.’’ John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. November 30,

1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t1pgm.html.

More specifically with respect to the

Chicago nonattainment area, as noted

elsewhere in this final rule and in the

July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR

36370), we have determined that the

Illinois SIP does provide for the

implementation of RACM. In addition,

the State has been granted a waiver from

adopting and implementing NOX RACT

requirements in the Chicago

nonattainment area. Therefore, these

emission controls are not RACM for this

area. Finally, the State has adopted and

is implementing regional NOX controls,

which have been demonstrated to

support the attainment of the ozone

standard.

Although EPA encourages areas to

implement available RACM measures as

potentially cost-effective methods to

achieve emissions reductions in the

short term, EPA does not believe that

section 172(c)(1) requires

implementation of potential RACM

measures that either require costly

implementation efforts or produce

relatively small emissions reductions

that will not be sufficient to allow any

of the four areas to achieve attainment

in advance of full implementation of all

other required measures. Because we

believe that additional control measures

are not reasonably available for the

Chicago nonattainment area, EPA

believes that the attainment date

proposed for approval is as expeditious

as practicable.

Comment 9

A commenter states that the air

quality plans are deficient with respect

to Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs). The plans contain no or few

serious new measures to reduce growth

in vehicle travel. Most plans do not

seriously consider the possibility of

major expansion of transit service,

reduced or zero transit fares, pricing

strategies, etc. There is also substantial

evidence that significant air quality

56914 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

benefits can be achieved by modifying

land development patterns to limit

urban sprawl and to facilitate transit

use. The commenter cites several

examples that would apply to this issue.

The States have generally not included

any of these types of measures in their

SIPs, and have offered no justification

for the failure to do so.

Response 9

EPA has long advocated that States

consider the kinds of emission control

measures that the commenter has

suggested, and EPA has indeed

provided guidance on those measures.

See, for example, http://www.epa.gov/

otaq/transp.htm. In order to

demonstrate that they will attain the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable, some areas may need to

consider and adopt a number of

measures—including the kind of

measures that EPA itself evaluated in

the RACM analysis for three serious

ozone nonattainment areas—that even

collectively do not result in many

emission reductions. Further more, EPA

encourages areas to implement

technically available and economically

feasible measures to achieve emissions

reductions in the short term—even if

such measures do not advance the

attainment date—since such measures

will likely improve air quality. Also,

over time, emission control measures

that may not be RACM now for an area

may ultimately become feasible for the

same area due to advances in control

technology or more cost-effective

implementation techniques. Thus, areas

should continue to assess the state of

emissions control technology as they

make progress toward attainment and

consider new emissions control

technologies that may in fact result in

more expeditious improvement in air

quality.

Our approach toward TCMs as RACM

and the RACM requirement is grounded

in the language of the CAA. Section

172(c)(1) states that a SIP for a

nonattainment area must meet the

following requirement, ‘‘In general,—

Such plan provisions shall provide for

the implementation of all reasonably

available control measures as

expeditiously as practicable (including

such reductions in emissions from

existing sources in the area as may be

obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology) and shall provide

for attainment of the national primary

ambient air quality standards.’’ The EPA

interprets this language as tying the

RACM requirement to the requirement

for attainment of the primary air quality

standards. The CAA provides that the

attainment date shall be ‘‘as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than * * *.’’ the deadlines specified in

the CAA. EPA believes that the use of

the same terminology in conjunction

with the RACM requirement serves the

purpose of specifying RACM as the way

of expediting attainment of the NAAQS

in advance of the attainment deadline(s)

specified in the CAA. As stated in the

‘‘General Preamble’’ (57 FR 13498 at

13560, April 16, 1992), ‘‘The EPA

interprets this requirement to impose a

duty on all nonattainment areas to

consider all available control measures

and to adopt and implement such

measures as are reasonably available for

implementation in the area as

components of the area’s attainment

demonstration.’’ In other words, because

of the construction of the RACM

language in the CAA, EPA does not

view the RACM requirement as separate

from the attainment demonstration

requirement. Therefore, EPA believes

that the CAA supports its interpretation

that measures may be determined to not

be RACM if they do not advance the

attainment date. In addition, EPA

believes that it would not be reasonable

to require implementation of measures

that would not in fact advance

attainment. See 57 FR 13560.

The term ‘‘reasonably available

control measure’’ is not actually defined

in the definitions contained in the CAA.

Therefore, the EPA interpretation that

potential emission control measures

may be determined not to be RACM if

they require an intensive and costly

implementation effort for numerous

small area sources is based on the

common sense meaning of the phrase,

‘‘reasonably available.’’ A measure that

is reasonably available is one that is

technologically and economically

feasible and that can be readily

implemented. Ready implementation

also includes consideration of whether

emission reductions from sources are

relatively small and whether the

administrative burden, to the States and

regulated entities, of controlling such

sources was likely to be considerable.

As stated in the General Preamble, EPA

believes that States can reject potential

emission control measures based on

local conditions, including costs. See 57

FR 13561.

As noted in our July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370, 36398),

Illinois has addressed the adoption and

implementation of TCMs through an

ongoing and continuous evaluation and

implementation of TCMs in the Chicago

nonattainment area and through

including reasonably available TCMs in

the SIP. The IEPA has worked

extensively with the Chicago Area

Transportation Study (CATS), which is

the Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO) for Chicago nonattainment area,

to evaluate and implement TCMs which

are reasonably available. The IEPA has

been an active participant in the

evaluation of TCMs for funding with the

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

(CMAQ) Program.

The Illinois SIP has approved TCMs

which are credited in both the 15

percent ROP plan (62 FR 66279) and the

post-1996 ROP plan (65 FR 78961). The

first TCMs to be approved into the

Illinois SIP were approved in 1995 as

part of the Vehicle Miles Travelled

(VMT) offset SIP (60 FR 48896). The 127

TCMs which were approved included

commuter parking, a rideshare program,

new rapid transit service, traffic signal

coordination projects, an improved

vanpool program, and new

transportation centers and train station

reconstruction. Since that time,

additional TCMs have been

implemented and added to the SIP.

Additional TCMs were approved into

the SIP when the 9 percent post-1996

ROP plan was approved on December

18, 2000. The additional TCMs included

improved public transit, such as fixed

guideway transit and rail station

improvements, traffic flow

improvements, increased park and ride

service, increased parking at transit

stations, and bicycle and pedestrian

programs.

CATS has prepared a series of reports

which evaluated emissions control

benefits for various TCMs and has

reported on the implementation of

TCMs in the Chicago area. The CATS

reports are listed in our July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370, 36398).

These reports have been submitted by

the IEPA as part of the documentation

of the SIP and are contained in the

docket for this action.

We have concluded that, through the

IEPA and CATS process of TCM

evaluation and selection, Illinois has

considered and implemented all

reasonably available TCMs. As

explained in the July 11, 2001 proposed

rule (66 36370), any measures that have

not been included in the SIP would

provide only marginal air quality

improvements at significantly greater

expense or with other significant

implementation barriers and would not

advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard.

Comment 10

A commenter notes that a 1993 State

and Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators (STAPPA) report

recommended adoption of a California

or South Coast Air Quality Management

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56915

13The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

was formed to seek solutions to ongoing ozone air

quality problems in the Lake Michigan region, and

is made up of representatives of the State of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

District (SCAQMD) controls or emission

limits for various source categories. The

commenter mentions further possible

control measures as well, and notes that

none of the States offered consideration

of these emission control measures

accompanied by reasoned explanations

for their rejection.

Response 10

The State has completed the adoption

of the ozone attainment demonstration

and its associated emissions control

strategy. We have determined that the

SIP, as currently adopted by the State,

addresses the implementation of RACM.

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires

SIPs to contain RACM and provides for

areas to attain as expeditiously as

practicable. EPA has previously

provided guidance interpreting the

requirements of section 172(c)(1). See 57

FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation that

potentially available measures that

would not advance the attainment date

for an area would not be considered to

be RACM. EPA also indicated in that

guidance that States should consider all

potentially available emission control

measures to determine whether they are

potentially available for implementation

in an area and whether they would

advance the attainment date. Further,

States should indicate in their SIPs

whether emission control measures

considered were reasonably available or

not, and, if measures are reasonably

available, they must be adopted by the

States as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated

that States could reject emission control

measures as not being RACM because

they would cause substantial

widespread and long-term adverse

impacts, or would be economically or

technologically infeasible. This policy

has been detailed in other comments

addressing RACM and comments

suggesting other measures that could

have been considered for

implementation.

As stated in the July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370), the State

of Illinois, along with the other Lake

Michigan Air Director Consortium

(LADCO) states,13 considered a wide

range of measures for their reduction

potential, cost, and ease of

implementation. The State of Illinois

has implemented measures which have

met the required ROP reductions and

have also been modeled in the

attainment demonstration modeling

which demonstrates that the Lake

Michigan area can show attainment of

the 1-hour ozone standard by the 2007

attainment date. Illinois relies in large

part on emission reductions from

outside of the Chicago nonattainment

area resulting from EPA’s NOX SIP Call

rule or section 126 NOX rule (65 FR

2674, January 18, 2000) to reach

attainment of the ozone standard. In the

NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356), we

concluded that NOX emission

reductions from various upwind States

were necessary to provide for timely

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

in nonattainment areas in various

downwind States, including Illinois on

both counts. The NOX SIP Call

established requirements for control of

sources of significant NOX emissions in

the relevant upwind States. These NOX

emission reductions are not expected to

be fully implemented until May 2004.

The ozone attainment demonstration for

Illinois indicates that the ozone

reduction benefit expected to be

achieved from the regional NOX

emission reductions is substantial. We

have seen no evidence for similar ozone

benefits resulting from Illinois-specific

emission controls not already adopted

by the State that would significantly

advance the attainment date for the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area. Therefore, EPA

concludes, based on the available

documentation, that the emission

reductions from additional emission

control measures will not advance

attainment, and, thus, none of the

possible additional emission control

measure can be considered to be RACM

for the purposes of section 172(c)(1) of

the CAA.

It should be noted that Illinois, along

with the other LADCO States, has

considered a wide range of possible

emission controls as part of the Lake

Michigan Ozone Control Program. The

States reviewed the emission controls

being implemented elsewhere in the

United States and considered possible

source controls for source categories

with significant VOC and NOX

emissions. This included emission

controls recommended by STAPPA and

implemented by SCAQMD and other

States. Possible emission controls were

evaluated in terms of ease of

implementation and cost-effectiveness,

possible timing for implementation, and

public and industrial acceptability. This

analysis led the individual LADCO

States to give additional consideration

to possible emission controls

specifically applicable to their

individual States (few possible emission

controls had generally applicability to

all LADCO States). The emission

controls given favorable further

consideration generally became parts of

the States’ ROP plans. The rejected

emission controls would not be

considered to be RACM under EPA

policy as discussed above.

Comment 11

A commenter states that MVEBs in

the state plans are by definition

inadequate because the plans do not

demonstrate timely attainment or

contain the emission reductions

required for all RACM. The commenter

asserts that the EPA may not find as

adequate a MVEB that is derived from

a SIP that is inadequate for the purposes

for which it is submitted. The

commenter believes that none of the

MVEBs in the state plans addressed in

the December 16, 1999 proposed rules

are consistent with either the level of

emissions achieved by implementation

of all RACM, nor are they derived from

SIPs that provide for attainment.

Response 11

As noted above and in the July 11,

2001 proposed rule (66 FR 36370), we

have determined that the State’s air

quality plan, as submitted in December

2000, does reflect the adoption and

implementation of RACM. The plan also

contains MVEBs based on the plan’s

ozone attainment demonstration.

Therefore, we disagree with the

commenters assertion that we cannot

approve the plan’s MVEBs.

See the response to Comment 1 above.

Comment 12

A commenter notes that the CAA

requires the SIPs to include a program

to provide for the enforcement of the

adopted control measures. Most plans

address this requirement, however,

none of the plans clearly set out

programs to provide for enforcement of

the various emission control strategies

relied on for emission reduction credit.

Response 12

In general, state enforcement,

personnel and funding program

elements are contained in SIP revisions

previously approved by EPA under

obligations set forth in section

110(a)(2)(c) of the CAA. Once approved

by the EPA, there is no need for states

to readopt and resubmit these programs

with each and every SIP revision

generally required by other sections of

the CAA. In addition, emission control

regulations will also contain specific

enforcement mechanisms, such as

record keeping and reporting

requirements, and may also provide for

periodic state inspections and reviews

of the affected sources. EPA’s review of

56916 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

these regulations includes review of the

enforceability of the regulations. Rules

that are not enforceable are generally

not approved by the EPA. To the extent

that the ozone attainment demonstration

and ROP plan depend on specific state

emission control regulations, these

individual regulations have undergone

review by the EPA in past or separate

approval actions. Note that the Chicago

attainment demonstration and post-1999

ROP plan do not depend on the

implementation of State emission

control regulations that have not already

been approved by the EPA or that need

further review by the EPA (the State’s

NOX rules, as discussed elsewhere in

this final rule, have been approved

through sign-off by the EPA and are

undergoing separate rulemaking).

Comment 13

A commenter notes that the States

were required by the CAA to have SIPs

in place by 1994 containing all RACM

and providing for attainment as

expeditiously as practicable. If

additional control measures are

required, those measures must be

adopted and included in the SIP now.

Deferred adoption and submittal of

these control measures is not consistent

with the statutory mandates and is not

consistent with the CAA’s demand that

all SIPs contain enforceable measures,

and approval of this approach exceeds

EPA’s authority to approve a SIP if a

portion of the SIP is not adequate to

meet all tests for approval. Therefore,

for all of the forgoing reasons, EPA must

disapprove the attainment

demonstrations for serious and severe

nonattainment area ozone SIPs.

Response 13

See the response to Comment 1 above.

We have determined that the Illinois SIP

provides for the implementation of

RACM. In addition, the attainment

demonstration and post-1999 ROP plan

are supported by State-adopted

emission control measures as well as

Federal emission control measures.

Comment 14

A commenter alleges that the April

1998 Illinois SIP submittal and the

changes proposed by the State at the

January 18, 2000 hearing fall short of

completing the attainment

demonstration SIP for the 1-hour ozone

standard.

Response 14

As noted in the July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370), Illinois

has completed the adoption and

submittal of the ozone attainment

demonstration for the Chicago

nonattainment area.

Comment 15

A commenter believes that Illinois has

not selected or adopted a final

emissions control strategy that is

consistent with a modeled attainment

demonstration, as required by the CAA.

Response 15

We agree that, at the time of the

preparation of the December 16, 1999

proposed rule, Illinois had not

completed adoption of an emissions

control strategy supported by an ozone

attainment demonstration. This was

stated in that proposed rule. This

problem has been corrected with

Illinois’ submittal of the attainment

demonstration supplement in December

2000. The final attainment

demonstration and its associated

emissions control strategy were

addressed in the July 11, 2000 proposed

rule (66 FR 36370). It is noted that

Illinois has adopted the emissions

control strategy that supports the ozone

attainment demonstration and has

adopted all emission control rules

required to implement this emissions

control strategy.

Comment 16

A commenter believes that the IEPA

relied on numerous assumptions about

boundary conditions with regard to

future NOX emission reductions and

inaccurate WOE analyses to rationalize

an acceptable ozone attainment

demonstration. After submittal of the

plan in April 1998, IEPA subsequently

learned that the 1999 VOC emission

reductions in the Chicago area were

overestimated due to mistakes and

deferred emission control strategies.

Thus, the modeling on which the State

relied is inaccurate and ozone

improvements are overestimated.

Additionally, the State has taken

advantage of EPA’s flawed NOX

substitution policy to hide shortfalls in

VOC emission reductions.

Response 16

When the IEPA prepared the ozone

attainment demonstration reviewed in

the December 16, 1999 proposed rule

(64 FR 70496), the State followed EPA’s

guidance, as outlined in that proposed

rule, in making certain assumptions

about future boundary conditions

expected to be impacted by EPA’s NOX

SIP Call. The State of Illinois (and the

other LADCO States) tested a number of

different scenarios for future reductions

in regional NOX emissions. Since the

State could not select and adopt a

specific scenario for future NOX

emission reductions at that time (at the

time of the April 1998 submittal), the

State elected to submit the modeling

results for the range of regional NOX

emission reduction scenarios

considered without adopting a specific

emissions control strategy.

The State realized that additional

analyses would have to be conducted

after EPA and the courts had resolved

legal challenges to EPA’s NOX SIP Call.

As part of the followup to the April

1998 submittal and to meet EPA’s

requirements for approval of the ozone

attainment demonstration (see 64 FR

70496), Illinois and the other LADCO

States reassessed the projected local and

regional VOC and NOX emission

reductions. The subsequent December

2000 ozone attainment demonstration

modeling reflects the corrected VOC and

NOX emission reduction estimates.

Therefore, the problems identified by

the commenter have been corrected in

the subsequent SIP submittal.

With regard to substitution of NOX

emission controls for VOC emission

controls, this is an issue relevant to ROP

plans and not to ozone attainment

demonstrations. The CAA authorizes

the States to select a mixture of VOC

and NOX emission controls to attain the

ozone standard (see section

182(b)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA). The CAA

does not restrict the State to only VOC

emission controls to attain the ozone

standard. The use of the photochemical

dispersion models can address the

relative merits of VOC versus NOX

emission controls and the relative

merits of local versus regional emission

controls for both categories of these

pollutants.

With regard to the substitution of NOX

emission controls for VOC emission

control to achieve ROP requirements,

you are referred to Comment 29 and our

response to that comment below.

Comment 17

A commenter notes that the proposed

conditional approval of Illinois’ ozone

attainment demonstration allows

Illinois to submit a completely different

emissions control strategy, motor

vehicle emissions budget, and

photochemical modeling by December

2000 to demonstrate attainment and

avoid disapproval of the ozone

attainment demonstration. EPA,

however, wants the emissions controls

strategy and motor vehicle emissions

budget that is consistent with the

attainment demonstration to make an

adequacy decision by May 31, 2000. In

the commenter’s opinion, Illinois is not

in a position to provide an MVEB with

its current modeling (at the time the

commenter prepared this comment in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56917

February 2000), and promises to create

these products and/or emissions

reductions in the future are not

acceptable. Final conditional approval

of the attainment SIP is not warranted,

nor is an adequacy finding for the

emissions control strategy or motor

vehicle emissions budget without

significant improvements.

Response 17

The States of Illinois, Indiana, and

Wisconsin submitted attainment

demonstration SIP revisions in April

1998 in response to EPA requirements.

At the time, there was no final EPA

decision on the level of NOX SIP Call

emission reductions that EPA would

require these States to achieve. The

April 1998 Illinois submittals reflected

this uncertainty by demonstrating that

various levels of local emission controls

could provide for attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard depending on the

amount of upwind NOX emission

reductions assumed to result from the

NOX SIP Call. Although no specific

emissions control strategy was selected,

the submittals did provide for

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

in the Lake Michigan area given the

available information. Consequently,

EPA determined that the 1998 Illinois

submittal could be approved, but only

on the condition that it be

supplemented by updated ozone

modeling and additional emission

control rules supporting and

implementing an adopted emissions

control strategy, all to be submitted by

December 2000. In the meantime (until

the submittal of the final ozone

attainment demonstration in December

2000), the emissions control strategy

and the MVEB conistent with the 1998

submittal were assumed to be adequate

on an interim basis for purposes of

making conformity determinations. The

EPA recognized that the State was

obligated to submit a final attainment

demonstration and associated MVEB by

December 2000 (December 16, 1999

proposed rule (64 FR 70496)). The

commenter provides no convincing

basis for concluding that the EPA erred

in its December 16, 1999 proposed

conditional approval. The proposed

conditional approval correctly

recognized that the State had not

completed the emission control strategy

adoption process due to uncertainty

over regional NOX emission reduction

requirements, the selection and

adoption of which was affected by an

uncertain situation beyond the control

of the State.

Note that the December 2000

submittal included a final, adopted

emissions control strategy and a revised

adopted MVEB which replaced the

interim versions. This submittal moots

the commenter’s prior concern.

Comment 18

The State notes (in response to the

December 16, 1999 proposed rule) that

it has committed on several occasions to

adopt the control measures, including

NOX emission reductions, necessary to

attain the 1-hour ozone standard.

Response 18

The State has satisfied its

commitment to adopt the emission

control measures in the December 2000

attainment demonstration and post-1999

ROP plan submittal and through the

adoption of NOX emission control

regulations for major Electrcial

Generating Units (EGUs), major nonEGU boilers and turbines, and major

cement kilns.

Comment 19

The State notes that it has committed

to perform a MCR as necessary and

appropriate as part of a recent

amendment to the SIP, but believes that

the timing of the MCR is incompatible

with the ozone standard and with EPA’s

rules regarding the submission of

quality assured data. The State observes

that a MCR following the ozone season

in 2003 will reflect only one season

where regional controls of NOX

emissions have been implemented. One

season’s ozone levels are insufficient to

provide a trend analysis. Review of the

impacts of the implementation of the

emissions control strategy would be

heavily reliant on the weather

conditions of that particular ozone

season.

The State notes that a MCR following

the 2003 ozone season does not reflect

the form of the ozone standard, which

is essentially a 3-year standard. The

State will not be able to credibly

determine whether additional emissions

control measures are necessary after

only one season during which the

control measures identified in the ozone

attainment demonstration have been

implemented.

The State believes that the EPA

determined that the MCR should be

performed in 2003 to accommodate

ozone nonattainment areas classified as

serious, whose attainment dates are

2005. The State has no opinion

regarding the appropriateness of a MCR

in 2003 for those areas. The State,

however, believes that there is available

time for nonattainment areas with

attainment dates of 2007 to perform a

more meaningful MCR in 2004 or 2005,

after emission controls identified in the

SIP supplement to be submitted at the

end of 2000 have been in place for two

or three ozone seasons. (This comment

and other State comments on the timing

of the MCR discussed here were

submitted in response to the December

16, 1999 proposed rule. Even though the

EPA subsequently changed its policy

regarding the timing of the MCR and the

State subsequently revised the

committed timing for the MCR to 2004

making these comments generally moot,

they are addressed for purposes of

completeness.)

The State believes that EPA’s ozone

draft guidance recognizes that a MCR in

2004 or 2005 would be more robust and

would require fewer manipulations of

data and much less speculation

regarding the future impact of the

emission control measures implemented

in 2003 (the NOX SIP Call rules) as well

as the need for additional emission

control measures.

The State asserts that, for the

purposes of the MCR, it is not realistic

for EPA to expect states to provide

quality assured ozone data between the

end of the ozone season and the end of

the calendar year. EPA’s rules allow 90

days for a state to quality assure and

submit data to the Aerometric

Information Retrieval System (AIRS),

but EPA is requiring a submittal of the

data and an analysis of the data before

the end of the 90 day period. This could

significantly impact the States’

approaches to attainment within that

same 90 day period. Although the IEPA

does not believe that emission

reductions beyond those that will be

included in the final SIP will be

necessary for Illinois to attain the 1-hour

ozone standard, IEPA believes that they

can provide EPA with an analysis, if not

by December 31, 2003, then shortly

thereafter. Nevertheless, the timing of

EPA’s requirement for a MCR is contrary

to its own rules regarding submission of

quality assured data, and, therefore, is

inappropriate.

Response 19

EPA understands the issue of timing.

However, the timing issue involves

balancing two critical factors. On the

one hand, for a MCR to be useful in

flagging the need to make changes to an

emissions control strategy in time to

affect attainment by the attainment date

(by November 15, 2007 for the Chicago

nonattainment area), it needs to be done

sufficiently in advance of the attainment

date. On the other hand, the MCR would

be able to discern more accurately

whether progress is being made if there

were sufficient emission reductions that

occurred in the time period between the

attainment demonstration modeling and

the time the MCR is performed. Thus, in

56918 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

reviewing a state’s commitment

regarding the performance of a MCR for

any specific area, EPA must

appropriately accommodate these two

factors. In general, EPA believes that the

states should perform the MCR for

ozone nonattainment areas within the

NOX SIP Call region (which includes

Illinois) immediately following the first

ozone season (April 15 through October

15 for the Chicago nonattainment area)

during which sources are required to

comply with the state’s NOX SIP.

Because the Court extended the source

compliance deadline for the NOX SIP

Call until May 31, 2004, EPA generally

believes that for areas in the Eastern

United States, the most appropriate time

to perform the MCR would be following

the 2004 ozone season.

The December 16, 1999 NPRs for the

ten serious and severe ozone

nonattainment areas noted that, for

serious areas with an attainment date

extension to 2005 or earlier, it would be

impracticable to perform a mid-course

review per se. The NPRs asked the states

to commit instead to an early

assessment of whether attainment will

be achieved. See for example 64 FR

70319 at 70325 (NPR for the Western

Massachusetts ozone nonattainment

area). Thus, EPA did not base its

recommendation for the MCR in 2003

on the assumption that the 18 to 24

month period between completion of

the MCR and November 2005 would be

a sufficient period to ensure attainment

for serious nonattainment areas by 2005.

EPA, however, continues to believe that

for areas with an attainment date of

2007, the best balance in terms of timing

for the MCR is to ensure that the area

has several years between completion of

the MCR and its attainment date in

order for the state and EPA to assess the

need for the state (or perhaps upwind

states) to adopt and implement

additional controls. Due to the courtordered delay in the mandatory source

compliance date under the NOX SIP

Call, EPA believes that performing the

MCR by the end of 2004 best

accommodates the need for emission

controls to be implemented and the

need for EPA and states to have time to

take action in response to the MCR.

With regard to the timing of the MCR

for severe nonattainment areas versus

serious nonattainment areas, as noted

above, we conceptually agree with the

commenter. Performing the MCR after

the implementation of significant

emission controls and after assessing the

ozone data for the time period following

the implementation of these emission

controls would provide a more robust

MCR with fewer assumptions regarding

the impacts of the emission controls on

ozone levels. Nonetheless, to allow for

sufficient time to prepare and

implement supplemental emission

controls, if needed, prior to the ozone

standard attainment deadline, the MCR

must be conducted several years prior to

the attainment deadline. A sufficient

lead time of 2 to 3 years is believed to

be reasonable. Therefore, for a severe

ozone nonattainment area with a 2007

attainment deadline, the MCR should be

conducted no later than late 2004.

Illinois’ commitment to conduct the

MCR by the end of 2004 meets this

recommendation.

Please note from the July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370) that we are

proposing to approve Illinois’

commitment to conduct the MCR by the

end of 2004, after the implementation of

the State’s NOX emission control rules

in compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call.

This timing may not allow the State to

collect and quality assure ozone data

from the entire 2004 ozone season (the

State is allowed up to 90 days following

a calendar quarter to quality assure the

ozone data and submit the data to the

EPA) following ‘‘normal’’ quality

assurance schedules and to include all

of these data in the 2004 MCR. The State

may have to expedite the quality

assurance of the 2004 ozone data to

include as many of the 2004 ozone data

as possible in the MCR. On the other

hand, the State should be able to project

the impacts of the NOX emission control

rules using new or available ozone

modeling and the 2001–2003 ozone data

to draw some MCR conclusions.

Conducting a MCR by the end of 2004

will make it difficult for the State to

fully quality assure and incorporate the

ozone season ozone data for 2004 into

the MCR while still allowing time for

preparation of the MCR and public

review and input into this process.

Nonetheless, as noted above, the use of

current ozone data is only one metric

that may be taken into consideration in

this process. In addition, the State will

be able to take into consideration ozone

data through 2003 which should be

quality assured well before the

production of the MCR. The State may

also choose to pursue expedited quality

assurance of the 2004 data if the State

considers that to be an overwhelming

need for the purposes of preparing the

MCR, although such data use is not

required by the EPA.

We assume that the State will use all

available data in the preparation of the

MCR. To the extent 2004 data are

available, the state is encouraged to

make use of such data.

Comment 20

A commenter notes that a majority of

the States that belong to the Ozone

Transport Region (OTR) were given

until October 31, 2001 to submit their

regional NOX strategy that demonstrates

attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard, while Illinois is required to

submit a fully adopted attainment

strategy, including any regional

emission reductions, by December 2000.

Equity requires that EPA grant Illinois

and other Lake Michigan States the

same amount of time to submit a

regional strategy as has been granted the

OTR States.

The commenter notes that the EPA

states that the basis for extending the

deadline for the OTR States is section

184 of the CAA, which creates a

Congressionally recognized ozone

transport region, and that the OTR

needs additional time to make the

necessary agreements to adopt a

regional strategy. Section 184 of the

CAA, however, does not explicitly

extend for States in the OTR any

attainment deadlines.

The commenter believes that the OTR

being recognized by Congress has no

bearing on the ability of multiple states

to address regional NOX controls. States

not located in the OTR may encounter

more barriers in arriving at a regional

approach, yet the resulting product will

be as beneficial to air quality as the

product of the OTR.

EPA’s call for NOX SIPs, calling for

regional NOX emission reductions,

explicitly recognized that Illinois needs

reductions in its boundary conditions in

order to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard, as do the States of Indiana,

Michigan, and Wisconsin. To this end,

Illinois and the other Lake Michigan

States, as well as the upwind

neighboring States of Missouri,

Kentucky, Iowa, and Tennessee, are

currently working cooperatively to

model and to develop a regional ozone

strategy. Hence, the same or greater

complexities that apply to the OTR

States also apply to the efforts of these

Midwestern States to develop a regional

control strategy.

The commenter notes that Illinois has

the same or later 1-hour ozone standard

attainment date as the ozone

nonattainment areas included in the

OTR, and should, therefore be granted

until October 31, 2001 to develop the

regional portion of the ozone attainment

strategy.

Response 20

As an initial matter, this issue is

moot. Illinois, along with Indiana and

Wisconsin, submitted SIP revisions with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56919

14A peaker is a en electrical generating unit

designed for rapid startup and use on a limited

number of days with a high demand for electricity

generation.

fully adopted rules, and EPA is fully

approving those SIP revisions today.

Thus, there is no shortfall (as exists for

many of the OTR States) for either the

Chicago or Milwaukee areas, and these

States do not need additional time to

submit more SIP revisions relative to

attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard.

Moreover, the circumstances that

existed at the time of the proposed

actions in December 1999 differed

substantially between the States in the

Northeast and those in the Midwest. At

the time of EPA’s proposals in

December 1999, the States in the

Northeast submitted SIP revisions that

they believed fully complied with what

was required to be submitted by

December 2000—i.e., completed ozone

modeling and fully adopted emission

control measures. In contrast, at the

same time the Midwestern States

encompassing the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County and Milwaukee-Racine ozone

nonattainment areas had not yet

identified a specific emission control

strategy to attain the ozone standard and

had not yet submitted SIP revisions

with fully adopted emission control

measures, and had existing

commitments to submit the adopted

measures by December 2000. Upon

review of the SIP revisions for the

Northeastern ozone nonattainment

areas, EPA concluded that each area

needed additional emission reductions

in order to have a fully approvable SIP

(to eliminate shortfalls in their adopted

emission control strategies). At the time

of the proposed actions, EPA was

unable to determine if there would be

shortfalls for the Midwest areas because

they had not identified final emission

control strategies to attain the ozone

NAAQS.

In considering how EPA should allow

the States to adopt emission control

measures to fill the shortfalls, EPA

considered that these areas (the

Northeastern nonattainment areas) were

located in the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR) and that EPA should provide the

OTR States with time to develop

recommended emission control

measures to achieve emission

reductions to fill the shortfalls. Thus,

EPA provided in the proposed actions to

give these areas until October 31, 2001

to complete the OTR process and to

adopt measures sufficient to fill the

shortfalls. Because the Midwest States

were on track to identify a final

emissions control strategy and to submit

adopted measures by December 2000,

EPA saw no need—and neither the

States nor any other interested party

identified a need—to extend the time

period for submission of the final plans.

The commenter claims that the

Northeast States were given a longer

time to adopt ‘‘regional’’ emission

control measures. EPA notes that, with

respect to EPA’s regional NOX SIP Call,

all States were required to submit NOX

emission control rules by October 30,

2000 and to implement the rules by May

31, 2004. The Northeast States were not

provided a longer time than the

Midwest States to either submit or

implement these rules.

Comment 21

For States that need additional VOC

emission reductions, a commenter

recommends a process to achieve these

VOC emission reductions, which

involves the use of HFC–152a (1,1

difluoroethane) as the blowing agent in

the manufacture of polystyrene

products, such as food trays and egg

cartons. HFC–152a could be used

instead of hydrocarbons as a blowing

agent. Use of HFC–152a, which is

classified as a non-VOC (VOC exempt),

would eliminate nationwide the entire

25,000 tons per year of VOC emissions

from this industry.

Response 21

EPA met with the commenter and

discussed the technology described in

the comment. Since the HFC–152a is

VOC exempt, its use would give a VOC

reduction compared to the use of VOCs,

such a pentane or butane, as blowing

agents. EPA, however, has not studied

this technology exhaustively. It is each

State’s prerogative to specify which

measures it will adopt in order to

achieve the additional VOC reductions

it needs. In evaluating the use of HFC–

152a, States may want to consider

claims that products made with this

blowing agent are comparable in quality

to products made with other blowing

agents. Also, the question of the over-all

long term environmental effect of

encouraging emissions of fluorine

compounds would be relevant to

consider. This is a technology which

States may want to consider, but

ultimately, the decision of whether to

require this particular technology to

achieve the necessary VOC emissions

reductions must be made by each

affected State. Finally, EPA notes that

under the Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program, created under

CAA section 612, EPA has identified

acceptable foam blowing agents, many

of which are not VOCs (http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/).

Comment 22

The State generally supports the

proposed rule, and concurs with the

EPA that the NOX waiver should remain

in place for RACT, NSR, and certain

requirements of I/M and transportation

and general conformity.

Response 22

No response is required for this

concurrence with the proposed rule.

Comment 23

A commenter asserts that the State’s

air quality modeling based on additional

NOX emissions from 10 peaker14

facilities in the Chicago area and 30

peaker facilities in the State of Illinois,

as addressed in the State’s December

2000 submittal, significantly

underestimates the potential number of

peaker units and their resulting NOX

emissions and ozone impacts in these

areas. The commenter supports this

comment by listing the additional

peakers (not considered in the State’s

analysis) seeking source permits in

Illinois. In addition, due to the existing

NOX waiver in the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area, there is nothing to

prevent the unchecked proliferation of

new NOX sources in this source

category. Therefore, the commenter

believes that IEPA’s ozone modeling

and ozone projections are inadequate,

and do not form a credible basis for the

proposed approval of the State’s ozone

attainment demonstration and our

proposed rule on the NOX waiver

petition.

The commenter notes that the State’s

analysis failed to include a number of

peaker units now under consideration

for source permitting by the State. This

conclusion is based on a review of

publicly available Illinois permit

records for natural gas-fired electrical

generating units in the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area, which shows

potential NOX sources not included in

Illinois’ prior ozone modeling. Illinois’

inability to correctly project NOX

emissions from new permitted peaker

units is a direct consequence of the

proliferation of this new generation of

NOX sources. This is a direct

consequence of maintaining the NOX

waiver for new sources.

Response 23

It is true that Illinois’ modeling

directly considered only the additional

NOX and VOC emissions from newly

permitted peakers (permitted prior to

the December 2000 SIP revision

submittal), and did not estimate the

emissions and ozone impacts resulting

from other sources seeking permits or

that may seek permits prior to 2007.

56920 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

15Although interstate NOX emissions allowance

trading is allowed under the NOX SIP Call, most

NOX SIP Call States will need to seek significant

NOX emission reductions from their own sources.

Interstate NOX emission allowance trades will

probably be kept to a minimum because available

emission reduction allowances are expected to be

in short supply and most States are expected to

encourage intra-state trades.

However, potential emissions from new

facilities were considered in two ways.

First, Illinois, along with the other

LADCO States, made reasonable

projections of source growth in the core

attainment demonstration (the

attainment demonstration supported by

the LADCO technical support

documentation). The SIP makes

assumptions that new sources will be

constructed and that existing sources

may be modified resulting in increased

NOX emissions. Under the NOX SIP

Call, which was modeled by the LADCO

States, these sources would fall under a

statewide NOX emissions cap

established for the State in the NOX SIP

Call rule. Thus, the State has adequately

demonstrated attainment of the ozone

standard given the data available at the

time of the SIP revision submittal.

Second, the State, as a test of the

modeling/attainment demonstration

sensitivity to increased NOX emissions,

added the NOX emissions from newly

permitted peakers to the NOX emissions

already projected for 2007 in the ozone

attainment demonstration and

conducted supplemental ozone

modeling. This supplemental modeling

showed increased peak ozone levels, but

within acceptable limits still

demonstrating future attainment of the

ozone standard.

The commenter’s concerns over

undocumented/unmodeled new NOX

sources are inconsequential or

unfounded for the following reasons.

First, the modeled 2007 NOX emissions,

documented in the LADCO September

27, 2000 report ‘‘Technical Support

Document—Midwest Subregional

Modeling: Emissions Inventory,’’ (the

main technical support document for

the State’s ozone attainment

demonstration) included NOX emission

growth estimates reflecting the assumed

source growth in Illinois’ NOX

emissions budget established under

EPA’s NOX SIP Call. In adding the NOX

emissions from permitted peakers

explicitly to the future (2007) NOX

emissions as a test of source growth

impacts conducted for the December

2000 submittal, Illinois effectively

‘‘double counted’’ NOX emissions

growth resulting from new peakers since

some of the NOX emissions growth had

already been accounted for in the

modeling reflected in the September 27,

2000 report. Therefore, the State took a

conservative approach to modeling new

source impacts.

Second, any utility seeking a new

source permit will be required to

comply with Illinois’ Electrical

Generating Unit (EGU) NOX rule

developed and adopted by the State to

comply with EPA’s NOX SIP Call.

Review of the NOX source data supplied

by the Chicago Legal Clinic (CLC) and

the American Lung Association (ALA)

coupled with a review of the State’s

EGU NOX rule (signed by the EPA for

final approval on September 25, 2001

and undergoing separate rulemaking)

shows that all of the new generating

units undergoing permit review will be

subject to the requirements of the State’s

EGU NOX rule. The NOX emission totals

from these new sources will not

increase unconstrained, and Illinois’

statewide NOX emissions, following the

2004 implementation of the State’s EGU

NOX rule, will not be allowed to

increase above the NOX emissions

budget level specified in EPA’s NOX SIP

Call.15 The new peaker units will be

given a limited number of emission

allowances compatible with the State’s

NOX emissions budget, and will have to

further control their emissions or will

have to purchase available emission

allowances from other sources, thus

reducing NOX emissions from existing

sources.

Third, it is not clear that Illinois’

approach has significantly

underestimated the additional NOX

emissions resulting from the ‘‘new’’

utilities. Several of the new utilities

considered by the IEPA have dropped

plans for construction. A number of

other utilities given permits and

considered by Illinois have yet to

initiate construction. It is quite possible

that some of these facilities will be

replaced by other facilities that are now

pursuing source permits and that were

not considered in the IEPA analysis. In

addition, Illinois made the assumption

that all of the modeled new utilities

would be operating simultaneously at

100 percent capacity. This assumption

is overly conservative since these units

would not actually be operating at 100

percent capacity all of the time, leading

to an overestimation of the modeled

NOX emissions.

Given the current flux in electrical

power generation and the changes in

electricity demand, it is generally

impossible for the State to project the

growth in NOX emissions resulting from

the new utilities with complete

certainty. One way to mitigate this

problem is to occasionally reassess the

projected NOX emissions against

changing historical source emission

records. This is the function of the MCR,

that the State has committed to perform

in 2004 after the implementation of the

rules required by EPA’s NOX SIP Call.

Projections of 2007 emissions can be

reassessed with up-to-date information

at that time and any adjustments that

are necessary can be made to the SIP.

However, based on the information now

available to the State, EPA believes that

potential growth in emissions from

these peaker units was adequately

accounted for in the submitted

attainment demonstration.

Comment 24

A commenter states that Illinois’

ozone modeling fails to address serious

and substantial omissions in Illinoisissued source permits for peaker startup

periods, when the NOX emission rates

for the peakers are at their highest

levels. Consequently, the commenter

asserts that IEPA’s ozone modeling is

inadequate and cannot form a credible

basis for the proposed SIP revisions.

The commenter further points out that

startup emissions from peakers are

inadequately regulated under Illinois’

permit process and existing emission

control regulations. Therefore, peaker

emission rates and peak ozone

projections are underestimated. Review

of the source permit records shows that

startup emissions have not been

included in the source emissions to be

permitted and are not expected to be

monitored for a number of the NOX

sources undergoing permit review for

the Chicago area. Thirteen out of the

eighteen construction permit records

reviewed did not contain language

providing for startup emissions to be

included in the sources’ annual

emission totals.

The commenter notes that IEPA’s

handling of permits for peakers is

inconsistent in the treatment of startup

emissions. Some sources have been

given permits regulating startup

emissions and other sources have been

given permits not addressing startup

emissions. This inconsistent treatment

of startup emissions is of particular

concern with respect to ‘‘synthetic

minor’’ sources, which are held to less

stringent emissions control standards

based on emissions estimates in

individual permits. These factors,

combined with the NOX waiver,

indicate that IEPA’s current permitting

procedures may not be sufficient to

ensure attainment of the ozone standard

in the Chicago area.

The commenter cites the case of

Michigan v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th

Cir. 2000) as providing insight on

whether the IEPA must require

enforceable standards regarding excess

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56921

16On September 20, 1999, EPA issued a policy

updating and clarifying the 1983 Bennett

memoranda referenced by the commenter, entitled

‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,

Start-up, and Shutdown.’’

17Based on information addressed in ‘‘In the

Matter of: Natural Gas-Fired Peak-Load Electrical

Power Generating Faciliites (Peaker Plants) Docket

No. R01–10: Companion Report to the Illinois

Pollution Control Board’s Informational Order of

December 21, 2000’’ (incorporated into the docket

for this final rule), pages 12 through 14, peaker NOX

emissions during startup can reach a concentration

of 200 ppm (when the peakers operate at less than

50 percent load capacity). Compare this to NOX

emission concentrations of 10 to 30 ppm during

full-load stable operation. The IEPA, however, notes

that, in terms of hourly emission rates, the startup

NOX emissions are not significantly higher than

stable operation NOX emissions due to lower heat

input during startups (due to lower system loads).

For example, Continuous Emissions Monitoring

Systems (CEMS) data for the Elwood Energy peaker

unit show NOX emissions of 0.05 to 0.055 pounds

per million Btu of heat input during stable

operation versus 0.1 to 0.115 pounds per million

Btu of heat input during startups and shutdowns.

Due to the lower heat input rate during startups (the

hourly Btu input rate during startups are half of that

during full load under stable operations), the hourly

NOX emission rates are virtually identical for both

startups and stable operation modes for this facility.

startup emissions in peaker plant

permits. In that case, the Court upheld

EPA’s rejection of revisions to

Michigan’s SIP based, in part, on a

February 15, 1983 EPA memorandum by

Kathleen Bennett, then Assistant

Administrator for Air, Noise, and

Radiation at the EPA (a copy of this

memorandum was attached to the

commenter’s letter). The memorandum

clarified EPA’s position on excess

emissions during startup, shutdown,

maintenance, and malfunctions.

The commenter notes that the

construction permits reviewed for the

Chicago nonattainment area reveal gaps

in regulating peaker plants. Specific

provisions in the permits regarding

startup emissions are inconsistent, and

reflect no clear standard for ensuring

that peaker plants are permitted

according to current law. The language

used by the IEPA for regulating startup

emissions appears to violate the law

according to Michigan v. Browner,

which requires regulatory agencies to

maintain enforcement discretion

regarding excess emissions at startup

and shutdown. The commenter notes

that this fact, combined with the NOX

waiver, shows that IEPA’s current

permitting procedures may not be

sufficient to ensure that attainment of

the ozone standard will occur in the

Chicago area.

Response 24

The commenter appears to make three

general points. First, the commenter

raises the concern that the ozone

modeling does not account for

emissions from peaker units during

start-up. Second, the commenter raises

the concern that the State is treating

different peaker units in different

manners during the permitting

process—placing limits on some source

regarding start-up emissions, but not on

others. Finally, the commenter claims

that, under EPA policy, it is improper to

allow start-up emissions to exceed the

otherwise applicable emission limits.

It seems appropriate to first address

the commenter’s second concern about

the State’s implementation of its new

source permitting rules. This comment

is outside of the scope of EPA’s current

action. EPA has previously approved

the permitting program that the State is

operating under and has not re-opened

that approval here. The commenter

seems concerned either that there is a

flaw in the approved program or that the

State is implementing the permitting

program in a manner which is

inconsistent with the approved SIP. In

either case, the commenter should work

with the State and/or EPA outside the

context of this rulemaking to ensure that

the program is either appropriately

modified or implemented in a manner

consistent with the approved plan.

However, EPA notes that review of the

data supplied by the commenter shows

that the State has generally regulated

startup emissions from larger units and

units that generally use fuels other than

natural gas. Because these types of units

would have significantly and

proportionately higher startup

emissions occurring over larger time

periods than natural gas-fired peaker

units, the State’s different treatment of

these sources does not seem

inappropriate.

With respect to the commenter’s third

concern, including its analysis of EPA’s

policy on startup emissions and its

summary of the Michigan case, EPA

disagrees with the commenter. In the

Michigan case, the Court upheld EPA’s

disapproval of a SIP rule which

provided ‘‘broad exclusions from

compliance with emission limitations

during [startup, shutdowns, and

malfunction] periods * * *’’ 230 F.3d at

185. In so doing, the Court ratified

EPA’s interpretation of section 110 of

the CAA, as expressed in the Agency’s

long-standing policy (which we

reiterated in 1999).16 The commenter

does not assert that the Illinois SIP

contains such a provision. EPA’s policy

further provides that, as an enforcement

matter, emissions in excess of otherwise

applicable SIP limits should be

considered violations, unless (as is

relevant here) such emissions are

provided for in the SIP and their impact

on attainment is considered. To the

extent that this policy is relevant to

EPA’s action on Illinois’ ozone

attainment demonstration, the

commenter’s first concern will be

addressed—did the State consider

whether these excess emissions would

impair the area’s ability to attain the

ozone standard? We believe that the

State did consider these emissions.

In order to provide a better

explanation of the analysis performed

by the State, we held a conference call

with representatives of the IEPA on

August 23, 2000. Discussed below are

several important factors that were

identified during the call and that

demonstrate the State considered the

potential significance of these excess

emissions. Furthermore, as explained in

the previous response, the State

generally considered both new source

growth—which would include new or

modified peaker units—and modeled

NOX emissions consistent with an

emissions ‘‘cap’’ that would apply to

these and other sources.

(1) The startup periods for natural gasfired peakers are relatively short,

ranging from 6 to 30 minutes and

typically on the order of 15 minutes.

During the startups, NOX emissions are

somewhat higher because fuels are

typically heated before combustion.

Nonetheless, increases in NOX

emissions during startups for peakers

using natural gas (most peakers are fired

using natural gas, but some combined

cycle systems do use other fuels) are

proportionately smaller and of shorter

duration than those for utility boilers

fired with other fuels also undergoing

startup.

(2) Peakers undergoing startup are not

operating at peak loads; they generally

are operating at 60 percent or lower

loads versus higher loads during stable

operation periods.

(3) Not all peakers would be

undergoing startup at the same time,

minimizing simultaneous buildups of

NOX emissions resulting from startup at

many peakers.

(4) Although the NOX emissions may

be higher in concentration within stack

emission plumes (higher in parts per

million concentration [ppm]) during

startup, the NOX emissions, when

viewed as an hourly emissions rate, are

not significantly higher during startup

than during stable operation,

particularly when compared to hourly

NOX emission rates during peak loads at

stable operation.17

(5) Excess emissions during startup

are factored into each source’s seasonal

NOX emissions allowances under the

NOX SIP Call emission control

regulations (during the high ozone

56922 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

18 ‘‘In the Matter of: Natural Gas-Fired, Peak-Load

Electrical Power Generating Facilities (Peaker

Plants) Docket No. R01–10: Companion Report to

the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s Informational

Order of December 21, 2000,’’ page 14.

season, June through August, emissions

are capped). The modeled NOX

emissions rates took these NOX

emissions allowances into account, and,

therefore, have incorporated the effects

of excess startup emissions.

(6) Through permit provisions, IEPA

requires peaker plants to implement

measures to minimize emissions

associated with the startup and

shutdown.18

The suggestion that the State needs to

model these emissions is not supported

by EPA policy and available ozone

modeling data. EPA’s policy does not

provide that a State needs to model

startup emissions in order to consider

their effect on attainment of the ozone

standard. The modeling information

available to the State and EPA indicates

that it is not likely that the ozone

modeling would recognize the impacts

of short-term, localized startup

emissions. Reviewing the available

modeling data supplied by LADCO and

the States, it is clear that the spatially

graphed formats show very few

recognizable ‘‘ozone plumes’’ despite

the existence of a number of localized

large NOX sources, such as major

utilities. If these large sources fail to

cause a recognizable ‘‘ozone signature,’’

it is highly unlikely that localized,

temporary excess NOX emissions would

produce a significant ozone signature.

Thus, because startup emissions are not

expected to produce discernable ozone

signatures relative to the cumulative

impacts of local and regional NOX

emissions from all utilities, it was

appropriate to conclude that modeling

would not reliably indicate the effect of

these startup emissions on attainment of

the standard.

The State did consider the peaker

emissions as part of its attainment

analysis in two ways. As provided in

more detail in the previous response,

startup emissions must be factored in

the sources’ compliance with the State’s

NOX emission control regulations in

compliance with the NOX SIP Call, i.e.,

the seasonal emission allowances under

the State’s NOX emissions cap. Startup

emissions that cause the source to

exceed its emission cap must be

compensated for and mitigated by the

source through the purchase of

additional emission allowances from

other sources or through additional

emission controls at the sources

themselves. Statewide emissions during

the ozone season will not be allowed to

exceed the emissions cap. The modeling

system correctly reflects the existence of

this emissions cap, and translates this

emissions limit into typical weekday

NOX emission rates.

Also, new source growth was

considered as part of the attainment

analysis. To estimate future, attainment

year emissions, the LADCO States

included estimated source growth

factors based on available source

forecasting data along with estimated

source control factors to calculate future

emissions. This included growth

estimates for NOX sources, including

source growth for electrical generating

units. In addition, Illinois modeled the

NOX emission impacts of peakers

already granted emission permits at the

time of the preparation of the December

2000 attainment demonstration

submittal. As noted elsewhere in this

final rule, this approach provided a

conservative estimate of the ozone

impacts resulting from source growth in

this source sector.

All of these observations together lead

us to the conclusion that startup

emissions from peakers will not result

in a failure of the State to attain the 1–

hour ozone standard by the attainment

date. The State has not significantly

underestimated future NOX emissions

based on a failure to specifically

consider peaker startup emissions.

Comment 25

A commenter notes that IEPA’s

permitting practices are of particular

concern with respect to ‘‘synthetic

minor’’ sources, which are held to lower

emission control standards based on

emissions estimates in individual

permits. IEPA’s current permitting

procedures may not be sufficient to

ensure that attainment of the ozone

standard will be met in the Chicago

area.

Response 25

As an initial matter, the State’s

emission growth estimates, which are

considered in the ozone attainment

demonstration, consider emission

growth from all sources, not just those

subject to nonattainment NSR review,

major new sources or major

modifications. Moreover, since all of

these ‘‘synthetic minor’’ sources are,

nonetheless, subject to the NOX

emission control requirements of

Illinois’ EGU NOX rule, and since the

total NOX emissions in Illinois are

capped by EPA’s NOX SIP Call, the fact

that these sources are treated as

‘‘synthetic minors’’ is of no consequence

for the ozone attainment demonstration.

The attainment demonstration assumed

that the NOX emissions in Illinois

would be at the cap-allowed levels

under the NOX SIP Call. Assuming that

future NOX emissions are at these levels,

even the new ‘‘synthetic minor’’ NOX

sources subject to the State’s NOX rules

would have to obtain NOX emission

allowances from existing sources

through trades, and NOX emissions in

total in Illinois would not increase.

Therefore, emissions from these smaller

sources do not jeopardize the ozone

attainment demonstration.

Comment 26

A commenter believes that the Illinois

Pollution Control Board (IPCB) agrees

that peaker plants in Illinois are

inadequately regulated. The commenter

asserts that, even if the NOX waiver is

not revised to remove the NSR

exemption, it should be amended to

incorporate the IPCB’s

recommendations for NOX emission

controls on peaker units. To support

this comment, the commenter notes

that, in December 2000, the IPCB issued

an informational order in which it

described its findings with respect to

the regulation of peaker plants (the

commenter attached a copy of the IPCB

informational Order to their comment

letter). The commenter requests the

incorporation of the entire IPCB docket

for this December 2000 informational

order into the record for this

rulemaking.

The commenter notes that the IPCB

found that peaker plants are unique.

They emit most of their permitted

annual amount of emissions during a

concentrated period of time, which

generally coincides with the summer

months when the ozone risk is the

greatest. The IPCB recommended the

development of Best Available Control

Technology (BACT) standards for all

new peaking units. The IPCB noted that

this level of emissions control was

appropriate to prevent violations of the

air quality standards. The IPCB also

concluded that new gas turbines with

readily available, reliable emission

control technology can routinely

achieve very low emission rates. These

emission rates are much lower than the

applicable technology-based emission

limitation now in effect for most new

peakers in Illinois, which the IPCB

characterized as ‘‘potentially outdated

NSPS’’ (New Source Performance

Standards). The IPCB recommended

that IEPA develop a rulemaking

proposal to implement BACT for peaker

plants in Illinois. To date, this

recommendation has been ignored by

the IEPA.

Based on these and other

observations, the commenter asserts that

the revocation of the NOX waiver for all

new sources (or for peaking units

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56923

specifically) is the best means to

accomplish attainment of the NAAQS.

As an alternative, however, the

commenter requests the EPA to require

Illinois to take any and all steps

necessary to fulfill the

recommendations of the IPCB for BACT

emission controls on peaking units. This

can be accomplished by changing EPA’s

proposed revision to the NOX waiver to

incorporate the IPCB’s BACT

recommendation.

Response 26

The IPCB peaker hearing docket

website referenced by the commenter

was reviewed for relevant documents.

Many documents referenced on this

website have no bearing on the issue at

hand, the approvability of Illinois’

ozone attainment demonstration and the

validity of the existing NOX waiver.

Therefore, we are not including all of

the IPCB hearing record documents in

the docket for this final rule as

requested by the commenter. Two

documents, however, are relevant to this

final rule and are incorporated into the

docket for this final rule. These two

documents have been downloaded from

the IPCB website, and are the following:

(1) The December 21, 2000

Informational Order of the Board In the

Matter Of: Natural Gas-Fired, Peak-Load

Electrical Power Generating Facilities

(Peaker Plants), IPCB Docket No. R01–

10; and (2) the ‘‘Companion Report to

the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s

Informational Order of December 21,

2000: In the Matter Of: Natural GasFired, Peak-Load Electrical Power

Generating Facilities (Peaker Plants)

Docket No. R01–10.’’ The first document

specifies the IPCB’s conclusions

regarding peakers, and the second

document summarizes public comments

and IEPA responses collected during a

series of State hearings concerning

peakers.

As noted by the commenter, the IPCB

has recommended that the IEPA pursue

new source permitting regulation

variations to require BACT emission

controls for all peakers seeking new

source permits. In addition, the IPCB

found that peakers do emit most of their

ozone precursor (VOC and NOX)

emissions during relatively short

periods that coincide with the high

ozone periods of each year. With regard

to peaker air emissions, only NOX

emissions are considered to be

significant. Most peaker plants are being

sited as ‘‘minor’’ sources, with annual

NOX below 250 tons per year.

Information contained in the

Companion Document supports the

IPCB’s conclusions.

The information provided in these

documents may support a revision of

permitting requirements for these

sources. This information, however, is

generally not relevant to a decision on

the State’s ozone attainment

demonstration, at issue here, or is not of

a sufficient nature to cause us to reverse

our approval of the ozone attainment

demonstration. The information

provided in the IPCB documents do not

support a case that future NOX

emissions will increase above projected

attainment levels contained in the

State’s ozone attainment demonstration.

It is again noted here, as elsewhere in

this final rule, that the peakers at issue

here will be subject to the State’s EGU

NOX rule. Therefore, the total NOX

emissions from these sources will be

constrained by source-specific NOX

emission limits specified by the State

under the State’s NOX emissions cap.

Since this emissions cap has been

factored into the State’s ozone

attainment demonstration, the State’s

current source permitting practices for

peakers does not jeopardize the State’s

ozone attainment demonstration as

approved in this final rule.

With regard to the NOX waiver, based

on the State’s cap on NOX emissions

and the incorporation of this emissions

cap in the modeled emissions in the

ozone attainment demonstration, it must

be concluded that the NOX waiver, as it

currently stands, should be continued

based on section 182(f)(2) of the CAA.

As noted elsewhere in this final rule,

this section of the CAA provides for a

NOX waiver based on a prevention of

‘‘excess’’ NOX emission controls. The

conclusion that the current permitting

practices for peakers does not threaten

the ozone attainment demonstration

approved here supports the continuance

of the existing NOX waiver, and we see

no basis, given the information provided

in the IPCB hearing documents

reviewed here, that the NSR portion of

the NOX waiver should be discontinued.

Comment 27

A commenter notes that the EPA

proposed rule never directly addressed

the scientific credibility of the NOX

waiver in light of the subsequently

issued Ozone Transport Assessment

Group (OTAG) findings. (OTAG, made

up of representatives of the States in the

eastern half of the United States, EPA,

industry, academia, and environmental

organizations, was created to consider

the causes of ozone transport. EPA

relied on many of the OTAG findings in

issuing the NOX SIP Call.) The OTAG

findings appear to discredit the

scientific basis for the NOX waiver.

More specifically, among the

conclusions reached by OTAG are that:

1. Regional NOX reductions are

effective in producing ozone benefits;

2. The more NOX emissions reduced

the greater the ozone benefit;

3. Ozone benefits are greatest in the

subregions where emissions reductions

are made;

4. Although decreased with distance,

there are also ozone benefits outside of

the subregions where emission

reductions are made;

5. Both tall stack and low-level NOX

emission reductions are effective;

6. Air quality data indicate that ozone

is pervasive, is transported and, once

aloft, is carried over and transported

from one day to the next;

7. The range of transport is generally

longer in the North; and

8. NOX controls on utilities are

recommended for states in much of the

OTAG region (which includes the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area).

As EPA itself acknowledged in the

framing of the NOX SIP Call, the OTAG

findings are especially critical in

analyzing the regional impacts of NOX

transport. Both the NOX SIP Call and the

OTAG findings underscore the

importance and cost-effectiveness of

NOX emission reductions as an

attainment strategy, especially when

compared and contrasted to VOC-based

strategies, which tend to be more

expensive and local in their impact.

Both the OTAG findings and the NOX

SIP Call were made without the

reference to the unchecked proliferation

of the new NOX sources. Therefore,

there is a compelling basis for the EPA

to reconsider the NOX waiver it

conditionally granted in 1996.

The commenter asserts that, in light of

the OTAG findings, the NOX waiver

cannot survive any good faith effort by

the EPA to measure the scientific basis

of the NOX waiver. The commenter

requests the EPA to conduct this

analysis as part of its final review of the

NOX waiver petition and its SIP

revisions.

Response 27

OTAG concluded that reduction of

regional NOX emissions would reduce

downwind ozone concentrations on a

regional basis. The OTAG results,

however, also noted that NOX emission

reductions have a mixed impact on local

ozone concentrations. They concluded

that, due to ozone scavenging by NOX,

controlling NOX emissions can be

locally beneficial or dis-beneficial.

Review of the available OTAG data

shows the lower Lake Michigan area as

having the most significant ozone disVerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:36 Nov 09, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 13NOR2
56924 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

19Since the post-1999 ROP plan addressed in the

July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 36370) was

developed under the same CAA requirements and

EPA policy covering the post-1996 ROP plan as

addressed in the March 3, 2000 proposed rule, it is

assumed that the commenter is trying to extend

their prior comments on the post-1996 ROP plan

and the associated March 3, 2000 proposed rule to

the post-1999 ROP plan and the associated July 11,

2001 proposed rule. Both the post-1996 ROP plan

and the post-1999 ROP plan rely on the substitution

of NOX emission reductions from outside of the

Chicago ozone nonattainment area, but within

Illinois, to meet part of the VOC emission reduction

requirements for the ROP plans. It is this

substitution to which the commenter refers.

benefits as a result of possible NOX

emission reductions (ozone benefits

were modeled on some days under some

NOX reduction scenarios, but greater

ozone dis-benefits were noted on locally

higher ozone days).

Nonetheless, it should be noted that

the July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR

36396) proposed to change the basis for

the continuance of the NOX waiver from

an ozone benefit/dis-benefit basis to an

avoidance of excess NOX emissions

reduction basis under section 182(f)(2)

of the CAA. Since the State has

demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard without the use of all

possible NOX emission controls, the

State, under section 182(f)(2) of the

CAA, qualifies for a NOX emissions

control waiver for those NOX controls

not relied on in the ozone attainment

demonstration. Since the State does not

rely on NOX emission reductions from

NOX RACT, NOX NSR, and certain

mobile source emission controls under

I/M and conformity in the ozone

attainment demonstration (assuming the

attainment demonstration is approved,

as discussed below) for the ChicagoGary-Lake County ozone nonattainment

area, the area qualifies for a waiver of

these NOX emission controls. A NOX

emissions control waiver under this

basis is independent of the ozone

impacts of these controls provided that

the State can demonstrate attainment of

the ozone standard without the use of

these emission controls. Therefore, even

if ozone control benefits are achievable

from some of these NOX controls, this is

not a basis for denying or withdrawing

the NOX waiver for these emission

control measures.

Comment 28

A commenter asserts that the Clean

Air Act specifically designates the EPA

Administrator as being responsible to

respond to NOX waiver petitions. The

commenter questions what authority, if

any, the Regional Administrator has to

issue a decision on the NOX waiver

petition? The commenter requests the

EPA to identify the authority by which

the section 182(f)(3) NOX waiver

petition is being decided by anyone

other the Administrator. In the absence

of this authority, the commenter

contends that the decision of the

Regional Administrator on the NOX

waiver petition is invalid on its face.

Response 28

On October 10, 2001, Administrator,

Christine Todd Whitman, delegated

authority to Deputy Regional

Administrator David A. Ullrich, Region

5 of the EPA, to sign final rulemakings

concerning revision of NOX waivers and

responding to NOX waiver petitions for

Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin in

today’s actions.

Comment 29

A commenter expresses concerns

about substitution of NOX emission

reductions to meet VOC emission

reduction requirements in Rate-OfProgress (ROP) plans. The commenter

asserts that the CAA expressly forbids

the use of NOX substitution for ROP

VOC emission reduction requirements.

The commenter references an April 3,

2000 letter sent by the commenter to the

EPA regarding this issue.

Response 29

On March 3, 2000, we published a

proposed rule (65 FR 11525) regarding

Illinois’ post-1996 ROP plan for the

Chicago portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area.

The April 3, 2000 letter referenced by

the commenter was submitted as a

response to the March 3, 2000 proposed

rule. We addressed the commenter’s

comments in a December 18, 2000 final

rule (65 FR 78961) on the post-1996

ROP plan. To elaborate on the new

comment summarized here and for the

purpose of interpreting and responding

to the commenter’s concerns, some of

the commenter’s prior arguments

regarding this issue are summarized and

again responded to here (the commenter

did not elaborate on the exact basis for

their comment in the more current

comment letter addressed here).

In their April 3, 2000 comment letter,

the commenter noted that they believe

that the CAA prohibits NOX reductions

from outside of the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area from being claimed

as creditable ROP emission reductions

under the post-1996 ROP plan.19 The

commenter notes that section

182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA states that the

post-1996 ROP plan shall reduce by 9

percent ‘‘baseline emissions,’’ as

described in section 182(b)(1)(B) of the

CAA. Section 182(b)(1)(B) of the CAA,

in turn, defines ‘‘baseline emissions’’ to

mean the total amount of actual VOC or

NOX emissions from all anthropogenic

sources in the nonattainment area

during 1990, excluding emissions

reduced by pre-1990 vehicle emissions

regulations and 1990 gasoline volatility

regulations. Based on section

182(b)(1)(B), the commenter asserts that,

since baseline emissions under the

CAA’s definition reflect only VOC or

NOX emissions within the ozone

nonattainment area, and an ROP plan is

to reduce emissions relative to the

emission baseline, Illinois is prohibited

from claiming NOX emission reductions

from outside of the nonattainment area.

We assume that the commenter is trying

to express this same concern with

regard to the post-1999 ROP plan, which

also relies on NOX emission reductions

from outside of the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area.

As noted in the December 18, 2000

final rule (65 FR 78970), we disagree

with the commenter. Claiming credit for

NOX emission reductions occurring

outside of the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area is consistent with

the CAA’s requirements concerning

ROP plans and NOX substitution.

The CAA’s provision for NOX

substitution in ROP plans is separate

from the sections of the CAA focused on

by the commenter. Section 182(c)(2)(B)

of the CAA discusses the reduction of

VOC emissions by a post-1996 ROP plan

(and a post-1999 ROP plan). Section

182(c)(2)(C) of the CAA provides that

NOX emission reductions can be

substituted for or combined with VOC

emission reductions to meet the ROP

requirements under section 182(c)(2)(B).

Section 182(c)(2)(C) does not state that

such NOX emission reductions must

come from ‘‘baseline emissions’’ as

defined under section 182(b)(1)(B).

Rather, section 182(c)(2)(C) defers to the

EPA Administrator to determine ‘‘the

conditions under which NOX emissions

control may be substituted for VOC

emissions control or may be combined

with VOC emissions control in order to

maximize the reduction in ozone air

pollution.’’ The only caveat to NOX

substitution under section 182(c)(2)(C)

is that NOX emission reductions

claimed in the ROP plan, in

combination with VOC emission

reductions, ‘‘would result in a reduction

in ozone concentrations at least

equivalent to that which would result

from the amount of VOC emission

reduction required under section

182(c)(2)(B).’’ Accordingly, the CAA

directs us to use our technical judgment

to determine what types of NOX

emissions control would be suitable for

NOX substitution strategies under

section 182(c)(2)(C).

As discussed in the December 18,

2000 (65 FR 78970) final rule on the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56925

post-1996 ROP plan, we have made the

technical determination that, for areas

within the Ozone Transport Assessment

Group (OTAG) fine grid modeling

domain, which includes the Chicago

ozone nonattainment area, upwind NOX

emission reductions can result in

reductions in ozone concentrations that

are equivalent to results achievable from

local VOC emission reductions. As

discussed in the December 18, 2000 (65

FR 78970) final rule, we provided

Illinois with guidance on how to

establish VOC/ NOX emission reduction

equivalency with respect to upwind

NOX emission reductions, and the State

appropriately followed that guidance in

the preparation of both the post-1996

ROP plan and the post-1999 ROP plan.

The State ozone modeling, reviewed in

the July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR

36370), shows that upwind NOX

emissions significantly contribute to

high ozone concentrations in the

Chicago area. The available modeling

supporting the attainment

demonstration shows that, even if the

Chicago area reduces VOC emissions

significantly beyond current levels, the

area would not achieve modeled

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

without reduction of upwind NOX

emissions. These findings are consistent

with the results of OTAG’s study of the

impact of regional NOX emissions on

ozone nonattainment areas. Moreover,

the State submitted, in conjunction with

the post-1999 ROP plan and the

associated ozone attainment

demonstration, modeling results from

LADCO and from OTAG to demonstrate

that upwind NOX emission reductions

do reduce ozone concentrations in the

Chicago area. All of this is consistent

with guidance in an EPA December 29,

1997 policy, which explains the

conditions under which a NOX

waivered area may claim ROP credit for

upwind NOX emission reductions.

Therefore, ROP credit for upwind NOX

emission reductions is consistent with

section 182(c)(2)(C) of the CAA.

Furthermore, where, as here, EPA is

also approving a modeled attainment

demonstration as providing for

attainment of the ozone standard as

expeditiously as practicable and is

determining that the State has met its

obligation to include in its SIP submittal

all reasonably available control

measures, the mix of NOX and VOC

controls relied upon to satisfy the ROP

obligation is appropriate. With this

action today, EPA is determining that

there are no additional VOC controls

that satisfy the criteria of RACM and

that the plan submitted by the State

provides for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable. Consequently, the mix of

NOX and VOC measures relied upon by

the State in its submittal will result in

the reduction in ozone concentrations

needed to attain the standard as

expeditiously as practicable and is at

least equivalent to any other mix of NOX

and VOC emission controls in terms of

meeting that objective.

Comment 30

A commenter disagrees with the EPA

assertion (in the July 11, 2001 proposed

rule) that the Illinois submission

adequately demonstrates attainment of

the 1-hour ozone standard by November

15, 2007 within the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area.

Response 30

This comment is indirectly responded

to through our responses to the

comments below. We find that none of

the following comments or those from

other commenters responded to in this

final rule are sufficient in nature to

cause us to reverse our decision to

approve Illinois’ ozone attainment

demonstration for the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area.

Comment 31

A commenter notes that EPA stated in

the proposed rule that the ozone

modeling system used by Illinois and

other LADCO States seems to overpredict nighttime ozone concentrations

and to under-predict daytime ozone

concentrations, but performs within

acceptable limits. At the monitoring

sites with high measured ozone

concentrations, the mid-afternoon

modeled ozone concentrations are

‘‘low.’’ This means that the modeling

system is under-predicting ozone levels

precisely when public activity and

actual exposure to ozone is at its

greatest. The commenter notes that even

LADCO has indicated that ‘‘Given the

model’s tendency to underestimate peak

concentrations, however, it should be

understood that the modeled attainment

demonstration provides no margin of

safety.’’

The fact that EPA recognizes that peak

modeled ozone concentrations over

Lake Michigan are underestimated

should also be of concern.

Response 31

LADCO and EPA acknowledge that

the modeling system does

underestimate peak observed ozone

concentrations on some selected

episode days. It should be noted,

however, that the modeling system also

overestimates peak ozone

concentrations on some of the modeled

episode days. Review of Table 2 of

LADCO’s September 27, 2000

attainment demonstration

documentation, titled ‘‘Technical

Support Document—Midwest

Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour

Attainment Demonstration for Lake

Michigan Area,’’ which is the main

support document for Illinois’

submitted attainment demonstration,

shows that the modeling system’s

performance varies from day-to-day.

This table clearly indicates the model’s

underestimation of peak ozone

concentrations on certain days, but also

shows that the model overestimates

peak ozone concentrations on other

days, including days with monitored

ozone standard exceedances. For

example, on July 20, 1991 (one of the

critical days in the ozone attainment

demonstration driving the selection of

emission control measures), the

modeling system overpredicts the peak

ozone concentration by 20.9 percent.

Although the modeling system is not

perfect in modeling observed ozone

concentrations, the model is performing

acceptably within EPA’s recommended

performance limits (also shown in Table

2 of LADCO’s September 27, 2000

technical support document). As noted

in the July 11, 2001 proposed rule (cite),

the ozone modeling system passed

EPA’s recommended system

performance statistics on the modeled

episode days selected by LADCO, and,

therefore, the modeling system is

acceptable for use in demonstrating

attainment of the ozone standard.

Comment 32

A commenter notes that Illinois failed

to demonstrate attainment of the ozone

standard based on the deterministic test,

and had to rely on the statistical test to

demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard. The State modeled the

ozone impacts of additional NOX

emissions to consider the possible

ozone impacts of new EGUs already

granted source permits. This pushed the

predicted peak ozone concentrations to

130 parts per billion (ppb), the

maximum allowed under the statistical

test criteria for the modeled worst-case

period. Given that the modeling system

is likely to underestimate the peak

ozone concentrations, this raises serious

questions about the validity of the

modeled attainment demonstration.

Response 32

As noted above, the modeling system

has been determined to be performing

acceptably based on EPA’s

recommended criteria. The modeling

system, therefore, is acceptable for

testing the impacts of various emission

control strategies and the demonstration

56926 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

of attainment. The model may be used

without further adjustment or use of

calibration factors.

As noted elsewhere in this final rule,

the IEPA took a very conservative

approach in adding the NOX emissions

for the newly permitted EGUs. Since

these EGUs must meet the requirements

of the State’s EGU NOX rule and the

State must meet the requirements of

EPA’s NOX SIP Call, the NOX emissions

from these new EGUs can not cause the

NOX emissions in Illinois to exceed the

NOX emissions budget assigned to

Illinois under the NOX SIP Call. The

ozone attainment demonstration, prior

to the addition of the NOX emissions

from the new EGUs, included the

modeling of NOX emissions meeting the

NOX SIP Call and included NOX

emission growth estimates through

2007. The addition of NOX emissions for

the new EGUs to the modeled NOX

emissions is conservative because some

of the new NOX emissions were already

accounted for in the modeled emissions

growth estimates. Despite this

conservative approach, the State

continued to model peak ozone

concentrations within the acceptable

limits of the statistical test. Therefore,

attainment of the ozone standard

continues to be modeled by the State. In

addition, note that other WOE tests also

support the adequacy of the modeled

attainment demonstration.

Although the deterministic test was

not passed by the selected emissions

control strategy, the same control

strategy did pass the statistical test. If

either test is passed, the attainment

demonstration is found to be acceptable

based on EPA’s current policy

(discussed in detail in the July 11, 2001

proposed rule (66 FR 36370). Therefore,

we continue to find Illinois’ modeled

attainment demonstration to be

acceptable.

Comment 33

A commenter notes that the IEPA has

failed to keep the EPA abreast of

additional NOX emissions not included

in the submitted attainment ozone

modeling that should be considered in

evaluating whether the Chicago area

will actually attain the ozone standard

in 2007. The additional NOX emissions

from new sources will produce higher

peak ozone levels than have already

been predicted. To not include the

additional known Illinois-permitted

facilities, as well as emissions sources

reasonably foreseen by the attainment

year, provides a deliberate underrepresentation of expected attainment

year emissions, and consequently,

ozone levels.

Response 33

As noted elsewhere in this final rule,

the new EGUs referred to by the

commenter must comply with the

requirements of the State’s EGU NOX

rule and with the NOX emissions budget

specified for Illinois under EPA’s NOX

SIP Call. By 2004 and later, these new

sources will have to obtain sufficient

NOX emissions allowances, from the

State’s New Source Set Aside (NSSA) or

from allowance trades from existing

sources, to operate under Illinois’ NOX

emissions budget.

Since the ozone attainment

demonstration was developed to reflect

the impacts of the NOX SIP Call and the

new sources must not cause Illinois

NOX emissions to exceed the State’s

NOX emissions budget, it is concluded

that the new EGUs will not cause total

NOX emissions in Illinois to exceed

future NOX emission levels supported in

the State’s modeled ozone attainment

demonstration.

Also as noted elsewhere in this final

rule, concerns about the impacts of new

EGUs will be addressed to some extent

when the State performs an MCR in

2004. By that time, the State will have

a better idea about the likely NOX

emissions in 2007 and will be able to

better address the impacts of the NOX

SIP Call. At that time, the State will be

in a better position to assess the

probable impact of new source growth

on the attainment of the 1-hour standard

by the attainment deadline of 2007, and

will be able to take corrective actions if

found to be necessary.

Comment 34

A commenter notes that EPA’s

conclusion that IEPA’s modeling of

additional NOX emissions due to new

permitted EGUs is conservative is

contradicted by the IEPA’s response to

the public during hearings on the ozone

attainment demonstration. The

attainment demonstration implies that

NOX emission allocations to new

sources will significantly exceed the

NOX allocations to be granted to new

sources under the State’s NOX SIP Call

emission control regulations. This

implies that new sources will have to

buy NOX emission reduction credits

from other States, leaving in-State NOX

emissions higher than anticipated in the

modeling. The State has admitted

during the public hearings that some

electrical generators will have to

purchase NOX emission allowances

from out-of-state sources.

To the commenter, it appears that the

combination of Illinois deregulation of

the electrical generating sector, the ease

of siting new generation facilities

relative to neighboring states, and the

constraints on new generators based on

the minimization of the NSSA

component in the Illinois NOX EGU rule

is setting up a situation where

significant numbers of NOX emission

allocations will be imported into the

State.

Response 34

The premise of this comment is that

new EGUs will be forced to seek traded

NOX emission allowances to comply

with Illinois’ EGU NOX rule and that

these sources will predominantly be

forced to obtain these traded NOX

emission allowances from sources

outside of the State of Illinois. We

disagree with portions of this premise.

Although some new EGUs may be

forced to obtain NOX emission

allowances from existing sources,

assuming that the NSSA is inadequate

to accommodate all new EGU NOX

emissions, it is not clear that these

sources will be forced to obtain all of

these emission credits from outside of

Illinois. It is just as likely that they will

be able to obtain some of the needed

NOX emission allowances from sources

within Illinois itself. To that extent,

Illinois NOX emissions will not rise

above levels anticipated in the ozone

attainment demonstration. In addition,

if the sources obtain the NOX emission

allowances from States surrounding

Illinois and upwind of Illinois

(Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, and

Tennessee NOX emissions were found to

contribute to high ozone concentrations

in the Chicago area in analyses

supporting EPA’s NOX SIP Call), this

will lead to lowered background ozone

concentrations in the Chicago area. Note

that it is a key conclusion of EPA’s NOX

SIP Call that the lowering of regional,

statewide NOX emissions in certain

States will lower ozone and precursor

transport into downwind ozone

nonattainment areas. Therefore,

emission reduction trading between

States may support attainment of the

ozone standard in the Chicago area and

in other ozone nonattainment areas.

It is difficult for Illinois or any other

State to model the impacts of emissions

allowance trading in the advance of the

implementation of such trading, but

there is no indication that emissions

trading will significantly alter the

modeled results. This problem will be

resolved to some extent when the State

conducts the MCR in 2004, after the

implementation of the NOX control

rules under EPA’s NOX SIP Call. By that

time, the State will be able to assess the

impacts of NOX allowance trading on

emissions in Illinois and in surrounding

States.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56927

With regard to the ease of siting of

new EGUs in Illinois versus in

surrounding States, it is unclear what

basis the commenter has to make such

an assertion. Under the NOX waiver,

Illinois may apply the same major

source NOX emission cutoff (the new

source emission level above which

BACT is required) for new source

review as applied in surrounding areas

that are classified as attainment for

ozone. Based on the ozone designations

and classifications only, it is not clear

that Illinois would present an easier

placement area for new NOX sources.

The new source NOX emissions cutoffs

in Illinois and in the surrounding States,

with the exception of the Metro East/St.

Louis ozone nonattainment area, which

has a tighter new source NOX emissions

cutoff, are identical since most of these

surrounding areas are designated as

attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.

Therefore, on an air quality basis,

Illinois is not necessarily an easier area

for siting new sources.

It should also be noted that other

States are also subject to the

requirements of the NOX SIP Call. NOX

sources in these States will also be

subject to significant NOX emission

reduction requirements and may be

allowed to meet these requirements by

purchasing NOX emission allowances

from other sources. Some of these

sources may seek out NOX emission

allowances from sources in Illinois,

reducing NOX emissions in Illinois

itself.

Comment 35

A commenter notes that a number of

EGUs not included in the submitted

ozone modeling have been or may soon

be granted emission permits. The

potential additional generating capacity,

excluding generating capacity for

sources previously modeled that have

dropped construction plans or have lost

previously granted permits, is 13,238.6

megawatts (MW). This additional

generating capacity within Illinois is

equivalent to the 16,276 MW generating

capacity that was modeled for potential

new sources by Illinois in the submitted

attainment demonstration, and that

increased modeled peak ozone

concentrations by 1 to 2 ppb during the

worst-case modeled ozone period. In

addition, it should be noted that the

NOX emissions from these sources,

peaking units, are expected to occur

during the ozone season, when

electrical demand and wholesale

electrical prices are the greatest.

The commenter concludes that the

potential extra NOX emissions from the

expected new sources are sufficient to

cause a failure of Benchmark 2 of the

ozone attainment demonstration’s

statistical test. The expected peak ozone

concentrations for July 20, 1991, a

‘‘severe’’ ozone day, would be 131 to

132 ppb, above the 130 ppb that has

been determined to be allowable for this

day under the statistical test.

Response 35

As noted elsewhere in this final rule,

the State must comply with the NOX

emissions budget provided in EPA’s

NOX SIP Call. This means that new NOX

sources required to comply with

Illinois’ NOX rules must obtain

sufficient NOX emission allowances to

allow the State to stay within the

prescribed NOX emissions budget.

Provided that these new sources will

have to comply with Illinois’ NOX EGU

rule, their new emissions should not

force statewide NOX emissions to go

above levels supported by the State’s

ozone attainment demonstration.

In addition, it has also been noted

elsewhere in this final rule and in the

July 11, 2001 proposed rule that the

State took a conservative approach in

assessing the ozone impacts of new

EGUs. The State modeled the impacts of

new NOX emissions from the permitted

EGUs that were already included to

some extent in the source growth

estimates of LADCO’s ozone attainment

demonstration modeling.

Comment 36

A commenter notes that, in the

discussion of WOE, EPA notes that

LADCO’s additional test using the

relative reduction factor approach finds

a receptor with a derived ozone design

value of 122 ppb. Considering that the

UAM tends to underestimate 1-hour

ozone concentrations, that, as EPA

notes, the peak modeled ozone

concentrations over Lake Michigan are

underestimated on some days, and that

there is significantly more electrical

generating capacity and potential NOX

emissions than previously modeled

should lead EPA to discount this

example as a component of a WOE

argument.

Response 36

The bases for concern about this WOE

argument have been addressed in

responses to other comments in this

final rule. Because these concerns

appear to not be founded given the

current facts, we do not agree that we

should discount this WOE factor.

Comment 37

A commenter states that, although

EPA notes (in the proposed rule) that

the State appears to have taken

emissions growth into consideration in

the post-1999 ROP plan, it is not at all

clear that this has been done. The fact

that more new source permits have been

granted by the State would likely make

the submission of additional

documentation moot, as the increase in

emissions would have increased the

milestone emission totals. The fact that

17 permits for additional EGUs are in

the permitting process by the State

should be accounted for in future

emissions growth estimates.

Response 37

The commenter is addressing the

impacts of NOX growth from new EGUs,

primarily peakers. It is noted that

Illinois has addressed such source

growth in the ozone attainment

demonstration as noted elsewhere in

this final rule.

With regard to the post-1999 ROP

plan, it is noted that the State has

considered the impacts of the NOX SIP

Call NOX regulations in the projected

statewide NOX emissions considered in

the calculations for the substitution of

NOX emission reductions to satisfy part

of the VOC emission reduction

requirements. The State has primarily

accounted for NOX emissions that will

meet the NOX emissions cap under the

State’s NOX regulations. Since new NOX

emisssions will not be allowed to cause

the statewide NOX emissions to exceed

this cap, new source growth not already

characterized will not be such that this

emissions cap will be exceeded. The

post-1999 ROP plan already accounts

for all of the NOX emissions that will be

allowed for 2004 and later. Therefore,

NOX emission increases due to EGU

growth after this time period is not an

issue.

Comment 38

A commenter believes that a MCR

should be conducted now rather than

waiting for several years. EPA should

also request that Illinois commit to

adopt additional emission controls for

the purposes of attainment if the results

of the MCR show that more NOX will be

emitted in Illinois than the State NOX

emissions budget allows.

Response 38

As noted elsewhere in this final rule,

the MCR will be more robust if the State

waits for additional years to better

assess the impacts of emission controls

on ozone levels. This can only be

carried out to the extent that the timing

of the MCR does not jeopardize the

possibility for implementing corrective

emission controls prior to the ozone

attainment date if such are determined

to be necessary through the preparation

or review of the MCR. Conducting an

56928 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

MCR for the Chicago area now would be

premature and of little value for

correcting future shortfalls in the States

emissions control strategy.

At this time, the EPA is only

requesting the States to commit to

conduct a MCR and not to include in

this MCR specific corrective emission

controls. It is impossible at this time to

anticipate the shortfalls in the State’s

emissions control strategy and to

determine the specific emission controls

needed to eliminate these shortfalls. The

State and the EPA will consider possible

emission control measures after the

State has prepared the MCR and the

EPA has reviewed the submitted MCR

and found that additional emission

controls are needed to attain the 1-hour

ozone standard by the attainment date.

Comment 39

Although the State has reduced

emissions claimed from Transportation

Control Measures (TCMs) in future

years, the commenter fails to

understand how TCM emission

reduction credits can be claimed

prospectively. Enforceable rules to

ensure that the TCM-based emission

reductions claimed are actually

achieved are not in place. The State is

asking the EPA to trust it to find and

document the needed emission

reductions at some later date. This

approach is not acceptable.

Response 39

EPA agrees with the commenter that

credit cannot be given for TCMs which

are not specifically identified and

adopted and are, thus, not enforceable.

Illinois currently has a number of TCMs

approved into the SIP. These TCMs

were approved into the SIP in two

separate rulemaking actions (see 62 FR

66279 and 65 FR 78961). In each case,

the TCMs submitted by Illinois met the

required elements for approval of TCMs.

These elements are: (1) A complete

description of each measure, and, if

possible, its estimated emissions

reduction benefits; (2) evidence that

each measure was properly adopted by

a jurisdiction with legal authority to

execute the measure; (3) evidence that

funding will be available to implement

each measure; (4) evidence that all

necessary approvals have been obtained

from all appropriate government offices;

(5) evidence that a complete schedule to

plan, implement, and enforce each

measure has been adopted by the

implementing agencies; and (6) a

description of any monitoring program

to evaluate each measure’s effectiveness

and to allow for necessary in-place

corrections and alterations.

The approved TCMs already in the

SIP are credited with a total VOC

emission reduction of 4 tons per day in

2002. These TCMs have already been

implemented, and, thus, are already

achieving the credited VOC emission

reductions.

However, the projections of VOC

emission reductions from ‘‘future’’

TCMs which are not yet selected cannot

be approved as part of the SIP. Illinois

has estimated that TCMs will continue

to be implemented and that new TCMs

will generate additional VOC emission

reductions. In their December 2000

submittal, Illinois estimates these future

VOC emission reductions as 1 ton per

day in 2005 and 2 tons per day in 2007.

These projected VOC emission

reductions from future TCMs are not

being approved into the SIP in this

action and cannot be approved until

Illinois meets all of the requirements for

approval of the associated TCMs into

the SIP.

The fact that EPA is not approving the

TCM emission reduction credits

estimated by Illinois for 2005 and 2007

in the ROP plan does not change or

reverse our approval of the post-1999

ROP plan and the ozone attainment

demonstration for the Chicago

nonattainment area. Tables VI and VIII

in our July 11, 2001 proposed rule (66

FR 36370, 36388) demonstrate the ROP

emission target levels and emission

reductions for VOC that Illinois has

achieved, indicating an excess of VOC

emissions reductions in 2005 and 2007

greater than the 1 ton per day and 2 tons

per day shortfalls resulting from not

crediting the non-adopted TCMs. Also,

Figure II–2 in Illinois’ December 2000

ozone attainment demonstration and

ROP plan submittal demonstrates that

Illinois has excess VOC emission

reductions in all ROP milestone years

(2002, 2005, and 2007), sometimes in

excess of 100 tons per day. The 1 ton

per day and 2 ton per day of VOC

emission reductions estimated for

future, non-adopted TCMs which are

not being credited for the SIP are more

than compensated for by the ‘‘excess’’ of

VOC emission reductions expected to

occur by the milestone years. It should

also be noted that the implementation of

TCMs was not included in the adopted

ozone attainment strategy, implying that

future TCMs were not included in the

attainment demonstration modeling.

Thus, both the Illinois post-1999 ROP

plan and the ozone attainment

dmonstration can be approved without

these additional VOC emission

reduction credits.

Comment 40

A commenter believes that there is

double counting of TCM emission

reduction credits in past ROP

submissions. The State has claimed the

same emission reductions as off-model

credits and as modeled credits. As part

of the transportation modeling, rail

improvements would displace

automobile traffic and improve traffic

flow, hence reducing emissions from

mobile sources within the

transportation model. These emissions

reductions have also been credited as

off-model credits from implemented

projects.

Response 40

In the ROP, Illinois does not double

count the TCM reduction credits. This

is because the vehicle miles of travel are

estimated in the ROP submittal based on

historical trends and ground counts

from the Illinois highway monitoring

system. The transportation model does,

as the commenter noted, include the

effects of new and improved rail travel

and, thus some of the TCMs are

included in the transportation network

model. However, because the

transportation network model is not

used for the ROP estimates, the TCM

emission reduction credits are not

included in the ROP calculations and it

is appropriate to deduct the TCM

reduction credits as Illinois has done in

the ROP plan.

Comment 41

A commenter asserts that, although

the ethanol industry claims that the

oxygen in ethanol helps reduce

emissions from older vehicles and offroad engines, the data are ambiguous

regarding this benefit. The commenter

opposes the 0.3 pounds per square inch

(psi) vapor pressure waiver for

reformulated gasoline (RFG) containing

ethanol and believes that this waiver is

not based on sound science.

Response 41

Overall, we continue to believe that

the 2.0 percentage point adjustment to

the VOC performance standard is

appropriate for RFG with 10 volume

percent ethanol sold in the ChicagoGary-Lake County and MilwaukeeRacine ozone nonattainment areas.

Because ethanol RFG constitutes

virtually 100 percent of the RFG market

in these areas, they are significantly

different from other RFG areas.

Accordingly, we are confident that, in

the Chicago and Milwaukee areas, the

adjusted VOC rule will not adversely

impact air quality.

Regardless of whether the vapor

pressure waiver for ethanol-based fuel is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56929

based on sound science, this comment

is moot with regard to the issue at hand,

the approvability of Illinois’ ozone

attainment demonstration. It is noted

that the State followed EPA guidance in

establishing VOC emissions for this fuel

type. Mobile source emissions,

including fuel evaporative emissions

were derived by the IEPA using EPAsupplied guidance and the MOBILE 5

emissions factor model. The State used

this model with the reformulated

gasoline flags set to true, thus

acknowledging the use of ethanol

gasoline blends. It is true that the

MOBILE 5 model fails to estimate the

extra VOC emissions resulting from the

use of ethanol-based fuels. It also true,

however, that the model also fails to

account for the decreased carbon

monoxide emissions resulting from the

use of these fuel blends. Decreased

carbon monoxide emissions lead to

lower peak ozone concentrations

downwind. Therefore, compensating

errors have occurred in the modeling

results, nullifying each other’s effects on

predicted ozone concentrations.

Whether the scientific basis for the

vapor pressure waiver is good or bad

has no or little bearing on the validity

of the ozone attainment demonstration.

Comment 42

We received a number of comments

about the process and substance of

EPA’s review of the adequacy of motor

vehicle emissions budgets for

transportation conformity purposes.

Response 42

We have completed our review of the

adequacy of these SIPs, and we have

found the motor vehicle emissions

budgets in all of these SIPs to be

adequate. We responded to all

comments related to adequacy when we

issued our adequacy findings, and

therefore we are not listing the

individual comments or responding to

them here. You may access our findings

of adequacy and responses to comments

at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once there,

click on the ‘‘conformity’’ button). EPA

regional contacts are identified on the

web site.

Comment 43

One commentor generally supports a

policy of requiring motor vehicle

emissions budgets to be recalculated

when revised MOBILE models are

released.

Response 43

The Phase II attainment

demonstrations that rely on Tier 2

emission reduction credit contain

commitments to revise the motor

vehicle emissions budgets after

MOBILE6 is released. As noted

elsewhere in this final rule, Illinois has

committed to revising the motor vehicle

emission budgets within two years after

EPA releases the MOBILE6 emission

factor model.

Comment 44

The revised budgets calculated using

MOBILE6 will likely be submitted after

EPA has approved the MOBILE5

budgets. EPA’s policy is that submitted

SIPs may not replace approved SIPs.

Response 44

This is the reason that EPA proposed

in the July 28, 2000, Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR

46383) that the approval of the

MOBILE5 budgets for conformity

purposes would last only until

MOBILE6 budgets had been submitted

and found adequate. In this way, the

MOBILE6 budgets can apply for

conformity purposes as soon as they are

found adequate.

Comment 45

If a state submits additional control

measures that affect the motor vehicle

emissions budget, but does not submit

a revised motor vehicle emissions

budget, EPA should not approve the

attainment demonstration.

Response 45

EPA agrees. The motor vehicle

emissions budgets in the Chicago

nonattainment area attainment

demonstration reflect the motor vehicle

control measures in the attainment

demonstration.

Comment 46

A commenter states that EPA should

make it clear that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets used for conformity

purposes will be determined from the

total motor vehicle emissions reductions

required in the SIP, even if the SIP does

not explicitly quantify a revised motor

vehicle emissions budget.

Response 46

EPA will not approve SIPs without

motor vehicle emissions budgets that

are explicitly quantified for conformity

purposes. The Chicago area attainment

demonstration contains explicitly

quantified motor vehicle emissions

budgets.

Comment 47

If a state fails to follow through on its

commitment to submit the revised

motor vehicle emissions budgets using

MOBILE6, EPA could find a failure to

submit a portion of a SIP, which would

trigger a sanctions clock under section

179.

Response 47

If a state fails to meet its commitment,

EPA could find a failure to implement

the SIP, which would start a sanctions

clock under section 179 of the Act.

Comment 48

If the budgets recalculated using

MOBILE6 are larger than the MOBILE5

budgets, then attainment should be

demonstrated again.

Response 48

As EPA proposed in its December 16,

1999 notices, we will work with states

on a case-by-case basis if the new

emissions estimates raise issues about

the sufficiency of the attainment

demonstration.

Comment 49

If the MOBILE6 emission budgets are

smaller than the MOBILE5 emission

budgets, the difference between the

budgets should not be available for

reallocation to other sources, unless air

quality data show that the area is in

attainment of the standard and a revised

attainment demonstration is submitted

that demonstrates that the increased

emissions are consistent with

attainment and maintenance. Similarly,

the MOBILE5 budgets should not be

retained (when MOBILE6 is used for

conformity demonstrations) unless the

above conditions are met.

Response 49

EPA agrees that if recalculation using

MOBILE6 shows lower motor vehicle

emissions than MOBILE5, then these

motor vehicle emission reductions

cannot be reallocated to other sources or

assigned to the motor vehicle emissions

budget as a safety margin unless the area

reassesses the analysis in its attainment

demonstration and shows that it will

still attain. In other words, the area must

assess how its original attainment

demonstration is impacted by using

MOBILE6 versus MOBILE5 before it

reallocates any apparent motor vehicle

emission reductions resulting from the

use of MOBILE6. Since Illinois has

committed to submit MOBILE6 budgets

within two years of the model’s release

and EPA’s approval of the MOBILE5

budgets is limited, the MOBILE5

budgets will not be retained once the

MOBILE6 budgets have been found

adequate.

Comment 50

We received a comment on whether

the grace period before MOBILE6 is

required in conformity determinations

56930 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

will be consistent with the schedules for

revising SIP motor vehicle emissions

budgets (‘‘budgets’’) within one or two

years of MOBILE6’s release.

Response 50

This comment is not germane to this

rulemaking, since the MOBILE6 grace

period for conformity determinations is

not explicitly tied to EPA’s SIP policy

and approvals. However, EPA

understands that a longer grace period

would allow some areas to better

transition to new MOBILE6 budgets.

EPA is considering the maximum two

year grace period allowed by the

conformity rule, and EPA will address

this in the future when we release the

final MOBILE6 emissions model and

policy guidance.

Comment 51

One commenter asked EPA to clarify

in the final rule whether MOBILE6 will

be required for conformity

determinations once new MOBILE6

budgets are submitted and found

adequate.

Response 51

This comment is not germane to this

rulemaking. However, it is important to

note that EPA intends to clarify its

policy for implementing MOBILE6 in

conformity determinations when we

release the final MOBILE6 model. EPA

believes that MOBILE6 should be used

in conformity determinations once new

MOBILE6 budgets are found adequate.

Comment 52

One commenter did not prefer the

additional option for a second year

before the state has to revise the

conformity budgets with MOBILE6,

since new conformity determinations

and new transportation projects could

be delayed in the second year.

Response 52

EPA proposed the additional option

to provide further flexibility in

managing MOBILE6 budget revisions.

The supplemental proposal did not

change the original option to revise

budgets within one year of MOBILE6’s

release. State and local governments

may continue to use the one-year

option, if desired, or submit a new

commitment consistent with the

alternative two-year option. EPA

expects state and local agencies to

consult on which option is appropriate,

and consider the impact on future

conformity determinations. Illinois has

committed to revise its budgets within

two years of MOBILE6’s release.

VII. Final EPA Action

Consideration of the public comments

on the December 16, 1999 and July 11,

2001 leads us to the conclusion that

there are insufficient bases to reverse

our proposed actions in the July 11,

2001 proposed rule. Therefore, we are

taking the final actions as discussed

below.

A. Ozone Attainment Demonstration

EPA is approving Illinois’ ozone

attainment demonstration SIP revision

for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area, which was

submitted on December 26, 2000.

B. Post-1999 ROP Plan

EPA is approving Illinois’ post-1999

ROP SIP revision for the Illinois portion

of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area as submitted by the

State on December 26, 2000.

C. Contingency Measure Plan

EPA is approving Illinois’

contingency measure plan for the ozone

attainment demonstration and post-1999

ROP plan as submitted by the State on

December 26, 2000.

D. Commitment to Conduct a MidCourse Review

EPA is approving Illinois’

commitment to conduct a mid-course

review of the ozone attainment

demonstration for the Chicago-GaryLake County ozone nonattainment area

by the end of 2004.

E. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for

VOC and NOX

EPA is approving Illinois’ motor

vehicle VOC and NOX emissions

budgets for 2002, 2005, and 2007. EPA

is also approving the State’s

commitments to revise the motor

vehicle emission budgets within two

years after EPA releases the MOBILE6

emission factor model.

F. RACM Analysis

EPA approves the Illinois SIP as

demonstrating that the State has

implemented RACM in the Chicago

nonattainment area.

G. NOX Emissions Control Waiver

EPA is revising the existing NOX

waiver for the Illinois portion of the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone

nonattainment area to remove from the

waiver NOX emission controls for major

EGUs, major non-EGU boilers and

turbines, and major cement kilns as

adopted by the State to comply with

EPA’s NOX SIP Call and to achieve

attainment of the ozone standard in this

ozone nonattainment area. EPA is

leaving the NOX waiver in place in this

ozone nonattainment area for NOX

emission controls due to the

implementation of RACT, NSR, and

certain requirements of I/M and

transportation and general conformity.

EPA is denying a related citizen petition

for the termination of the NSR portion

of the NOX waiver.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, therefore, is not subject to review

by the Office of Management and

Budget. For this reason, this action is

also not subject to Executive Order

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This action merely approves

state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this

rule approves pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). This rule also does

not have a substantial direct effect on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. In this context, in the absence

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 56931

of a prior existing requirement for the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective December 13, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by January 14, 2002.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Integovernmental

relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone,

Volatile Organic Compounds.

Dated: October 15, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation of part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.726 is amended by

adding paragraph (dd) to read as

follows:

§ 52.726 Control Strategy: Ozone

* * * * *

(dd) Chicago Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Approval—On December

26, 2000, Illinois submitted a one-hour

ozone attainment demonstration plan as

a requested revision to the Illinois State

Implementation Plan. This plan

includes: A modeled demonstration of

attainment and associated attainment

year conformity emission budgets; a

plan to reduce ozone precursor

emissions by 3 percent per year from

2000 to 2007 (a post-1999 rate-ofprogress plan), and associated

conformity emission budgets; a

contingency measures plan for both the

ozone attainment demonstration and the

post-1999 rate-of-progress plan; a

commitment to conduct a Mid-Course

Review of the ozone attainment

demonstration by the end of 2004; a

demonstration that Illinois has

implemented all reasonably available

control measures; and a commitment to

revise motor vehicle emission budgets

within two years after the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

officially releases the MOBILE6

emission factor model.

[FR Doc. 01–27720 Filed 11–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI108–7338; FRL–7094–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Plans; Wisconsin; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

revisions submitted by the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR or state) to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Milwaukee-Racine area for attainment of

the one-hour ozone standard and is

approving the SIP as fully meeting the

attainment demonstration requirement

of the Clean Air Act (Act). The revision

was submitted to EPA on December 27,

2000. EPA is approving the air quality

modeling, rules to reduce emissions of

ozone forming pollutants (i.e., nitrogen

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic

compounds (VOC)), a plan

demonstrating how progress in emission

reductions will be achieved through the

area’s attainment date of 2007 (i.e., Rate

of Progress Plan (ROP)), a reasonably

available control measure (RACM)

analysis, NOX waiver revisions,

transportation conformity budgets, and

commitments to complete a mid-course

review and to recalculate the attainment

year budget using MOBILE6. On July 2,

2001, we proposed approval of these SIP

revision elements and the SIP as a

whole as meeting the attainment

demonstration requirement of the Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective

December 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can access copies of the

SIP revision request and the Technical

Support Document (TSD) for the

proposed rulemaking on the SIP

revision request at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend

that you telephone Randy Robinson at

(312) 353–6713 before visiting the

Region 5 Office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Robinson, Regulation

Development Section 2, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone number (312) 353–

6713, robinson.randall@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever