Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34819 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. Section 52.1076 is amended by 

adding paragraph (y) to read as follows. 

§ 52.1076 Control strategy plans for 

attainment and rate-of-progress: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(y) Determination—EPA has 

determined that, as of July 12, 2012, the 

Baltimore 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard and that this determination 

obviates the requirement for Maryland 

to submit for the Baltimore area the 1- 

hour ozone contingency measure 

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

■ 3. Section 52.1082 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as 

follows. 

§ 52.1082 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(f) Based upon EPA’s review of the air 

quality data for the 3-year period 2003 

to 2005, EPA determined, as of July 12, 

2012, that the Baltimore 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area did not attain the 1- 

hour ozone standard as of its applicable 

1-hour ozone attainment date of 

November 15, 2005. 

(g) Based on 2009–2011 complete, 

quality-assured ozone monitoring data 

at all monitoring sites in the Baltimore 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area, EPA 

determined, as of July 12, 2012, that the 

Baltimore 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14141 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0523; FRL–9683–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Illinois; Redesignation of 

the Illinois Portion of the St. Louis, 

MO–IL Area to Attainment for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request 

from the State of Illinois to redesignate 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, 

MO–IL area to attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). 

The St. Louis area includes Jersey, 

Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair 

Counties in Illinois and St. Louis City 

and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and 

St. Louis Counties in Missouri. The 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) submitted this request on 

May 26, 2010, and supplemented its 

request on September 16, 2011. EPA 

proposed to approve this submission on 

December 22, 2011, and provided a 30- 

day review and comment period. On 

January 20, 2012, EPA extended the 

public comment period for an 

additional 30 days. The comment period 

closed on February 22, 2012. EPA 

received comments submitted on behalf 

of Sierra Club. In addition to approving 

the redesignation request EPA is taking 

several other related actions. EPA is 

approving, as a revision to the Illinois 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

State’s plan for maintaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard through 2025 in 

the area. EPA is approving the 2002 

emissions inventory, submitted by IEPA 

on June 21, 2006, and supplemented on 

September 16, 2011, as meeting the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis 

area. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is 

approving the State’s 2008 and 2025 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Illinois portion of the 

St. Louis area. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0523. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this rule? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 

III. What actions is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this rule? 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23857). In that rulemaking, the St. Louis 

area was designated as nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

classified as a moderate nonattainment 

area under subpart 2 of the CAA. 

On May 26, 2010, IEPA requested 

redesignation of the Illinois portion of 

the St. Louis area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard based on 

ozone data for the period of 2007–2009. 

On September 16, 2011, IEPA 

supplemented the original ozone 

redesignation request, revising the 

mobile source emission estimates using 

EPA’s on-road mobile source emissions 

model, MOVES, and extending the 

demonstration of maintenance of the 

ozone standard through 2025, with new 

MVEBs, but without relying on emission 

reductions resulting from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Certified ozone data for 2011 demonstrates that 

the area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in 2011. EPA recognizes that the ozone 

data for 2007–2009 as well as 2010 and 2011 data 

are impacted by the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) which was promulgated in 2005, but 

remanded to EPA in 2008. The fact that the data 

reflect some reductions associated with the 

remanded and therefore not permanent CAIR, 

however, is not an impediment to redesignation in 

the circumstances presented here where IEPA’s 

demonstration and EPA’s own modeling 

demonstrates that the area does not need reductions 

associated with the CAIR to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

implementation of EPA’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) or Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

On June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33647), EPA 

issued a final rulemaking determining 

that the entire St. Louis, MO–IL area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured ozone data for the 

period of 2008–2010.1

On December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79579), 

EPA issued a rulemaking action 

proposing to approve Illinois’ request to 

redesignate the Illinois portion of the St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, as well as 

proposing to approve Illinois’ 

maintenance plan for the area, Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) MVEBs, and VOC and 

NOX emissions inventories. This 

proposed rulemaking sets forth the basis 

for determining that Illinois’ 

redesignation request meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Air quality monitoring data in 

the St. Louis area for 2007–2009, 2008– 

2010, and 2009–2011 show that this 

area is currently attaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

The primary background for today’s 

action is contained in EPA’s December 

22, 2011, proposal to approve Illinois’ 

redesignation request, and in EPA’s June 

9, 2011, final rulemaking determining 

that the area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, based on complete, 

quality-assured monitoring data for 

2008–2010, and continuing through 

2011. In these rulemakings, we noted 

that under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

attained when the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations is 

less than or equal to 0.08 ppm at all 

ozone monitoring sites in the area. See 

69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further 

information. To support the 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

of the NAAQS, the ozone data must be 

complete for the three attainment years. 

The data completeness requirement is 

met when the 3-year average of days 

with valid ambient monitoring data is 

greater than 90 percent, and no single 

year has less than 75 percent data 

completeness, as determined in 

accordance with appendix I of 40 CFR 

part 50. Under the CAA, EPA may 

redesignate a nonattainment area to 

attainment if sufficient, complete, 

quality-assured data are available 

demonstrating that the area has attained 

the standard and if the state meets the 

other CAA redesignation requirements 

specified in section 107(d)(E) and 

section 175A. 

The December 22, 2011, proposed 

redesignation rulemaking provides a 

detailed discussion of how Illinois’ 

ozone redesignation request meets the 

CAA requirements for redesignation of 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. 

With the final approval of its VOC and 

NOX emissions inventories, Illinois has 

met all applicable CAA requirements for 

redesignation to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Air quality 

monitoring in the St. Louis area for 

2009–2011 shows that this area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Illinois has 

demonstrated that attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 

maintained through 2025 with or 

without the implementation of CAIR or 

CSAPR. In addition, modeling 

conducted by EPA during the CSAPR 

rulemaking demonstrates that in both 

2012 and 2014, even without taking into 

account reductions associated solely 

with CAIR or CSAPR, the counties in 

the St. Louis MO–IL nonattainment area 

will have air quality that attains the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. Finally, Illinois 

has adopted 2008 and 2025 MVEBs that 

are supported by Illinois’ ozone 

maintenance demonstration and 

adopted ozone maintenance plan. 

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed rule? 

EPA initially provided a 30-day 

comment period for the December 22, 

2011, proposed rule. On January 20, 

2012, EPA extended the comment 

period for an additional 30 days. During 

the comment period, we received 

comments from one individual 

representing the Sierra Club. These 

comments are summarized and 

addressed below. 

Comment 1: The commenter contends 

that it is inappropriate to redesignate 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard when EPA 

intends to designate the St. Louis area 

as nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard, yet the EPA is illegally 

delaying the implementation of the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard. 

Response 1: On May 21, 2012 EPA 

published its designations for the 2008 

standard. 77 FR 30088, 30116. EPA 

designated the St. Louis-St. CharlesFarmington, MO–IL area as 

nonattainment, with a classification of 

marginal. The area’s status with respect 

to the 2008 standard, however, does not 

affect or prevent redesignation of the 

area to attainment for the 1997 standard. 

The 1997 standard currently remains in 

effect, and thus EPA continues to 

evaluate the area’s designation status 

with respect to that standard. Until the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is revoked, 

it remains in effect and independent of 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, and 

EPA continues to evaluate and act upon 

states’ requests for redesignation with 

respect to the 1997 standard. 

EPA has in the past continued to 

redesignate areas under existing 

standards even after the adoption of 

new standards for the same pollutant. 

After adopting the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, EPA continued to redesignate 

areas for the 1-hour ozone standard 

until that standard was revoked. See, for 

example, Cincinnati, Ohio 

redesignation, 70 FR 35946 (June 21, 

2005). Subsequent to the adoption of the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard, EPA has 

continued to redesignate for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard those areas 

attaining that ozone standard and 

otherwise meeting redesignation 

requirements. See, for example, Detroit, 

Michigan redesignation, 74 FR 30950 

(June 29, 2009); Clearfield and Indiana 

Counties, Pennsylvania redesignation, 

74 FR 11674 (March 19, 2009); 

Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 

redesignation 73 FR 29436 (May 21, 

2008), and Door and Manitowoc 

Counties, Wisconsin redesignation, 75 

FR 39635 (July 12, 2010). 

Comment 2: The commenter states 

that the Jerseyville, Nilwood, Maryville, 

Wood River, and East St. Louis ozone 

monitors all show upward trends in the 

annual fourth highest daily maximum 8- 

hour ozone concentrations over the 

2009–2011 three year period. 

Response 2: The CAA sets forth the 

criteria for redesignating a 

nonattainment area to attainment. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) provides for 

approval of a redesignation request if, 

among other things, the Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS. A determination 

that an area has attained the standard is 

based on a review of monitored air 

quality data that meet regulatory 

quality-assurance requirements for the 

specific purpose of comparison to the 

NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50.10 and 

appendix I and 40 CFR part 58. A 

determination of attainment for ozone is 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34821 

2The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

modeling was conducted prior to EPA’s 

promulgation of CSAPR. The subsequent modeling 

conducted by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking 

provides a more detailed analysis of the impact 

upwind state emissions would, in the absence of 

CAIR, have on downwind areas projected to have 

difficulty attaining or maintaining the standard. 

based on a 3-year average of data, and 

does not consider monitoring data 

trends or statistical analyses as criteria 

for determining attainment in evaluating 

a redesignation request. As discussed in 

detail in the proposed rule, the St. Louis 

area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 76 FR 

79582–79583 (December 22, 2011). 

Furthermore, EPA considers data 

collected over a 3-year period for 

determining attainment, but not for 

statistically determining a ‘‘trend.’’ It is 

expected that there will be year-to-year 

variations in ozone concentrations due 

to meteorological influences. A review 

of annual fourth highest daily maximum 

8-hour ozone concentrations and design 

values over a longer time period, from 

2001 (designations under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard was based on air 

quality monitoring data from 2001– 

2003) through 2011, shows an overall 

downward trend at each of the 

monitors. Moreover, in its maintenance 

demonstration the State has shown that 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard can be 

maintained in the area through 2025. 

Comment 3 General: The commenter 

contends that, to demonstrate that the 

observed improvement in ozone air 

quality is due to the implementation of 

permanent air quality controls, EPA has 

relied on several emission control 

programs that are not permanent and 

enforceable. The commenter sets out 

several specific points to support this 

contention, which are discussed below 

in 3a–3d. 

Response 3 General: It is not 

necessary for every change in emissions 

between the nonattainment year and the 

attainment year to be permanent and 

enforceable. Rather, the improvement in 

air quality necessary for the area to 

attain the relevant NAAQS must be 

reasonably attributable to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in 

emissions. As discussed in the proposed 

rule at 76 FR 79586–79588 (December 

22, 2011), Illinois and upwind areas 

have implemented a number of 

permanent and enforceable regulatory 

control measures which have reduced 

emissions and resulted in a 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality. 

Comment 3a: The commenter 

contends that EPA cannot rely on the 

implementation of CSAPR, which has 

been stayed by court order. The 

commenter objects to EPA claims that 

IEPA has met its obligation under 

section 110(a)(2)(D), in part, via 

emission control programs established 

through CSAPR, and also objects to 

inclusion of CSAPR as a potential 

contingency measure in Illinois’ ozone 

maintenance plan. In addition, EPA 

credits Illinois with NOX emission 

reduction in upwind areas that are 

projected to result from the 

implementation of CSAPR. Since 

CSAPR was stayed by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit on December 30, 2011, 

CSAPR is not enforceable. In addition, 

CSAPR cannot be assumed to be 

permanent because EPA cannot 

conclude that CSAPR will survive the 

litigation challenge to be subsequently 

decided by the court. Further, any 

attempt by EPA to claim it will replace 

CSAPR is of no moment because courts 

have repeatedly told EPA that it cannot 

use the promise of future action to meet 

current emission control requirements. 

See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 

296, 298 (DC Cir. 2004). 

Response 3a: Illinois has not relied on 

CSAPR to demonstrate that attainment 

was due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions or to demonstrate 

that it will maintain the standard. While 

we did note in the proposal that 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

implementation of CSAPR would aid in 

maintenance of the standard, that 

statement did not provide the basis for 

our action. Further, contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, EPA did not 

credit Illinois with NOX emissions 

reductions from the implementation of 

CSAPR, nor did the State take credit for 

any such emissions reductions when 

demonstrating maintenance. 

In addition, modeling performed by 

EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking 

process also demonstrates that the 

counties in the St. Louis MO–IL ozone 

nonattainment area will have ozone 

levels below the 1997 8-hour standard 

in both 2012 and 2014 without emission 

reductions from CSAPR or CAIR, with 

the highest average value for any 

monitor in the area projected to be 79.6 

ppb. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final 

Rule Technical Support Document,’’ 

App. B, B–10, B–11, and B–18, which 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf. 

Ozone modeling performed by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium also 

concludes that the St. Louis area will be 

able to maintain the ozone standard 

throughout the maintenance period 

without considering emission 

reductions from implementation of the 

CAIR or CSAPR.2

Although Illinois did list the ‘‘Clean 

Air Transport Rule, after promulgation 

by USEPA’’ as a possible contingency 

measure in the maintenance plan, this 

measure is only one of many that may 

be selected should the contingency plan 

be triggered. EPA has concluded, in its 

consideration of the maintenance plan 

contingency measures, that there are 

other contingency measures sufficient to 

satisfy the requirements of 175A, 

without consideration of CSAPR. 

The commenter also claims that EPA 

relies, in part, on emission control 

programs established through CSAPR to 

determine that IEPA has met its 

obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D). 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires 

that SIPs contain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. While EPA noted in the 

proposed rule that programs such as the 

NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR were 

established to address transport of air 

pollutants, we also clearly stated that 

the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for 

a state are not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification. Further, EPA concludes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. 

Therefore, because the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements apply to a 

state regardless of the designation of any 

one particular area in the state, EPA 

further concludes that these 

requirements should not be construed to 

be applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation. EPA is not taking any 

action, in this rulemaking, to determine 

whether the State of Illinois has 

satisfied the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

Comment 3b: The commenter asserts 

that EPA erred in concluding that 

emission reductions resulting from 

regulations developed in response to the 

NOX SIP Call are permanent and 

enforceable. The commenter asserts that 

the NOX SIP Call cannot satisfy a 

requirement that requires reductions to 

be permanent and enforceable because 

this program has been replaced and 

therefore effectively no longer exists. 

The commenter also asserts that because 

the NOX SIP Call is a cap-and-trade 

program no actual reductions are 

required from the emission sources in 

the St. Louis nonattainment area. The 

commenter argues that to the extent any 

reductions were once required, they 

could have happened only in areas 

downwind that have little to no impact 

on the St. Louis area nonattainment. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP Call 

transition to CAIR can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/faq10.html. EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP Call 

transition for CSAPR can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/faqs.html. 

Finally the commenter asserts that the 

DC Circuit Court of Appeals recently 

held that EPA cannot use cap-and-trade 

programs to satisfy an area-specific 

statutory mandate. See NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245, 1257 (DC Cir. 2009). 

Response 3b: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s position that emission 

reductions associated with the NOX SIP 

Call cannot be considered to be 

permanent and enforceable. The 

commenter’s first argument—that the 

reductions are not permanent and 

enforceable because the NOX SIP Call 

has been replaced—is based on a 

misunderstanding of the relationship 

between CAIR and the NOX SIP Call. 

While the CAIR ozone-season trading 

program replaced the ozone-season NOX

trading program developed in the NOX

SIP Call (70 FR 25290), nothing in CAIR 

relieved states of their NOX SIP Call 

obligations. In fact, in the preamble to 

CAIR, EPA emphasized that the states 

and certain units covered by the NOX

SIP Call but not CAIR must still satisfy 

the requirements of the NOX SIP Call. 

EPA provided guidance regarding how 

such states could meet these 

obligations.3 In no way did EPA suggest 

states could disregard their NOX SIP 

Call obligations. (70 FR 25290). For NOX

SIP Call states, the CAIR NOX ozone 

season program provides a way to 

continue to meet the NOX SIP Call 

obligations for electric generating units 

(EGUs) and large non-electric generating 

units (nonEGUs). In addition, the antibacksliding provisions of 40 CFR 

51.905(f) specifically provide that the 

provisions of the NOX SIP Call, 

including the statewide NOX emission 

budgets, continue to apply. In sum, the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call 

remain in force. They are permanent 

and enforceable as are state regulations 

developed to implement the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s second argument—that the 

reductions associated with the NOX SIP 

Call cannot be considered permanent 

and enforceable because the NOX SIP 

Call is a trading program. There is no 

support for the commenter’s argument 

that EPA must ignore all reductions 

achieved by the NOX SIP Call simply 

because the mechanism used to achieve 

the reductions is an emissions trading 

program. As a general matter, trading 

programs establish mandatory caps on 

emissions and permanently reduce the 

total emissions allowed by sources 

subject to the programs. The emission 

caps and associated controls are 

enforced through the associated SIP 

rules or Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and 

increase in emissions by a utility 

necessitates a corresponding sale of 

allowances and reduction in emissions 

by another utility. Given the regional 

nature of ozone, the emission reductions 

will have an air quality benefit that will 

compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase. 

In addition, the case cited by the 

commenter, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245 (DC Cir. 2009), does not support 

the commenter’s position. That case 

addressed EPA’s determination that the 

nonattainment Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

requirement was satisfied by the NOX

SIP Call trading program. The court held 

that because EPA had not demonstrated 

that the trading program would result in 

sufficient reductions within a 

nonattainment area, its determination 

that the program satisfied RACT (a 

nonattainment area requirement) was 

not supported. Id. 1256–58. The court 

explicitly noted that EPA might be able 

to reinstate the provision providing that 

compliance with the NOX SIP Call 

satisfies NOX RACT for EGUs for 

particular nonattainment areas if, upon 

conducting a technical analysis, it could 

demonstrate that the NOX SIP Call 

results in greater emissions reductions 

in a nonattainment area than would be 

achieved if RACT-level controls were 

installed in that area. Id. at 1258. In this 

case, EPA’s comparison of emissions in 

2002 and 2008 in this rulemaking 

necessarily looked only at changes in 

emissions ‘‘in the nonattainment area.’’ 

As such, the commenter’s reliance on 

NRDC v. EPA is misplaced. 

Comment 3c: The commenter 

contends that the Illinois State rules are 

not permanent and enforceable. The 

commenter asserts that Illinois’ 

consumer products and Architectural 

and Industrial Maintenance Coatings 

(AIM) rules are not permanent and 

enforceable components of the Illinois 

SIP. The commenter contends that these 

rules have only been adopted by the 

State, and that EPA has not yet 

approved them into the Illinois SIP. The 

commenter claims that, until they are 

approved by EPA and incorporated into 

the SIP, they cannot be relied upon for 

the purposes of redesignation to 

attainment of the standard. The 

commenter claims that for EPA to rely 

on these rules for the redesignation, it 

must approve them into the SIP in 

conjunction with the redesignation. 

Response 3c: It is not necessary for 

every change in emissions between the 

nonattainment year and the attainment 

year to be permanent and enforceable. 

Rather, the improvement in air quality 

necessary for the area to attain must be 

reasonably attributable to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in 

emissions. As discussed in the proposed 

rule at 76 FR 79586–79588 (December 

22, 2011), Illinois and upwind areas 

have implemented a number of 

permanent and enforceable regulatory 

control measures which have reduced 

emissions and resulted in a 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality sufficient to demonstrate 

attainment and maintenance. Even if 

EPA does not finalize action on the 

Illinois consumer products and AIM 

rules before completing action on the 

redesignation, these emissions 

reductions are not necessary to 

demonstrate that the improvement in air 

quality is reasonably attributable to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions. It should be noted, 

however, that EPA proposed to approve 

the Illinois consumer products and AIM 

rules on October 27, 2011, at 76 FR 

66663. EPA received no comments on 

the proposal and we are currently in the 

process of finalizing action on the rules. 

Comment 3d: The commenter asserts 

that the use of 2008 air quality data is 

inappropriate to demonstrate that the 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is due to the implementation 

of permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. EPA documented the 

changes in emissions between 2002 and 

2008 to demonstrate that the observed 

ozone air quality improvement is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reduction during this period. The 

commenter claims that this is 

unacceptable for a number of reasons. 

First, the commenter asserts that EPA 

has done nothing to connect the 

emissions and air quality impacts, and 

EPA has not conducted analyses to 

prove that emission reductions between 

2002 and 2008 have led to reduced 

ozone concentrations and attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Second, the commenter argues that 

using a single attainment year, 2008, is 

arbitrary because the impact of cap-andtrade emission control programs, such 

as the NOX SIP Call and CSAPR, can 

cause emissions to vary over time as 

sources buy, sell, and trade emission 

allowances. 

Third, the commenter claims that the 

choice of 2008 is further problematic 

because 2008 was the beginning of a 

large economic recession. The 

commenter contends that this resulted 

in decreased electricity demand, 

decreased automobile, truck and 

shipping traffic, and decreased factory 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34823 

4See September 4, 1992 memorandom from John 

Calcagni entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ pp. 

4 and 8–9. 

5The nonattainment designation of the St. Louis 

area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was based 

on 2001–2003 ozone data. 

production. The commenter objects to 

EPA’s conclusion that monitored 

changes in ozone levels between 2002 

and 2008 were due to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emission controls rather 

than to changes in meteorology, 

economic conditions, or temporary or 

voluntary (not enforceable) emissions 

reductions. The commenter contends 

that EPA has not provided an analysis 

showing that the recession was not the 

cause of the 2002–2008 emission 

reduction and observed air quality 

improvement. 

Finally, the commenter claims that 

EPA has not shown that the 2008 

emissions inventory reflects permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions 

occurring between 2002 and 2008, and 

states that the 2008 emissions inventory 

appears to be the ‘‘actual’’ or the 

‘‘projected’’ emissions from an 

unidentified group of sources. The 

commenter argues that there is a 

significant difference between what 

sources actually emit and what sources 

are allowed to emit, and that the IEPA 

and EPA have incorrectly assumed 

allowable emissions are equal to actual 

emissions. 

Response 3d: EPA’s conclusion here 

is fully supported by the facts and 

applicable legal criteria. EPA’s 

longstanding practice and policy 4

provides for states to demonstrate 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions by comparing nonattainment 

area emissions occurring during the 

nonattainment period (represented by 

emissions during one of the years 

during the 3-year nonattainment period 

on which the area’s nonattainment 

designated was based,5 in this case 

2002) with emissions in the area during 

the attainment period (represented by 

emissions during one of the 3 

attainment years, in this case 2008, 

which is included in the 3-year period, 

2007–2009, that the State used to show 

attainment with 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard). A determination that an area 

has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is based on an objective review 

of air quality data in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.10 and part 50, appendix I, 

based on 3 complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. In the State’s 

redesignation request, Illinois 

considered data for the 2007–2009 time 

period to demonstrate attainment. In 

EPA’s determination of attainment and 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

request, EPA considered data for the 

2008–2010 time period, which was the 

most recent quality-assured, certified 

data available. See 76 FR 33647 (June 9, 

2011), 76 FR 79582–79583 (December 

22, 2011). In this final rulemaking, EPA 

is also considering continued 

attainment based on complete, qualityassured certified data for 2009–2011. 

Therefore, selecting 2008 as a 

representative attainment year, and 

comparing emissions for this year to 

those for a representative year during 

the nonattainment period, 2002, is an 

appropriate and long-established 

approach that demonstrates the 

occurrence of emission reductions in 

the area between the years of 

nonattainment and attainment. These 

reductions therefore, can be seen to 

account for the observed air quality 

improvement. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

assertion that EPA has conducted no 

analyses to prove that emission 

reductions between 2002 and 2008 led 

to reduced ozone concentrations, as 

noted above, comparing emissions for a 

representative nonattainment year to 

emissions for a representative 

attainment year is consistent with 

longstanding practice and EPA policy 

for making such a demonstration. The 

CAA does not specifically require the 

use of modeling in making any such 

demonstration and it has not been the 

general practice to do so. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

contention that using a single 

attainment year is arbitrary due to yearto-year variations in emissions levels 

resulting from cap-and-trade programs. 

As a general matter, trading programs 

establish mandatory caps on emissions 

and permanently reduce the total 

emissions allowed by sources subject to 

the programs. The emission caps and 

associated controls are enforced through 

the associated SIP rules or FIPs. Any 

purchase of allowances and increase in 

emissions by a utility necessitates a 

corresponding sale of allowances and 

reduction in emissions by another 

utility. Given the regional nature of 

ozone, the emission reduction will have 

an air quality benefit that will 

compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase. 

With respect to NOX SIP Call 

reductions within the St. Louis area, 

there is no evidence of significant 

temporal variation in emissions levels. 

In fact, actual emissions from NOX SIP 

Call sources in the St. Louis area have 

not varied much from year-to-year over 

the 2003–2011 time period. The largest 

emitters in the St. Louis area that are 

covered by the NOX SIP Call are 

operating near full capacity. Even if all 

of the large EGUs and large nonEGUs 

begin emitting at full capacity, 

emissions would not increase 

significantly. Further, these sources do 

not have the type of emissions controls 

that can simply be ‘‘shut off.’’ 

While the commenter expressed 

concerns that an economic downturn 

was responsible for the improvement in 

air quality, the commenter has made no 

demonstration that the reduction in 

emissions and observed improvement in 

air quality is due to an economic 

recession, changes in meteorology, or 

temporary or voluntary emissions 

reductions. Also, as noted previously, 

the CAA does not require modeling to 

make any such demonstration. 

Finally, longstanding practice and 

EPA policy support the use of actual 

emissions when demonstrating 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions. Actual emissions are more 

reflective of emissions that in reality 

contribute to monitored ozone 

concentrations. Sources seldom, if ever, 

emit at maximum allowable levels and 

assuming that all sources operate at 

maximum capacity at the same time 

would grossly overestimate emissions 

levels. For this reason EPA believes 

actual emissions are the appropriate 

emissions to consider when comparing 

nonattainment year emissions with 

attainment year emissions. 

Comment 4: The commenter claims 

that EPA has not conducted an adequate 

analysis of the effect that redesignation 

to attainment will have on attainment 

and maintenance of other NAAQS 

under section 110(l) of the CAA. The 

commenter asserts that EPA has failed 

to conduct an adequate analysis of the 

ozone redesignation impacts with 

respect to the 1997 annual fine 

particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS, the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour NOX

(NO2) NAAQS, the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

Response 4: Section 110(l) provides in 

part: ‘‘The Administrator shall not 

approve a revision of a plan if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress * * *, or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ As a 

general matter, EPA must and does 

consider section 110(l) requirements for 

every SIP revision, including whether 

the revision would ‘‘interfere with’’ any 

applicable requirement. See, e.g., 70 FR 

53, 57 (January 3, 2005); 70 FR 17029, 

17033 (April 4, 2005); 70 FR 28429, 

28431 (May 18, 2005); and 70 FR 58119, 

58134 (October 5, 2005). The Illinois 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6EPA notes that the St. Louis area does not have 

violating monitors for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, or the 1-hour 

NOX NAAQS, and that this area has not been 

designated nonattainment for 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, the 1-hour NOX NAAQS, or the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

neither revises nor removes any existing 

emissions limit for any NAAQS, nor 

does it alter any existing control 

requirements. On that basis, EPA 

concludes that the redesignation will 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of these air quality 

standards. The commenter does not 

provide any information in its comment 

to indicate that approval of this 

redesignation would have any impact 

on the area’s ability to comply with the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour NO2

NAAQS, the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, or the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In fact, the 

maintenance plan provided with the 

State’s submission demonstrates a 

decline in ozone precursor emissions 

over the timeframe of the initial 

maintenance period. As a result, the 

redesignation does not relax any 

existing rules or limits, nor will the 

redesignation alter the status quo air 

quality.6 The commenter has not 

explained why the redesignation might 

interfere with attainment of any 

standard or with satisfaction of any 

other requirement, and EPA finds no 

basis under section 110(l) for EPA to 

disapprove the SIP revision at issue or 

to disapprove the requested 

redesignation. 

Comment 5a: The commenter asserts 

that the 2002 emissions inventory that 

EPA is proposing to approve as meeting 

the emission inventory requirement of 

section 182(a)(1) of the CAA is 

inadequate and EPA cannot approve 

this emissions inventory. The 

commenter notes that the emissions 

inventory is 10 years old. In addition, 

the commenter states that portions of 

the emissions inventory were estimated, 

as opposed to being actual emissions, 

and claims that EPA has not included a 

‘‘comprehensive’’ emissions inventory 

in the docket, EPA has only included a 

summary of the emissions inventory. 

The commenter asserts that EPA must 

place a comprehensive emissions 

inventory, which includes information 

for each point source, in the docket to 

allow the public to review the inventory 

and comment on it. 

Response 5a: Illinois developed a 

2002 comprehensive inventory to meet 

the requirement of section 182(a)(1) of 

the CAA in accordance with EPA’s 

November 18, 2002, policy 

memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman 

entitled ‘‘2002 Base Year Emission 

Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, 

PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,’’ 

and EPA’s policy Phase 2 ozone 

implementation rule published on 

November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612, 

71664). EPA notes that Illinois 

submitted the 2002 inventory on June 

21, 2006, and at that time, 2002 was the 

most current emissions inventory 

available for the nonattainment area. 

The commenter observes that portions 

of the emissions inventory were 

estimated. This is entirely consistent 

with accepted EPA procedures for 

emissions inventory development 

procedures. It is common practice, and 

consistent with EPA emissions 

inventory guidance, for states to 

estimate emissions for any given year 

using related activity factors or to 

project emissions based on information 

from prior years and associated activity 

growth factors. See ‘‘Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations,’’ dated August 2005. For 

mobile sources, it is standard and 

accepted practice for states to estimate 

emissions using an EPA- approved 

emissions model coupled with the 

output of a transportation model, which 

provides traffic levels by roadway and 

activity type. The commenter provided 

no information or specific details that 

show that the 2002 inventory was 

inaccurate. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

concern regarding the availability of the 

emissions inventory submittal in the 

docket, we acknowledge that the 

inventory was unintentionally omitted 

from the electronic docket at 

www.regulations.gov. However, the 

document was available to the public in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 5 office, 

and had the commenter contacted the 

Region, the inventory could have been 

provided. The inventory has since been 

added to the electronic docket. 

While we believe the 2002 inventory 

submitted by the State meets the 

inventory requirements of both section 

182(a)(1) and section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA notes that the State also 

submitted a comprehensive 2008 

emissions inventory to serve as the 

attainment year inventory as part of the 

maintenance plan. EPA’s longstanding 

view, as set forth in the September 4, 

1992 memorandom from John Calcagni 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment’’ (Calcagni memorandum) is 

that the ‘‘requirements for an emission 

inventory [under section 172(c) or 

182(a)(1)] will be satisfied by the 

inventory requirements of the 

maintenance plan.’’ See Calcagni 

memorandum at 6. 

When preparing the comprehensive 

2008 emissions inventory, Illinois 

compiled point source information from 

the 2008 annual emissions reports 

submitted to IEPA by sources and EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets Division database for 

electric utilities. Area source emissions 

were calculated using the most recently 

available methodologies and emissions 

factors from EPA along with activity 

data (population, employment, fuel use, 

etc.) specific to 2008. Non-road mobile 

source emissions were calculated using 

EPA’s NONROAD emissions model. In 

addition, emissions estimates were 

calculated for commercial marine 

vessels, aircraft, and railroads, three 

non-road categories not included in the 

NONROAD model. On-road mobile 

source emissions were calculated using 

EPA’s MOVES emissions model with 

2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data 

provided by Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT). 

Therefore, in actuality, the State has 

more than satisfied the CAA inventory 

requirements by its submittal of two 

inventories that meet the applicable 

emissions inventory requirement. 

Comment 5b: The commenter asserts 

that emissions calculations for on-road 

mobile sources fail to consider the use 

of gasoline containing up to 15 volume 

percent ethanol (E15). 

Response 5b: In 2010 and 2011, EPA 

granted partial waivers for use of E15 in 

model year (MY) 2001 and newer lightduty motor vehicles (75 FR 68094 and 

76 FR 4662). As discussed in the waiver 

decisions, there may be some small 

emission impacts from the use of E15. 

E15 is expected to cause a small 

immediate emissions increase in NOX

emissions. However, due to its lower 

volatility than the E10 currently in-use, 

its use is also expected to result in lower 

evaporative emissions. Other possible 

emissions impacts may be from the 

misfueling of E15 in vehicles or engines 

for which its use is not approved, i.e., 

MY2000 and older motor vehicles, 

heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

motorcycles and all nonroad engines, 

vehicles, and equipment. EPA has 

promulgated a separate rule dealing 

specifically with the mitigation of 

misfueling to reduce the potential 

emissions impacts from misfueling (76 

FR 44406). 

However, the E15 partial waivers do 

not require that E15 be made or sold and 

it is unclear if and to what extent E15 

may even be used in Illinois. Even if 

E15 is introduced into commerce in 

Illinois, considering the likely small and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34825 

offsetting direction of the emission 

impacts, the limited set of motor 

vehicles approved for its use, and the 

measures required to mitigate 

misfueling, EPA believes that any 

potential emission impacts of E15 will 

be less than the maintenance plan safety 

margin by which Illinois shows 

maintenance. 

Comment 6: The commenter contends 

that EPA cannot approve the ozone 

redesignation because Illinois’ VOC 

RACT rules have not been approved in 

conjunction with the approval of the 

ozone redesignation. The commenter 

pointed to EPA’s statement in the 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

that it would take action on Illinois’ 

VOC RACT rules in a separate 

rulemaking. The commenter states that 

approval ‘‘in a separate rule’’ is not 

approval ‘‘in conjunction’’ with 

rulemaking on a redesignation, and that 

this would be a departure from EPA’s 

previous practice of approving needed 

SIP revisions in the same final rule as 

a redesignation. The commenter also 

points to the Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals decision in Wall v. EPA, in 

which the Court stated that ‘‘the EPA 

abused its discretion when it 

determined that it could redesignate the 

Cincinnati metropolitan area as 

achieving attainment before Ohio had 

fully adopted all RACT rules of Part D, 

Subpart 2 of the CAA.’’ Wall v. EPA, 265 

F.3d 426,442 (6th Cir. 2001). The 

commenter claims that RACT measures 

must be contained in SIPs submitted 

with respect to redesignation requests. 

Response 6: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s position that VOC RACT 

rules must be approved in the same 

final rule as the redesignation. The 

commenter’s contention is without basis 

in either the law or common sense. EPA 

acknowledged in its proposed 

redesignation at 76 FR 79585, that 

approval of IEPA’s VOC RACT submittal 

is a prerequisite for approval of the 

redesignation of the Illinois portion of 

the St. Louis area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. This 

simply requires that EPA approve the 

VOC RACT rules on or before finalizing 

approval of the redesignation. EPA 

approved the Illinois VOC RACT 

submittal on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 

16940). Therefore, this prerequisite to 

redesignation has been met. 

Comment 7: The commenter contends 

that EPA cannot approve the State’s 

ozone redesignation request because the 

State and EPA have not satisfied all part 

D requirements. The specific points of 

contention raised by the commenter are 

discussed separately below. 

Comment 7a: The commenter 

disagrees with EPA’s conclusion that an 

area can be redesignated to attainment 

of a NAAQS regardless of the status of 

the State’s SIP relative to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA. The commenter argues that EPA’s 

position does not make sense given that 

the State’s infrastructure SIP will apply 

to the ‘‘former’’ nonattainment area once 

it is redesignated to attainment. To the 

commenter, it is clear that Congress 

wanted to ensure that there is a valid 

infrastructure SIP in place to protect 

areas that are being redesignated to 

attainment. 

Response 7a: EPA stands by its 

position that section 110 elements that 

are not connected with nonattainment 

plan submissions and not linked with 

an area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 

FR 50399, October 19, 2001), and in the 

St. Louis 1-hour ozone redesignation 68 

FR 25418, 25426–27 (May 12, 2003). 

Both the 6th and 7th Circuits have 

agreed that the CAA provides EPA with 

leeway to determine what is an 

‘‘applicable requirement’’ for purposes 

of redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 

375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See Wall 

v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 

upholding EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ with respect 

to conformity. 

In any event, on July 13, 2011, EPA 

approved elements of the Illinois 

submittal to meet the infrastructure 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. See 76 FR 41075. 

Specifically, EPA approved the 

following infrastructure elements: 

emission limits and other control 

measures, ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system, 

enforcement of SIP measures, interstate 

and international pollution abatement, 

adequate resources, stationary source 

monitoring system, emergency power, 

future SIP revisions, consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, air quality modeling and 

data, permitting fees, and consultation 

and participation by affected local 

entities. Also note that Federally 

promulgated Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) rules are in place in 

Illinois. For all these reasons, EPA 

concludes that the SIP elements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

have been approved by EPA. 

Comment 7b: The commenter 

contends that EPA cannot redesignate 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard because 

section 172(c) of the CAA requires SIPs 

to include a Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) plan, an ozone 

attainment demonstration, contingency 

measures, nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR) rules, and Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM)/ 

RACT rules and EPA has not approved 

these items into the SIP for the Illinois 

portion of the St. Louis ozone 

nonattainment area. The commenter 

disagrees with EPA’s conclusions that 

these CAA requirements are no longer 

applicable to an area after it has 

achieved attainment of the NAAQS. In 

addition, the commenter disagrees with 

EPA’s conclusion that, for an ozone 

nonattainment area, the CAA section 

172(c)(3) SIP requirement for a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

emissions inventory is superseded by 

the section 182(a)(1) emission inventory 

requirement. Therefore, the commenter 

believes that the EPA has not adequately 

addressed this SIP requirement when it 

concludes that Illinois has met all SIP 

requirements applicable to the Illinois 

portion of the St. Louis ozone 

nonattainment area for purposes of 

redesignation to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

Response 7b: Under EPA’s Clean Data 

regulation, 40 CFR 51.918 (1997 8-hour 

ozone), an EPA rulemaking 

determination that an area is attaining 

the relevant standard suspends the 

area’s obligations to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment for as long as the area 

continues to attain. See 70 FR 71702 

(November 29, 2005). This regulation, 

which embodies EPA’s interpretation 

under its ‘‘Clean Data Policy,’’ has been 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7See also Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th 

Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004); and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. 

EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) 

(memorandum opinion). 

upheld by the DC Circuit. NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009).7

Because EPA determined that the St. 

Louis area has attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard (see 76 FR 33647, June 

9, 2011) and because the area continues 

to meet that standard, the State is not 

currently obligated to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment. 

In addition, in the context of 

redesignations, EPA has interpreted 

requirements related to attainment as 

not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. For example, in the 

General Preamble for implementation of 

Title 1 of the CAA 1990 amendments 

EPA stated that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General Preamble 

for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). 

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 

(‘‘The requirements for reasonable 

further progress and other measures 

needed for attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’). 

With respect to the RACT 

requirement, EPA approved the Illinois 

VOC RACT submittal on March 23, 2012 

(77 FR 16940), and granted Illinois a 

waiver from the requirement to submit 

RACT rules under section 182(f) of the 

CAA on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9655). 

With respect to emissions inventories, 

by meeting the section 182(a)(1) 

emission inventory requirement, the 

State has also met the section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current emissions 

inventory. Further, redesignation policy 

states that emissions inventory 

requirements of section 172(c) of the 

CAA are satisfied by the inventory 

requirements of the maintenance plan. 

See the Calcagni memorandum at 6. 

With respect to the nonattainment 

NSR requirement, the issue is moot 

because EPA has approved the Illinois 

nonattainment NSR SIP. Nonetheless, 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a part D NSR program be approved 

prior to redesignation, provided that the 

area demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without a part D NSR program. 

A more detailed rationale for this view 

is described in a memorandum from 

Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 

1994, entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source 

Review Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment’’ (Nichols memorandum). 

Illinois has demonstrated that the St. 

Louis area will be able to maintain the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard without a 

part D NSR program in effect; therefore, 

the State need not have a fully approved 

part D NSR program prior to approval of 

the redesignation request. This issue is 

discussed in greater detail below in 

response to Comment 7d. Upon 

redesignation, the PSD program will 

apply. See Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 

527, 536 (6th Cir. 2004) (‘‘It would make 

little sense for [part D NSR] to be 

included in the post-attainment SIP, as 

the Clean Air Act * * * explicitly states 

that attainment area SIPs must include 

a PSD program.’’) 

Comment 7c: With further regard to 

contingency measure requirements of 

the CAA, the commenter contends that 

EPA is incorrect to conclude that 

contingency measures are inapplicable 

once an area reaches attainment of the 

NAAQS. The commenter asserts that 

contingency measures must be in place 

so that, if an area monitor shows a 

violation of the NAAQS in the future, 

that violation of the NAAQS is quickly 

addressed, minimizing the number of 

people that will be harmed by air 

quality levels above the NAAQS. 

Response 7c: As set forth in detail in 

Response 7b, the nonattainment area 

contingency measure requirements of 

section 172(c)(9) are directed at 

ensuring RFP and attainment by the 

applicable date. These nonattainment 

area requirements no longer apply after 

an area has attained the standard and 

the area has been redesignated to 

attainment. Under section 175A of the 

CAA, maintenance plans must contain 

contingency provisions, ‘‘as deemed 

necessary by the Administrator,’’ and it 

is these contingency measures that 

apply to the area after redesignation to 

attainment. Illinois included such 

provisions in its maintenance plan 

which EPA is approving in this action. 

Comment 7d: The commenter, 

although acknowledging that EPA has 

certified that it has approved Illinois’ 

nonattainment NSR rules, takes issue 

with EPA’s related conclusion that an 

area being redesignated to attainment of 

a NAAQS need not have fully approved 

part D NSR rules, since PSD 

requirements of the CAA would apply 

after redesignation to attainment. The 

commenter contends that this EPA 

conclusion was explicitly rejected by 

the Court in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 

F.3d 527, 534 (6th Cir. 2004). The 

commenter asserts that without an 

approved NSR program, there can be no 

redesignation to attainment of the 

NAAQS. The commenter believes that 

this is true, because if a redesignated 

area violates the NAAQS in the future, 

all provisions that are contained in the 

state’s nonattainment SIP, including 

NSR rules, would need to become 

applicable again. 

Response 7d: Part D NSR would not 

be retained in the SIP as a section 

175A(d) contingency measure. As 

clearly stated in the Nichols 

memorandum, ‘‘EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret ‘measure,’ as 

used in section 175A(d), not to include 

part D NSR.’’ Congress used the 

undefined term ‘‘measure’’ differently in 

different provisions of the CAA, which 

indicates that the term is susceptible to 

more than one interpretation and that 

EPA has the discretion to interpret it in 

a reasonable manner in the context of 

section 175A. See Greenbaum v. United 

States EPA, 370 F. 3d 527, 535–38 (6th 

Cir. 2004). (Court ‘‘find[s] persuasive the 

EPA’s argument that the very nature of 

the NSR permit program supports its 

interpretation that it is not intended to 

be a contingency measure pursuant to 

section 175A(d).’’) It is reasonable to 

interpret ‘‘measure’’ to exclude part D 

NSR in this context because PSD, a 

program that is the corollary of part D 

NSR for attainment areas, goes into 

effect in lieu of part D NSR upon 

redesignation. PSD requires that new 

sources demonstrate that emissions 

from their construction and operation 

will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any NAAQS or PSD 

increment. The State has demonstrated 

that the area will be able to maintain the 

standard without part D NSR in effect, 

and the State’s PSD program will 

become effective in the area upon 

redesignation to attainment. See the 

rationale set forth at length in the 

Nichols Memorandum. See also the 

discussions of why full approval and 

retention of NSR is not required in 

redesignation actions in the following 

redesignation rulemakings: 60 FR 

12459, 12467–12468 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit, MI); 61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470 (May 7, 1996) 

(Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH); 66 FR 

53665, 53669 (October 23, 2001) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34827 

8A Level I response is triggered in the event that: 

(1) The annual fourth highest daily maximum 8- 

hour ozone concentration at any monitoring site in 

the St. Louis area exceeds 84 parts per billion (ppb) 

in any year; or, (2) VOC or NOX emissions increase 

more than 5 percent above the levels contained in 

the attainment year (2008) emissions inventory for 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone 

nonattainment area. 

9A Level II response is triggered in the event that 

a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

monitored at any monitoring site in the St. Louis 

area. 

(Louisville, KY); 61 FR 31831, 31836– 

31837 (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, 

MI). Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, the Greenbaum court declined 

to reach the issue of whether full 

approval of a part D NSR program is 

required prior to redesignation. See 

Greenbaum, 370 F. 3d at 534–35. 

Comment 8: The commenter generally 

asserts that Illinois lacks a fully 

approved maintenance plan complying 

with the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. The commenter’s specific 

arguments supporting this assertion 

follow. 

Comment 8a(1): The commenter 

asserts that the contingency measures 

contained in Illinois’ maintenance plan 

do not provide for prompt correction of 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The commenter believes that 

neither the ‘‘Level I’’ nor the ‘‘Level II’’ 

response occurs on a prompt schedule 

as required by section 175A of the CAA, 

and that several of the potential 

contingency measures are inappropriate, 

inadequate, or unacceptably vague. The 

commenter notes that after the 

determination of a Level I trigger 8

event, Illinois has committed to adopt 

needed emission control measures 

within 18 months and has committed to 

implement the adopted emission control 

measures within 24 months after 

adoption. The commenter also notes 

that after the determination of a Level II 

trigger 9 event, the maintenance plan 

contains no specific emission control 

commitments, but that Illinois will work 

with Missouri to conduct a study to 

determine the causes of the ozone 

standard violation and the emission 

control measures necessary to mitigate 

the air quality problem, with 

implementation of adopted emission 

controls to occur within 18 months of 

the determination of the Level II event. 

The commenter contends that the 

implementation schedules for the Level 

I and II triggers are unacceptably long 

and not in keeping with the prompt 

response timing required by section 

175A of the CAA. 

Response 8a(1): The commenter 

overlooks the provisions of the CAA 

applicable to contingency measures. 

Section 175(A(d) provides that ‘‘[e]ach 

plan revision submitted under this 

section shall contain such contingency 

provisions as the Administrator deems 

necessary to assure that the state will 

promptly correct any violation of the 

standard which occurs after the 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area.’’ (emphasis added). 

Thus Congress gave EPA discretion to 

evaluate and determine the contingency 

measures EPA ‘‘deems necessary’’ to 

assure that the state will promptly 

correct any subsequent violation. EPA 

has long exercised this discretion in its 

rulemakings on section 175A 

contingency measures in redesignation 

maintenance plans, allowing as 

contingency measures commitments to 

adopt and implement in lieu of fully 

adopted contingency measures, and 

finding that implementation within 18 

months of a violation complies with the 

requirements of section 175A. See 

recent redesignations, e.g. Indianapolis, 

IN PM2.5 annual standard (76 FR 59512), 

Lake and Porter Counties, IN 8-hour 

ozone standard (75 FR 12090), and 

Northwest Indiana PM2.5 annual 

standard (76 FR 59600). Section 175A 

does not establish any deadlines for 

implementation of contingency 

measures after redesignation to 

attainment. It also provides far more 

latitude than does section 172(c)(9), 

which applies to a different set of 

contingency measures applicable to 

nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures must ‘‘take effect 

* * * without further action by the 

State or [EPA].’’ By contrast, section 

175A confers upon EPA the discretion 

to determine what constitutes adequate 

assurance, and thus permits EPA to take 

into account the need of a state to 

assess, adopt and implement 

contingency measures if and when a 

violation occurs after an area’s 

redesignation to attainment. Therefore, 

in accordance with the discretion 

accorded it by statute, EPA may allow 

reasonable time for states to analyze 

data and address the causes and 

appropriate means of remedying a 

violation. In assessing what ‘‘promptly’’ 

means in this context, EPA also may 

take into account time for adopting and 

implementation of the appropriate 

measure. In the case of the St. Louis 

area, EPA reasonably concluded that, 18 

months constitutes a timeline consistent 

with prompt correction of a potential 

monitored violation. This timeframe 

also conforms with EPA’s many prior 

rulemakings on acceptable schedules for 

implementing section 175A contingency 

measures as noted above. 

Comment 8a(2): The commenter 

contends that several of Illinois’ 

contingency measures, ‘‘NOX RACT’’ 

and ‘‘Broader geographic applicability 

of existing measures,’’ are too vague. 

The commenter asserts that the 

vagueness of these contingency 

measures provides no evidence that the 

maintenance plan will provide enough 

emission controls to correct ozone 

standard violations. 

Response 8a(2): As discussed above in 

response to Comment 8a (1), the CAA 

does not specify the requisite nature, 

scope, specificity, or number of 

contingency measures to be included in 

a maintenance plan under section 175A. 

It is for EPA to determine whether the 

State has given adequate assurance that 

it can promptly correct a violation. 

Illinois has submitted contingency 

measures that EPA deems adequate. 

They have committed to remedy a 

future violation, and have included 

measures to address potential violations 

from a range of sources and a timeline 

for promptly completing adoption and 

implementation. The State has 

identified measures that are sufficiently 

specific but which allow for latitude in 

potential scope. This will enable the 

State to address a range of potential 

sources and differing degrees and types 

of violations. EPA believes that the 

contingency measures set forth in the 

submittal, combined with the State’s 

commitment to an expeditious timeline 

and process for implementation, 

provide assurance that the State will 

promptly correct a future potential 

violation. Given the uncertainty as to 

timing, degree and nature of any future 

violation, EPA believes that the 

contingency measures set forth 

adequately balance the need for 

flexibility in the scope and type of 

measure to be implemented with the 

need for expeditious state action. 

Comment 8a(3): The commenter 

contends that several of the potential 

contingency emission control measures 

are inappropriate or inadequate. The 

commenter states that several of the 

contingency emission control measures, 

including the Tier 2 vehicle emission 

standards, low sulfur fuel standards, 

heavy duty diesel standards, and low 

sulfur diesel standards are Federal 

emission control measures that EPA is 

already implementing. The commenter 

contends that EPA cannot both credit 

these emission control measures with 

existing emission reductions and allow 

IEPA to include them as potential 

contingency measures in the ozone 

maintenance plan. The commenter 

states that this approach would amount 

to double counting the effects of these 

emission control measures. 

Response 8a(3): As discussed above in 

response to Comment 8a(2), the CAA 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

does not specify the requisite nature, 

scope, specificity, or number of 

contingency measures to be included in 

a maintenance plan under section 175A. 

EPA has considered that the 

maintenance plan includes adequate 

state contingency measures, and that 

these are sufficient for the purpose of 

maintenance. EPA considers that the 

state measures themselves constitute 

adequate contingency measures, and 

that the Federal measures included also 

bolster maintenance to the extent that 

they provide reductions that were not 

counted in the maintenance plan’s 

demonstration as explained below. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s contention that EPA is 

double counting emissions reductions. 

The fact that some emissions reductions 

may have already been realized by a 

control measure does not prevent the 

control measure from resulting in 

greater reductions in future years. 

Further, as stated in the proposed rule 

(76 FR 79591), ‘‘[t]o qualify as a 

contingency measure, emissions 

reductions from that measure must not 

be factored into the emissions 

projections used in the maintenance 

plan.’’ This prevents possible double 

counting of emissions reductions during 

the maintenance period. Should the 

contingency plan be triggered, the state 

would be required to choose a 

contingency measure that meets this 

criterion. Any control measure listed in 

the contingency plan that fails to meet 

this criterion would not be considered 

to be an eligible contingency measure at 

that time and the state would be 

required to choose one that does. 

Comment 8b: The commenter asserts 

that EPA, in assessing the adequacy of 

Illinois’ ozone maintenance 

demonstration, has credited the state 

with NOX emission reductions in 

upwind areas that are the products of 

the NOX SIP call and CSAPR. These 

rules develop cap-and-trade programs 

that the commenter argues cannot 

satisfy the maintenance plan 

requirement. In addition, CSAPR has 

been stayed by the Court and may not 

be relied upon to provide NOX emission 

reductions. 

Response 8b: As discussed in 

Response 3b, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s position that emission 

reductions associated with the NOX SIP 

Call cannot be considered to be 

permanent and enforceable simply 

because they result from an emissions 

trading program. In addition, as 

discussed in Response 3a, Illinois has 

not relied on CSAPR to demonstrate 

attainment or maintenance of the 

standard. 

Comment 8c: The commenter 

contends that Illinois’ maintenance plan 

fails to consider additional emissions 

expected to occur from the Prairie State 

electrical power plant, which is 

currently under construction. This 

power plant is expected to commence 

operation during the ozone maintenance 

period. This power plant is expected to 

be a major source of NOX emissions. 

The commenter asserts that EPA cannot 

presume that, because the Prairie State 

power plant has obtained a PSD source 

permit, it will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA must review the PSD 

record and include the relevant portions 

in the administrative record for this 

ozone redesignation rulemaking. 

Response 8c: Neither the CAA nor 

EPA redesignation policy requires that 

EPA review and take into consideration 

construction permits as a criterion for 

redesignation. Consistent with EPA’s 

redesignation policy as articulated in 

the September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum, the State demonstrated 

maintenance of the standard by showing 

that future emissions in the area will not 

exceed the level of emissions in the 

attainment inventory for the area. The 

Prairie State power plant under 

construction is located in Washington 

County, which is not part of the St. 

Louis area. Thus emissions from this 

facility do not factor into the attainment 

or maintenance inventories for the area. 

EPA, in its proposed redesignation and 

elsewhere in our responses to comments 

in this final rule, has addressed and 

considered issues pertaining to the 

potential impact of emissions from 

outside the St. Louis area on the area’s 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

standard. 

Finally, under title I, part C of the 

CAA, the PSD preconstruction permit 

program requires an air quality analysis 

to demonstrate that emissions from 

construction or operation of a proposed 

major stationary source or major 

modification will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any 

applicable NAAQS or PSD increment. 

CAA section 165(a)(3); see also 40 CFR 

51.166(k) (providing that the owner or 

operator of a proposed source or 

modification ‘‘shall demonstrate that 

allowable emissions increases from the 

proposed source or modification, in 

conjunction with all other applicable 

emissions increases or reduction * * * 

would not cause or contribute to air 

pollution in violation of’’ any NAAQS 

or PSD increment). Therefore, the effect 

of the emissions from a proposed source 

on the maintenance of the NAAQS is 

addressed through the PSD permitting 

program before the facility is authorized 

to build and operate. Neither the CAA 

nor EPA policy require EPA to include 

the record from an independent PSD 

proceeding in the record for a 

redesignation action or to reopen 

permitting issues as part of a 

redesignation action. In addition, the 

commenter has not provided data 

indicating that the Prairie State plant 

will cause or contribute to a NAAQS or 

increment violation in the St. Louis 

area. 

Comment 9: The commenter asserts 

that EPA has not accounted for the 

effects of weather in its modeling. The 

commenter notes that EPA’s analysis of 

Illinois’ ozone redesignation request is 

devoid of weather-adjusted 

considerations of ambient ozone levels. 

For this reason, this commenter believes 

that EPA cannot approve Illinois’ ozone 

redesignation request. In addition, the 

commenter believes that EPA has erred 

in not considering the impacts that 

climate change will have on future 

ozone formation during the 

maintenance period. 

Response 9: A determination that an 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is based on a review of 

monitored air quality data that meets 

regulatory requirements for purposes of 

comparison to the NAAQS, and it is not 

derived from modeling. An area is 

considered to be in attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard if the 3-year 

average of the fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each 

monitor within an area over each year 

does not exceed 0.084 ppm. Three years 

of air quality data are used to allow for 

year-to-year variations in meteorology. 

As discussed in detail in the proposed 

rule, the St. Louis area is monitoring 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. See 76 FR 79582–79583 

(December 22, 2011). 

In addition, a maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 

375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 

66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 

2001), and 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 

(May 12, 2003). EPA policy and 

longstanding practice allows states to 

demonstrate maintenance by preparing 

an attainment emissions inventory 

corresponding to the period during 

which the area monitored attainment 

and to project maintenance by showing 

that future emissions are projected to 

remain below this level for the next ten 

years. See Calcagni memorandum. 

Holding emissions at or below the level 

of attainment is adequate to reasonably 

assure continued maintenance of the 

standard. See 65 FR 37879, 37888 (June 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34829 

19, 2000). Since the St. Louis action is 

not based on modeling, EPA concludes 

that weather related impacts, including 

climate change, on modeling are not 

relevant. Impacts of weather on 

monitored data are accounted for by the 

three years of data used for the 

attainment determination. 

III. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving a request from the 

State of Illinois to redesignate the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis, MO–IL 

area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. EPA is also taking 

several other related actions. EPA is 

approving, as a revision to the Illinois 

SIP, the State’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard through 

2025 in the area. EPA is approving the 

2002 emissions inventory as meeting the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the CAA for the Illinois 

portion of the St. Louis area. Finally, 

EPA finds adequate and is approving 

the State’s 2008 and 2025 MVEBs for the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

EPA finds there is good cause for these 

actions to become effective immediately 

upon publication. This is because a 

delayed effective date is unnecessary 

due to the nature of a redesignation to 

attainment, which relieves the area from 

certain CAA requirements that would 

otherwise apply to it. The immediate 

effective date for this action is 

authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3) 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 

The purpose of the 30 day waiting 

period prescribed in section 553(d) is to 

give affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s rule relieves the state of 

planning requirements for this 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. For these 

reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to 

become effective on the date of 

publication of these actions. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. These actions do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law and the CAA. For 

that reason, these actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 13, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.726 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (ll) and (mm) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(ll) Approval—On May 26, 2010, and 

September 16, 2011, Illinois submitted a 

request to redesignate the Illinois 

portion of the St. Louis, MO–IL area to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The St. Louis area includes 

Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair 

Counties in Illinois and St. Louis City 

and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and 

St. Louis Counties in Missouri. As part 

of the redesignation request, the State 

submitted a plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard through 

2025 in the area as required by section 

175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the 

section 175A maintenance plan 

includes a contingency plan. The ozone 

maintenance plan establishes 2008 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area of 

17.27 tpd for volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and 52.57 tpd for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX). In addition the 

maintenance plan establishes 2025 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area of 

5.68 tpd for VOC and 15.22 tpd for NOX.

(mm) Emissions inventories for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard— 

(1) Approval—Illinois’ 2002 

emissions inventory satisfies the 

emissions inventory requirements of 

section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act for 

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, 

MO–IL area under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

(2) [Reserved] 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 81.314 is amended by 

revising the entry for St. Louis, MO–IL 

in the table entitled ‘‘Illinois-Ozone (8– 

Hour Standard)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.314 Illinois. 

* * * * * 

ILLINOIS—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

St. Louis, MO-IL: 

Jersey County .................................................................. 6/12/2012 Attainment.

Madison County ............................................................... 6/12/2012 Attainment.

Monroe County ................................................................. 6/12/2012 Attainment.

St. Clair County ................................................................ 6/12/2012 Attainment.

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–14102 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9672–4] 

RIN 2060–AR35 

Revisions to Federal Implementation 

Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on 

revisions to the final Transport Rule 

(Federal Implementation Plans: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP 

Approvals, published August 8, 2011). 

EPA is revising the 2012 and 2014 state 

budgets for Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, 

Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, 

and revising the new unit set-asides for 

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri. 

These revisions are in addition to the 

revisions to the final Transport Rule 

published on February 21, 2012. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

on the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed on the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

Docket telephone number is (929)566– 

1742, fax (202) 566–1741. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremy Mark, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets 

Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 

343–9087, email at 

mark.jeremy@epa.gov. Electronic copies 

of this document can be accessed 

through the EPA Web site at: http:// 

epa.gov/airmarkets. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in final rule: 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan 

FR Federal Register 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ICR Information Collection Request 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers 

PM Particulate Matter 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES