### LawOffice of Robert Ukeiley

435R Chestnut Street, Suite l o Berea, Kentucky40403 o tel.859-986-5402 o fax.866-618-l017

VIA NEXT DAY MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Dean Studer, Hearing Officer Illinois EPA 1021 North Grand Avenue, East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 telephone number: 217/558-8280 August 8, 2011 Robert Ukeiley rukeiley@igc.org
Darin Schroeder darin@airadvocates.net

RE: Comments on State Implementation Plan {SIP) Submittals forthe Chicago and Metro-East Ozone NonattainmentAreas and the Chicago PM2.5 NonattainmentArea Dear Hearing Officer Studer: On behalfof my client, Sierra Club, and theirthousands of members who are adversely impacted from air pollution from the Chicago and Metro-East Nonattainment areas, I am writing to submitcomments on Illinois EPA's draft Maintenance Plans for the Chicago and Metro-East NonattainmentAreas for the 1997 ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the Chicago NonattainmentArea for the 1997 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) NAAQS. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these Plans to make sure they are as strong as possible as ozone and PM2.5 have a variety ofvery serious adverse impacts including triggering asthma attacks and causing premature mortality. I. INTRODUCTION The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is holding a public comment period on three maintenance plans: (1) The Metro-East Plan forthe 1997 ozone NAAQS, (2) the Chicago Plan for the 1997ozone NAAQS and; (3) the ChicagoHearingOfficer Studer August 8, 2011 Page2 Plan forthe 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These maintenance plans are a required part of IEPA's attempt to have these nonattainment areas re-designated to attainment. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(E)(iv).
There are several flaws in these maintenance plans which are described below. The most serious is thatthe Chicago and Metro-East SIPs may not be currently adequate to maintain compliance with the ozone NAAQS.
IEPA should remedy these flaws in orderto better protectthe public from the harmful effects of PM2.5 and ozone. PM2.5 is "produced chiefly by combustion processes and by atmospheric reactions ofvarious gaseous pollutants," thus "[s]ources offine particles include

... motorvehicles, power generation, combustion sources at industrial facilities, and residential fuel burning." 71 Fed. Reg. 61,144, 61,146 (Oct. 17, 2006). The effects of PM2.5 on humans are profound. For example, short-term exposure to PM2.5 is associated with "premature mortality, hospital admissions or emergency departmentvisits for respiratory disease, and effects on lung function and symptoms." 71 Fed. Reg. 2619,2627 Uan. 17, 2006). Furthermore, PM2.5 adversely affects our natural surroundings. Regional haze is caused in part by particulates in the airscattering sunlight. EPA, Haze- How Air Pollution Affects the View (available at http:ljwww.epa.gov/ttn/oarpq/tl/fr notices/haze.pdf). Ozone, often referred to as smog, has numerous harmful effects on human respiratory systems which include inducing asthma attacks and aggravating chronic lung diseases like emphysema and bronchitis. EPA, Smog-Who Does it Hurt?, 2-3 (available at http:ljwww.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/smog.pdf). Long-term exposure may result in the permanentscarring of lung tissue. EPA, Ozone and Your Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (available at http:ljwww.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/health.pdf). Ozone can be particularly harmful to adolescents, as exposure to ozone can also lead to "chronic, adverse effects on lung development in children from the age of 10 to 18 years

...." See Gauderman, W. james, et al., The Effectof AirPollution on Lung Developmentfrom 10 to 18 Years of Age, N. Engl.

## J. Med. 351:11, at 1057 (Sept. 9, 2004). However, the greatest harm "may occur later in life, since reduced lung function is a strong risk factorfor complications and death during adulthood." 

### /d. at 1063. II. ANALYSIS
A. CHICAGO OZONE MAINTENANCE PLAN The most fundamental flaw with the Chicago ozone maintenance plan is that it may not be adequate to maintain the NAAQS. According to the USHearingOfficer Studer August 8, 20II Page 3 EPA, for the 2008-2010 period: "One or more sites in this area has violated the NAAQS priorto 2008-2010 and does not have a valid 2008-2010 design value." Ex. 1 at ftnt 4. Thus, IEPA cannot prove that its current SIP is maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Chicago nonattainment area. Therefore, IEPA cannot say that the current SIP will maintain the NAAQS in the future. In addition, Clean Air Act Section 110(1) prohibits the US EPA for approving any SIP revision that may interfere with another NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1). However, IEPA has presented no analysis at all to establish that re-designating Chicago from nonattainmentto attainment and the implementing the maintenance plan will not interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb orthe 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. Without this analysis, US EPA will not be able to approve these proposed SIP changes. According to IEPA, several monitors in the Chicago nonattainment area monitored violations in 2006-2008 ofthe 2008 75 ppb NAAQS. 

### See Chicago Maintenance Plan at 12. Thus, the Clean AirAct 110(1) analysis is even more critical.
IEPA claims that the 2006-2008 ozone design value was the result of permanent and enforceable emission limits. Maintenance Plan forthe Illinois Portion ofthe Chicago Ozone NonattainmentArea for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard (Revised) ("Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan") at 5. This statement is not correct. Much ofthe emission reductions that influenced the 2006-2008 design value were from tne NOx SIP Call and later reductions were from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

### See Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan at 15, 19. Emissions reductions from the NOx SIP Call and CAIR are not permanent and enforceable because the NOx SIP Call and CAIR are cap and trade programs which means sources can decrease and increase their emissions on a yearly basis and because the NOx SIP Call is no longer in place and CAIR has been vacated by the US Court ofAppeals forthe U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit. IEPA presents no analysis ofwhether emission reductions from the Cross State Air Pollution Rule will have the same effect on ambient ozone levels as the NOx SIP Call and CAIR. In addition, the Cross StateAir Pollution Rule also allows some trading so its emission reductions cannot be considered permanent. Anotherflaw is that IEPA's future emission projections fails to consider US EPA's recent announcement that it is repealing the vapor capture requirements for gas stations. US EPA has been clearthat this will increase emissions because not all cars have on-board capture systems. IEPA's projection offuture emissions are based on an unsupported claim that on-road NOx will decrease dramatically. This ignores the reality that vehicle standards allow largervehicles to emit more NOx in terms of mass emissions.HearingOfficer Studer August 8,2011 Page4 Thus, IEPA's reliance on vehicle turnover is not supported by evidence which justifies the claimed reduction in mass NOx emissions. Furthermore, IEPA's emission calculations from on-road mobile sources fail to consider US EPA's recent decision to allow 15% ethanol in all gas. See Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan at 36. This increased use ofethanol at levels for which many cars and lighttrucks, and particularly their pollution control devices, were not designed to deal with will increase NOx and VOC emissions. IEPA does not accountforthis increase. IEPA acknowledges that ambient monitoring data must be available to the public. US EPA no longer makes ambient monitoring data available to the public on its web page. IEPA claim to the contrary on page 13 is simply no longer true. See http:ljwww.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st-IL-IIIinois (no data after 2008). The Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan also fails to consider climate change. "A maintenance plan must take into account the sort ofthings, such as population growth and changes to the industrial base, that might cause existing pollution-control measures to become inadequate in the future even ifthey served well in the past." Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7'h cir. 2004). Climate change is justthe sort ofthing that might cause existing pollution-control measures to become inadequate in the future even ifthey served well in the past. US EPA has admitted that weather influences ozone formation. See72 Fed. Reg. 44781; 72 Fed. Reg. 44778, 44779. Climate change, which we are indisputably experiencing, means that weather patterns in the future are going to be more conducive to ozone formation than weather patterns in the past. US EPA is well aware ofthis issue. US EPA has recently stated: The report, "Assessment ofthe Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis ofClimate Change Impacts on GroundLevel Ozone," concludes that there is a potential for climate change to make ozone pollution worse in some regions and thatfuture ozone management decisions may need to accountfor the possible impacts ofclimate change. EPA News Brief, April17, 2009, Climate Change Impacts on Regional Air Quality Reportjust Released by EPA. The Report is entitled: U.S. EPA. Assessment ofthe Impacts ofGlobal Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis ofClimate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone (An Interim Report ofthe U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/094F, 2009. This report is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=203459 and is incorporated herein by reference.Hearing Officer Studer August 8, 20II Page 5



### US EPA's Report furtherfound: These climate-induced increases, averaged overthe summerseason, were in the range ofapproximately 2-8 parts per billion (ppb) for Maximum Daily 8-hourAverage 

### 03 concentration, a key metric for regulating U.S. airquality. The climate sensitivity of

### 03 was greatest forthe peak pollution episodes thattend to occur overa numberof days each summer, resulting in substantially larger increases forthese times than forthe overall seasonal average. 

### /d. atxix. US EPA went on to find: A subset of results also suggests that climate change effects on 

### 03 grow continuously overtime, with evidence for significant impacts (in the same direction as described above) emerging as early as the 2020s. For example, the Columbia research group (which simulated only the eastern halfofthe United States) found significant summertime 

### 03 increases across broad swathes ofthe Midwest and Mid-Atlantic by the 2020s, with greater increases by the 2050s and 2080s. 

### /d. atxxiv (emphasis added). Also, relevant, EPA stated: Air quality managers may also need to plan to extend the season over which they monitor

### 03 concentrations and be prepared to issue air quality alerts earlier in the spring and later into the fall. 

### !d. atxxv. The proposed Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan does not propose such an extension ofthe monitoring season. Furthermore, an EPA-funded study by Knowlton and colleagues1 

### utilized the Goddard Institutefor Space Studies (GISS) Global Climate Model, in combination with the Penn State/National CenterforAtmospheric Research Mesoscale Model 5, and the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to simulate climate-induced changes in ozone levelsforthe

1 Knowlton K, Rosenthal JE, Hogrefe C, Lynn B, Gaffin S, Goldberg R, Rosenzweig, Civerolo K, Ku J-Y, Kinney PL. 2004. Assessing ozone-related health impacts under a changing climate. Environ Health Perspect 112:1557-1563. doi:10.1289/ehp.7163 available via http://dx.doi.org/Hearing Officer Studer August 8, 20II Page6 purposes ofconducting a health impact analysis. This study demonstrates the feasibility of integrating global and regional climate models with models that are typically used by air quality managers for the purposes of evaluating compliance with airquality standards. IEPA has not done this. A study ofthe New York metropolitan region found a 4.5% increase in summertime ozone-related premature deaths in 2050 relative to the 1990s.2 A second study projected increased ozone smog concentrations in suburban counties downwind of New York City, demonstrating the potential ofclimate change to spread adverse health effects well beyond the city limits. 3 A third study detailed climate change effects on future ozone levels in 50 eastern US cities, projecting a 68% increase in the numberofdays exceeding the 8-hour 

### 03 standard andincreases in mortality and respiratory disease hospital admissions.• TheJacobson 2008 report also directly links increases in carbon dioxide to increased mortality, hospitalization, asthma and cancer rates. These studies are integral to a meaningful assessment ofthe impacts of climate change on ozone. Yet with regard to the Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan, there has been no consideration ofclimate changes impacts on ozone, either as to formation or as to consequences. Failure to considerthis important aspect ofthe problem would lead to an arbitrary result. Therefore, we request that IEPA re-evaluate the Maintenance Plan in light ofthe increasing danger climate change will cause from ozone. IEPA also provides for alternative measures which are not permissible under the Clean AirAct. The Maintenance Plan states: "Illinois EPA commits to keep these measures in 

### effect after redesignation, orto provide equivalent emissions levels using alternate measures." Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan at 18. However, the Clean AirAct does not allow for alternative measures. Finally, IEPA states: "The control measures identified in the RFP document, including those listed above, will result in a 15.7 percent reduction in VOM emissions from 2002 emissions levels bythe year 2008." Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan at 20. Now that year 2008 has passed, IEPA must prove that these reductions were actually achieved.

2 Knowlton K. eta!(2004). 3 Kinney P, Rosenthal j, Rosenzweig C, Hogrefe C, Solecki W, Knowlton K, Small C, Lynn B, Civerolo K, Ku j, Goldberg R, Oliveri C. 2006. Assessing potential public health impacts of changing climate and land uses: the New York Climate and Health Project. In: Regional Climate Change and Variability: ImpactsandResponses (Ruth M, Donaghy K, Kirshen P, eds.). Cheltenham(UK):Edward Elgar, 161-189. 4 jacobson (2008). jacobson, MZ. 2008. On the casual link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality. GeophysicalResearch Letters. 3S: L03809.Hearing Officer Studer August 8, 20II Page7 B. METRO-EAST ST. LOUIS OZONE MAINTENANCE PLAN Like the Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan, the mostfundamental flaw with the Metro-East ozone maintenance plan is that it may not be adequate to maintain the NAAQS. According to the US EPA, for the 2008-2010 period, "( o]ne or more sites in this area has violated the NAAQS priorto 2008-2010 and does not have a valid 2008-2010 design value." Ex. 1 at ftnt 4. Thus, IEPA cannot prove that its current SIP is maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Metro-East nonattainment area. Therefore, IEPA cannot say that the current SIP will maintain the NAAQS in the future.
In addition, Clean AirAct Section 110(1) prohibits the US EPA for approving:any SIP revision that may interfere with another NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1). · However, IEPA has presented no analysis at all to establish that re-designating Metro-Eastfrom nonattainmentto attainment and the maintenance plan will not interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS of75 ppb or the 2010 1-hournitrogen dioxide NAAQS. Without this analysis, US EPA will not be able to approve these proposed SIP changes. According to IEPA, several monitors in the Metro-East nonattainment area monitored violations in 2007-2009 ofthe 2008 75 ppb NAAQS. See Metro-East Ozone Maintenance Plan at 12. Thus, the Clean Air Act 110(1) analysis is even more critical. IEPA claims thatthe 2006-2008 ozone design value was the result of permanent and enforceable emission limits. Metro-East Ozone Maintenance Plan at 5. This statement is not correct. Much ofthe emission reductions that influenced the 2006-2008 design value were from the NOx SIP Call and later reductions were from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). See MetroEast Ozone Maintenance Plan at 19. Emissions reductions from the NOx SIP Call and CAIR are not permanentand enforceable because the NOx SIP Call and CAIR are cap and trade programs which means sources can decrease and increase their emissions on a yearly basis and because the NOx SIP Call is no longer in place and CAIR has been vacated by the US Court ofAppeals for the DC Circuit. IEPA presents no analysis ofwhether emission reductions from the Cross State Air Pollution Rule will have the same effect. In addition, this new rule also allows some trading so its emission reductions cannot be considered permanent. IEPA's emission projections appearto be inaccurate. There is no indication that the emission projections considered emissions from Prairie State Generating Station which should be in operation, and thus polluting, priorto 2015. The Metro-East Ozone Maintenance Plan suffers from many ofthe defects described above in Section II.A regarding the Chicago OzoneHearing Officer Studer August 8, 2011 Page 8 Maintenance Plan. These include: (1) failing to consider increased emissions from US EPA's repealing the vapor capture requirements for gas stations and allowing up to 15% ethanol in gasoline; (2) assuming thatvehicle turn over will reduce mass on-road emissions even though purchasing larger new vehicles can offsetthis; (3) failing to make ambient monitoring data available to the public; (4) failing to consider climate change impacts on future ambient ozone levels; (5) relying on unidentified alternate measures with no legal authority to do so. We will not repeat the detailed explanation ofthese flaws provided above butforthe reasons provided above IEPA must fix these defects. C. CHICAGO PM2.5 MAINTENANCE PLAN Similarto the ozone maintenance plans, IEPA claims thatthe Chicago 2007-2009 PM2.5 design value was the result of permanent and enforceable emission limits. Maintenance Plan for the Chicago NonattainmentArea for the 1997 PM2.5 National AmbientAir Quality Standard (Revised) ("Chicago PM2.5 Maintenance Plan") at 5. This statement is not correct. Much ofthe emission reductions that influenced the 2007-2009 design value were from the NOx SIP Call and later reductions were from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). SeeChicago PM2.5 Maintenance Plan at 15. Emissions reductions from the NOx SIP Call and CAIR are not permanent and enforceable because the NOx SIP Call and CAIR are cap and trade programs which means sources can decrease and increase their emissions on a yearly basis and because the NOx SIP Call is no longer in place and CAIR has been vacated by the US Court ofAppeals for the DC Circuit. IEPA presents no analysis ofwhether emission reductions from the Cross State Air Pollution Rule will have the same effect. In addition, this new rule also allows some trading so its emission reductions cannot be considered permanent. The Chicago PM2.5 Maintenance Plan also suffers from many ofthe defects described above in Section II.A regarding the Chicago Ozone Maintenance Plan. These include: (1) failing to consider increased emissions from US EPA's repealing the vapor capture requirements for gas stations and allowing upto 15% ethanol in gasoline; (2) assuming that vehicle turn over will reduce mass on-road emissions even though purchasing larger new vehicles can offsetthis; and (3) failing to make ambient monitoring data available to the public. We will not repeat the detailed explanation ofthese flaws provided above butforthe reasons provided above IEPA mustfix these defects.
Ill. CONCLUSION It is imperative from a public health and welfare point ofview that IEPA correct the above flaws in its maintenance plans. Ifyou have any questionsHearing Officer Studer August 8, 20II Page 9 about these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Otherwise, we lookforward to IEPA improving its maintenance plans to ensure the health and welfare of millions of Illinois inhabitants.

Sincerely,

Robert Ukeiley Counsel for Sierra Club' 

# .



# EXHIBIT 1Table1

Table I. Design Values in Areas Previously Designated Nonattainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS AQS Data Query: 6/27/2011 LastUpdated: 7/12/2011
2008-2010 

### s. HourOzone Clean Data EPA Designation Design Value Determination Redesignation Designated Area Region(s) Status' Classification'**(ppm)'~** MetNAAQS? Date Date Albany·Schenectady-Troy, NY 02 Nonattainment Former Subpart 1 0.072 Yes 3/25/2008 AlleganCo, Ml OS Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.074 Yes 9/25/2010 9/24/2010 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA 03 Maintenance FonnerSubpart 1 0.076 Yes 3/4/2008 Altoona, PA 03 Maintenance Former Subpart 1 0.070 Yes 811/2007 Amador& CalaverasCos (Central Mtn), CA 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpart 1 0.083 Yes Atlanta, GA 04 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Moderate 0.080 see footnote 4 Baltimore, MD 03 Nonanainment Subpart 2/Moderate 0.089 No Baton Rouge, LA 06 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate O.o78 Yes 10112/2010 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 06 Maintenance Subpart2/Moderate 0.074 Yes 10/20/2010 Benton Harbor, Ml 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.071 Yes 5/16/2007 BenzieCo, Ml 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.069 Yes 5/16/2007 Berkeley & Jefferson Cos, WV 03 ' Attainment Fonner EAC 0.070 Yes Birmingham, AL 04 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.075 Yes 5/12/2006 Boston-Lawrence-Worcester(E. Mass), MA 01 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0,075 Yes 4118/2011 Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), NH 01 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.069 Yes Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 02 Nonattainment FormerSubpart I 0.071 Yes 1/612010 Canton·Massillon, OH 05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.073 see footnote 4 5116/2007 CassCo, Ml 05 Maintenance Subpart 2/MarginaJ 0.070 Yes 5/16/2007 Charleston, WV 03 Maintenance FonnerSubpart l 0.069 Yes 7111/2006 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 04 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.082 Yes Chattanooga, TN-GA 04 Attainment FormerEAC 0,075 Yes Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-JN 05 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Moderate 0.074 see footnote 4 4/12/2010 Chico,CA 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpart 1 0.079 Yes Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 05,04 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.079 Yes 511112010 5111/2010 Clarkesville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY 04 Maintenance FonnerSubpart 1 0.069 Yes 1125/2006 Clearfield & IndianaCos, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.074 Yes 311912009 Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH 05 Maintenance Subpart 2/Moderate 0.077 Yes 9/15/2009 9115/2009 Columbia, SC 04 Attainment FonnerEAC 0.070 Yes Columbus, OH 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.077 Yes 9115/2009 9/15/2009 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 06 Nonanainment Subpart2/Serious 0.086 No Dayton·Springfield, OH 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0,075 see footnote 4 8113/2007 Denver-Boulder-Greeley-FtCollins-Loveland,CO 08 Nonattainment FormerSubpart I 0.077 Yes Detroit-Ann Arbor, Ml 05 Maintenance Subpart2/Marginal O.o75 Yes 6129/2009 6/29/2009 DoorCo. WI 05 Maintenance Fonner Subpart I 0.073 Yes 7112/2010 7/12/2010 Erie, PA 03 Maintenance Former Subpart I 0.072 Yes 10/9/2007 Essex Co (Whiteface Mtn), NY 02 Nonattainment FormerSubpart 1 0.072 see footnote 4 1/6/2010 Evansville, IN 05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart 1 0.070 Yes 12129/2005 Fayetteville, NC 04 Attainment FormerEAC 0.071 Yes

Page 1Table1

Flint, Ml 05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.068 Yes 511612007 Fort Wayne, IN 05 Maintenance Former Subpart I 0.067 Yes 1/11/2007 Franklin Co, PA 03 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.067 Yes 712512007 FrederickCo, VA 03 Attainment FormerEAC 0.068 Yes Fredericksburg, VA 03 Maintenance Subpart2/Moderate 0.070 Yes 1212312005 Grand Rapids, Ml 05 Maintenance Fonner Subpart I 0.069 Yes 5/1612007 GreaterConnecticut.CT 01 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate O.Q78 see footnote 4 9/3012010 Greene Co, IN 05 Maintenance Former Subpart 1 0.071 Yes 11/14/2005 GreeneCo, PA 03 Maintenance Former Subpart 1 0.072 Yes 3/19/2009 Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC 04 Attainment FormerEAC 0.076 Yes Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC 04 Attainment FonnerEAC 0.076 Yes Hancock, Knox, Lincoln & Waldo Cos,ME 01 Maintenance Former Subpart J 0.074 Yes 12/1112006 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.073 Yes 7125/2007 Haywood and SwainCos (Great SmokyNP), NC 04 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.072 Yes 12/712009 Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC 04 Attainment FormerEAC 0.070 Yes Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 06 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Scvere 15 0.084 seefootnote 4 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY 03,04 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.070 Yes 813/2007 HuronCo, Ml 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.067 Yes 5116/2007 Imperial Co, CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate O.o78 Yes 1/412010 Indianapolis, IN OS Maintenance Fonner Subpart I 0.073 Yes 10/19/2007 JacksonCo, IN 05 Maintenance Former Subpart I 0.067 Yes 11114/2005 Jamestown, NY 02 Nonattainment Fonner Subpart I 0.077 Yes 1/612010 Jefferson Co, NY 02 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Moderate 0.072 Yes 3/25/2008 Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN 04 Attainment Former EAC 0.071 Yes Johnstown, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.067 Yes 8/112007 Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Ml 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.069 Yes 5/16/2007 Kent & Queen Anne's Cos, MD 03 Maintenance Subpart2/Marginal O.Q75 Yes 12122/2006 Kern Co (Eastern Kern), CA 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpaJ1 1 0.083 Yes Kewaunee Co, WI 05 Maintenance Former Subpart I 0.071 Yes 5/21/2008 Knoxville, TN 04 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.077 see footnote 4 10/1212010 318/2011 La Porte, IN 05 Maintenance Subpart 2/Marginal 0.065 Yes 7/19/2007 Lancaster, PA 03 Maintenance Subpart2/MarginaJ 0.077 Yes 7/6/2007 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.068 Yes 5/1612007 Las Vegas, NV 09 Nonattainment Fonner Subpart I 0.076 Yes 5/3112011 Lima,OH 05 Maintenance Former Subpart I 0.070 Yes 5/16/2007 Los Angeles South CoastAir Basin, CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart2/Extreme 0.112 No Los Angeles-San BernardinoCos (W. Mojave), CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart2/Severe 15 0.099 No Louisville, KY-IN 04,05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I O.Q75 Yes 7/19/2007 Macon,GA 04 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.073 Yes 9/1912007 Madison & PageCos (ShenandoahNP), VA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.073 Yes 1/312006 Manitowoc Co, WI 05 Maintenance Former Subpart I 0.073 Yes 7/1212010 7/1212010 Mariposa& TuolumneCos (Southern Mtn), CA 09 Nonattainment Former Subpart I 0.083 Yes MasonCo,MJ 05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.068 Yes 5/1612007 Memphis, TN-AR 04,06 Maintenance Subpart2/Moderate 0.076 Yes 3/24/2010 Milwaukee-Racine, WI 05 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.074 see footnote 4 3/3112011 Muncie, IN 05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.065 Yes 11/16/2005 MurrayCo (ChattahoocheeNF), GA 04 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.073 Yes 10/16/2007

Page2Table1

Muskegon, MI 05 Maintenance Subpart2/Marginal 0.074 Yes 5/16/2007 Nashville,TN 04 Attainment FormerEAC 0.076 Yes NevadaCo (Western part), CA 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpart I 0.084 Yes New York-N. NewJersey-LongIsland, NY-NJ-CT 02,01 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.084 see footnote 4 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-NewportNews (HR), VA 03 Maintenance Subpart 2/Marginal 0.072 Yes 611/2007 Parkersburg-Marietta. WV-OH 03,05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.073 Yes 5/16/2007 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 03,02 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.083 see footnote 4 Phoenix-Mesa,AZ 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpart I 0.077 Yes Pittsburgh-BeaverValley, PA 03 Nonattainment FormerSubpart I 0.081 Yes Portland, ME 01 Maintenm1ce Subpart 2/Marginal 0.072 Yes 12/11/2006 Poughkeepsie, NY 02 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate O.o75 Yes 116/2010 Providence (all ofRI), Rl 01 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.076 Yes 11/22/2010 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 04 Maintenance FonnerSubpart I 0.074 see footnote 4 12/26/2007 Reading, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.079 Yes 8/24/2007 Richmond·Petersburg, VA 03 Maintenance Subpart 2/Marginal 0.076 Yes 6/1/2007 Riverside Co (Coachella Valley), CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Severe 15 0.095 No Roanoke, VA 03 Attainment Former EAC 0.069 Yes Rochester, NY 02 Nonattainment FormerSubpart I 0.069 Yes 3/25/2008 Rocky Mount, NC 04 Maintenance FonnerSubpart 1 0.071 Yes 11/6/2006 Sacramento Metro, CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart2/Severe 15 0.102 No San Antonio, TX 06 Attainment Former EAC O.D75 Yes San Diego, CA 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpart 1 0.088 No San Francisco Bay Area, CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart2/Marginal 0.080 Yes San Joaquin Valley, CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Extreme 0.104 No Scranton·Wilkes·Barre, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.072 Yes 11/19/2007 Sheboygan, WI 05 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate O.o78 see footnote 4 3/31/2011 South Bend-Elkhart, IN 05 Maintenance FonnerSubpart 1 0.064 Yes 7/19/2007 Springfield (W. Mass), MA 01 Nonattainment Subpart 2/Moderate 0.077 see footnote 4 St. Louis, MO·IL 07,05 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.077 see footnote 4 7/11/2011 StateCollege, PA 03 Maintenance Fonner Subpart 1 0.070 Yes 11114/2007 Steubenville·Weirton, OH·WV 05,03 Maintenance Former Subpart 1 0.073 Yes 5/16/2007 SutterCo (SutterButtes), CA 09 Nonattainment FormerSubpart 1 0.076 Yes Terre Haute. IN 05 Maintenance Former Subpart 1 0.063 Yes 1/5/2006 TiogaCo, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.070 Yes 7/6/2007 Toledo, OH 05 Maintenance FormerSubpart 1 0.072 Yes 8/9/2007 VenturaCo, CA 09 Nonattainment Subpart2/Serious 0.086 No Washington Co (Hagerstown), MD 03 Attainment Former EAC 0.072 Yes Washington, DC-MD·VA 03 Nonattainment Subpart2/Moderate 0.081 seefootnote 4 Wheeling, WV-OH 03,05 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.073 Yes 5116/2007 York, PA 03 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.074 Yes 1/14/2008 Youngstown·Warren·Sharon, PA.QH 05,03 Maintenance FormerSubpart I 0.074 Yes 10/19/2007 Notes: 1. Area classification and designation status as ofApril 27, 2011

Page 3Table1

2. The level ofthe 1997 BRhour ozone NAAQS Is 0.08 parts permillion (ppm). The design value isthe3-yearaverage ofthe annual fourth-highest dally maximum 8Rhour ozone concentration.
3. The designvalues shown here are computedforthe latestdesign value period using Federal Reference Method orequivalentdata reported by State,Tribal, and Local monitoringagenciesto EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) asof May 9, 2011. Concentrationsflagged by State, Tribal, or Local monitoring agencies as having been affected by an exceptional event (e.g., wildfire, volcanic eruption)and concurred by the associated EPA Regional Office are not included inthese calculations.
4. One or moresites Inthis area hasviolated the NAAQS priorto 2008-2010 and does not have avalid 2008-2010 designvalue. Although a 2008-2010 design value Isshown, this designvalue may not representthe worst2008-2010 airquality in the area. Consequently, we have not used itto indicate ''Yes" or"No" in the "Met NAAQS?" column.

Page4UNITEDSTIJTESPOSTIJLSERtiiCE

PlaceMailing Label Here:

11111111111'111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II I

# IIIIIii1111 EG643637391US

u) lJ.J Q 0 u CV'j 0 < S(:**~** Lu 0::: <;:(**~** 0 >' PHONE ( 0 a: <( I U) U) w cc Q_ 

# Fl,at R,ate 

# Mailing Envelope
ForDomesticandlnilfemationalUse Visitusatusp.s.aom

Addressee Copy Label 11-B, March 2004

UNITEDSTJJTES POSTJJL SERVICE® PostOfficeToAddressee

TO: {PLEASE PRINT) D WAIVER OFSIGNATURE (Domestic.Mail.**0~/y)** Additional merchandise insurance IS vo1d 1f customerrequestswaiverof**signa~r~.** . 1wish deliveryto be madewithout obtaining Signature ofaddressee oraddressee's agent (ifdelive'Yemployee judgesthat article can be left 1n secure location)af!d I authorizethat delivery employee's signature constitutes valid proofofdelivery.



### +

FOR INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS, WRITE COUNTRY NAME BELOW. When used**mtematiomaJ~ a~** oust'Oms o:fedaraffons (P>S Form 29761# or.2976A1

# ~ I SILVER I t;JSPS**p~cf<aglng**prodvc.tsh§!.V(iJ.been awarciedCradleto Cradle**Geftific:atio~** fOrt{li!liteeologically·-iritelligentdesign Formore itrformationgoto rnbdc.cornlusps CradletoCradleCertified""1sacertlflcallonmarl< ofM.BDC.
Please**recycl~.**USPS.com®

- Track& Confirm

C<zstomerServ1ce USPS Mobile 

## QUSPS.COM.

Quick Tools 

### Track & Confirm

GF.T EMAlL l!PnATES PRJI.IT OETAiLS

YCUR LABEL MUI.13ER**EG6~37391US**

Check on Another Hem \!\hat's your label (or receipt) number?

LEGAL Pli.;acf Pol1cy • f;-,rms of**us~** , FOiA · No FEAR 1\ct EEO DatJ Shtp a Package**SER~1CE** Express MairON USPS.COM Goven;;nco'1t :&!r:ice5'**B<~y**Sta"lps & Shap ' P:>n! t; L<J'X.! <':it'"l Pnst:l£!E! >**Cu~:co;er** ServiCe '**Sit<olr~x·** ST

....11.1S OF YOUR n EM**Deh~ered**

Notice left(No Authorized Recipient**Ava~abla)** Noticelefi.(Na Authorized Rec1pient**A~ailable)** Manage Your Mail

DA<E &**'l~E** August 10, 2011.8:01 am

August 10. 2011, 3:15am

August09.2011, 10:54<VTI**Arri~al** at Unit August09, 2011, 10:52 am

Processed throughSort August 08, 2011, 8:59pm Facility Processed through Sort August08, 2011, 5:22pm Facility Acceptance

Find August06, 2011, 3.36 pm

ON ABOUT.USPS.COM About USPS Homi! • NiWSrOEim' M.a:l**::;:e;~ic!l** Upda!e5, Forms & Pwb!tcat•cns > Shop

SPRINGFIELD. IL62794

SPRINGFIELD, IL62794

SPRINGFIELD, IL62794

SPRINGFIELD, IL 62703

LOUISVILLE, KY 40231

LEXINGTON, KY 40511

BEREA, KY 40403 Page I ofI

Register i $ogn ln

Business Solutions

Guaranteed By: August9, 2011. 12:00 PM Rerum Recaipt Prt>Orof Delivery

OTHER USPS SITES BusH'"ssCustc;nerGatev-.ray • Posla'lnspectors >**ln~pector** G,r,o;,ral •**Po~at ~.p;ore.-**  ·

https://tools.usps.oom/go/TrackConfirmAction _input?qtc _tLabelsl=EG643637391US&qtc... 8/10/20II