48062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

in the amendatory instructions and 

paragraph heading regarding EPA’s 

limited approval of Pennsylvania’s 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096 or by 

email at linden.melissa@.epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

EPA. On July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279), 

we published a final rulemaking action 

announcing our limited approval of 

Pennsylvania’s Regional Haze SIP. In 

this document, we inadvertently 

provided an incorrect amendatory 

instruction on page 41284 regarding the 

addition of an entry to § 52.2020(e)(1), 

and also omitted a paragraph heading. 

This action corrects both the erroneous 

amendatory instruction and the omitted 

paragraph heading in part 52 for this 

paragraph. 

In rule document 2012–16428, 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279), the 

following corrections are made: 

§ 52.2020 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 41284 in the third column, 

amendatory instruction number 2 is 

revised to read as follows: 

‘‘2. In § 52.2020, the table in 

paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding 

an entry for Regional Haze Plan at the 

end of the table to read as follows:’’ 

■ 2. On page 41284 in the third column, 

the paragraph designation is revised 

from ‘‘(e)’’ to ‘‘(e)(1).’’ 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect citation in a 

previous action. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. We find that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001)). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the Supplementary 

Information section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). In addition, this action does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. This rule also does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

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

economically significant. 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. The rule also 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as required by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct, as 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act (5 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA had 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefore, and 

established an effective date of August 

13, 2012. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This correction for 

40 CFR part 52, subpart NN 

(Pennsylvania) is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

Dated: July 23, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19044 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0666; FRL–9712–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Illinois; Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request 

from the State of Illinois to redesignate 

the Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN) 

area (the Greater Chicago area) to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or standard). The Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area 

includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 48063 

1The area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard based on quality assured ozone data 

for 2010. See February 9, 2012, proposed rule (77 

FR 6743). 

McHenry, and Will Counties and 

portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and 

Goose Lake Townships) and Kendall 

(Oswego Township) Counties. The 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) submitted this request on 

July 23, 2009, and supplemented its 

request on September 16, 2011. In 

addition to approval of Illinois’ ozone 

redesignation request, EPA is: (1) 

Approving the State’s plan for 

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard through 2025 and the State’s 

2002 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 

and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emission 

inventories, as revisions to the Illinois 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area; and (2) approving and finding 

adequate the State’s 2008 and 2025 VOC 

and NOx Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets (MVEBs). 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action: Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0666. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket material is 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Edward 

Doty, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 

886–6057 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, 

doty.edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this rule? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 

III. What actions is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this rule? 

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

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (85 parts 

per billion (ppb) or higher exceeds the 

standard). EPA published a final rule 

designating and classifying areas under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 

30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). In that 

rulemaking, the Greater Chicago area 

was designated as nonattainment for the 

ozone standard. This area was classified 

as a moderate nonattainment area under 

subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

On July 23, 2009, IEPA requested 

redesignation of the Illinois portion of 

the Greater Chicago area to attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based 

on ozone data for the period of 2006– 

2008. On September 16, 2011, IEPA 

supplemented the original ozone 

redesignation request, submitting ozone 

data for the period of 2008–2010, 

revising the mobile source emission 

estimates using EPA’s on-road mobile 

source emissions model, MOVES, and 

extending the demonstration of 

maintenance of the ozone standard 

through 2025, with new MVEBs, but 

without emission reductions resulting 

from implementation of EPA’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

On March 12, 2010, EPA issued a 

final rulemaking determining that the 

entire Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 

area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS based on three years of 

complete, quality-assured ozone data for 

the period of 2006–2008, and 

continuing through 2009 1 (75 FR 

12088). On May 11, 2010, EPA issued a 

final rulemaking redesignating the 

Indiana portion (Lake and Porter 

Counties) of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL-IN area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR 

26118). 

On February 9, 2012 (77 FR 6743), 

EPA issued a notice of rulemaking 

proposing to approve Illinois’ request to 

redesignate the Illinois portion of the 

Greater Chicago area to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, as well 

as proposing to approve Illinois’ tenyear ozone maintenance plan for the 

area, VOC and NOx MVEBs, and 2002 

VOC and NOx emission inventories as 

revisions of the Illinois SIP. This 

proposed rulemaking sets forth the basis 

for determining that Illinois’ 

redesignation request meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Complete, 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data in the Greater Chicago area for 

2008–2010 and for 2009–2011 show that 

this area is currently attaining the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data 

available to date for 2012 are consistent 

with continued attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The qualityassured ozone data in the Greater 

Chicago area were discussed in the 

February 9, 2012, proposed rule for this 

rulemaking (77 FR 6747). Table 1 

summarizes the 2009–2011 annual 

fourth high ozone concentrations and 

2009–2011 ozone design values (threeyear averages of the annual fourth high 

daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentrations) for each of the 

monitoring sites in the Greater Chicago 

area. These and other ozone data for the 

Greater Chicago area are also 

documented at EPA’s Web site http://

www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL FOURTH HIGH OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES FOR 2009–2011 

(CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM)) 

Site Name (site code) County 2009 2010 2011 Three-year 

average 

4500 W. 123rd Street, Alsip (170310001) .......................... Cook ............. 0.069 0.073 0.071 ............. 0 .071 

3300 E. Cheltenham, Chicago (170310032) ...................... Cook .............. 0.065 0.074 0.079 ............. 0 .073 

Wacker At Adams, Chicago (170310042) .......................... Cook ............. 0.076 0.077 No Data ........ ..........................

5720 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago (170310064) ...................... Cook ............. 0.060 0.071 0.074 ............. 0 .068 

1000 E. Ohio, Chicago (170310072) .................................. Cook ............. 0.062 0.075 0.074 ............. 0 .070 

7801 Lawndale, Chicago (1703100760 .............................. Cook ............. 0.067 0.068 0.073 ............. 0 .069 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL FOURTH HIGH OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES FOR 2009–2011 

(CONCENTRATIONS IN PARTS PER MILLION (PPM))—Continued 

Site Name (site code) County 2009 2010 2011 Three-year 

average 

6545 W. Hurlbut, Chicago (170311003) ............................. Cook ............. 0.064 0.070 0067 .............. 0 .067 

729 Houston, Lemont (170311601) .................................... Cook ............. 0.067 0.073 0.069 ............. 0 .070 

1820 S. 51st Avenue, Cicero (170314002) ........................ Cook ............. 0.067 0.068 0.072 ............. 0 .069 

9511 W. Harrison Street, Chicago (170314007) ................ Cook .............. 0.057 0.064 0.065 ............. 0 .062 

750 Dundee Road, Northbrook (170314201) ..................... Cook ............. 0.069 0.072 0.076 ............. 0 .072 

531 E. Lincoln, Evanston ....................................................

(170317002) ........................................................................

Cook ............. 0.064 0.067 0.078 ............. 0 .070 

Route 53 (170436001) ........................................................ DuPage ......... 0.059 0.064 0.068 ............. 0 .064 

665 Dundee Road, Elgin .....................................................

(170890005) ........................................................................

Kane ............. 0.068 0.069 0.070 ............. 0 .069 

Golf and Jackson Streets, Waukegan (170971002) ........... Lake .............. 0.057 0.074 No Data ......... ..........................

Illinois Beach State Park, Zion (170971007) ...................... Lake .............. 0.075 0.078 0.076 ............. 0 .076 

First Street and Three Oaks Road, Cary (171110001) ...... McHenry ........ 0.066 0.065 0.071 ............. 0 .67 

36400 S. Essex Road (171971011) ................................... Will ................ 0.063 0.065 0.061 ............. 0 .063 

201 Mississippi Street, Gary (180890022) ......................... Lake .............. 0.058 0.064 0.066 ............. 0 .063 

1751 Oliver Street, Whiting (180890030) ........................... Lake .............. 0.062 0.069 0.069 ............. 0 .067 

1300 141 Street, Hammond (180892008) .......................... Lake .............. 0.065 0.069 0.072 ............. 0 .069 

84 Diana Road, Ogden Dunes (181270024) ...................... Porter ............ 0.067 0.067 0.068 ............. 0 .067 

1000 Wesley/Valparaiso Water Department (181270026) Porter ............ 0.064 0.061 0.063 ............. 0 .063 

Chiwaukee Prairie, Pleasant Prairie (550590019) .............. Kenosha ........ 0.071 0.081 0.081 ............. 0 .078 

The primary background for today’s 

action is contained in EPA’s February 9, 

2012, proposal to approve Illinois’ 

redesignation request, and in EPA’s 

March 12, 2010, final rulemaking 

determining that the area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In these 

rulemakings, we noted that, under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix I, the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm at all ozone 

monitoring sites in an area. See 69 FR 

23857 (April 30, 2004) for further 

information. To support the 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

of the NAAQS, the area must show 

attainment based on complete, qualityassured data for the most recent threeyear period. The data completeness 

requirement, for any given monitoring 

site, is met when the three-year average 

of days with valid ambient monitoring 

data is greater than 90 percent, and no 

single year has less than 75 percent data 

completeness, as determined in 

accordance with appendix I of 40 CFR 

part 50. Under the CAA, EPA may 

redesignate a nonattainment area to 

attainment if sufficient, complete, 

quality-assured data are available 

demonstrating that the area has attained 

the standard and if the State meets all 

applicable redesignation requirements 

specified in section 107(d)(E) and 

section 175A of the CAA. 

The February 9, 2012, proposed rule 

provides a detailed discussion of how 

Illinois’ ozone redesignation request 

meets the CAA requirements. Complete, 

quality-assured and certified air quality 

monitoring data in the Greater Chicago 

area for 2009–2011 and preliminary data 

available for 2012 show that this area is 

currently attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. With the final approval 

of its VOC and NOx emission 

inventories, Illinois has met all CAA 

requirements for redesignation of the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Illinois has 

demonstrated that attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 

maintained in the Greater Chicago area 

through 2025 with or without the 

implementation of EPA’s CAIR. Finally, 

Illinois has adopted 2008 and 2025 

MVEBs that are supported by Illinois’ 

ozone maintenance demonstration and 

adopted ozone maintenance plan. 

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed rule? 

EPA provided a 30-day review and 

comment period for the February 9, 

2012, proposed rule. During the 

comment period, we received one 

comment set from an individual 

representing the Sierra Club. These 

comments are summarized and 

addressed below. 

Comment 1: The commenter argues 

that it is inappropriate to redesignate 

the Illinois portion of the Greater 

Chicago area to attainment under the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard when EPA 

intends to designate this area as 

nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard, and asserts that EPA is 

delaying the implementation of the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard. 

Response 1: We disagree with the 

commenter. The area’s status with 

respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard is not relevant to the area’s 

attainment status under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. It would be 

inappropriate to defer or reject the 

redesignation of the area under the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard based on EPA’s 

designation of the area under the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard. 

On June 11, 2012, EPA published its 

designation for the Chicago-Naperville, 

IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone 

standards. 77 FR 34221. EPA designated 

the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area as 

nonattainment with a classification of 

marginal for the 2008 ozone standards. 

The area’s status with respect to the 

2008 ozone standards, however, does 

not affect or prevent redesignation of the 

area to attainment for the 1997 ozone 

standard. The 1997 ozone standard 

currently remains in effect, and, thus, 

EPA continues to evaluate the area’s 

designation status with respect to that 

standard. Until the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is revoked, it remains in effect 

and independent of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standards, and EPA continues to 

evaluate and act upon states’ 

redesignation requests with respect to 

the 1997 ozone standard. 

EPA has in the past continued to 

redesignate areas under existing 

standards even after the adoption of 

new standards for the same pollutant. 

After adopting the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, EPA continued to redesignate 

areas for the 1-hour ozone standard 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 48065 

until the 1-hour ozone standard was 

revoked. See, for example the Cincinnati 

ozone redesignation for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, 70 FR 35946 (June 21, 

2005) and the Atlanta ozone 

redesignation for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005). 

Subsequent to the adoption of the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard and 

designation of areas for this standard, 

EPA has continued to redesignate areas 

to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. See, for example, the Detroit, 

Michigan redesignation, 74 FR 30950 

(June 29, 2009); Clearfield and Indiana 

Counties, Pennsylvania redesignation, 

74 FR 11674 (March 19, 2009); 

Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 

redesignation, 73 FR 29436 (May 21, 

2008); and, Door and Manitowoc 

Counties, Wisconsin redesignation, 75 

FR 39635 (July 12, 2010). Also see the 

redesignation of the Illinois portion of 

the St. Louis area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 

2012). 

Comment 2: The commenter argues 

that EPA has failed to consider ambient 

monitoring data from 2011 even though 

Illinois has already submitted and 

certified these data. The commenter 

asserts that the EPA must include these 

data in its consideration of Illinois’ 

ozone redesignation request and provide 

the public with the opportunity to 

review and comment on these data 

before making any final decision on 

Illinois’ ozone redesignation request. 

Response 2: At the time EPA prepared 

the proposed rule for rulemaking on 

Illinois’ ozone redesignation request, 

EPA had not yet received Illinois’ 

certification of the 2011 ozone data. At 

the time of EPA’s proposed 

redesignation of the area, the 2008–2010 

ozone data were the most recent three 

years of State-certified data available to 

EPA. Illinois has subsequently certified 

its 2011 ozone data for the Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area. 

Indiana has certified its 2011 ozone 

data for the Indiana portion of the 

Greater Chicago area. In addition, 

Wisconsin has certified the 2011 ozone 

data for the Chiwaukee Prairie 

monitoring site in Kenosha County, 

generally considered to be the peak 

ozone design value site attributable to 

emissions in the Greater Chicago area. 

The complete, certified 2011 ozone 

data, along with ozone data for 2009 and 

2010, show that the Greater Chicago 

area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The highest 8-hour 

ozone design value for the 2009–2011 

period was recorded at the Chiwaukee 

Prairie monitoring site, with a value of 

0.077 parts per million. All of these data 

show that the area continued to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard during 

the 2009–2011 period. Preliminary 

ozone data for 2012 for the Greater 

Chicago area and for Chiwaukee Prairie 

are consistent with the Greater Chicago 

area’s continued attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. EPA has, thus, 

considered these data, which reflect 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Although the 2011 data 

were not certified at the time of 

proposal, these data were available to 

the public through EPA’s Air Quality 

System and commenters could have 

reviewed the data and addressed them 

in comments. 

Comment 3: The commenter asserts 

that the consideration of the 2011 data 

is particularly important because 2008 

(the attainment year used by the IEPA 

to document the emissions reductionbasis for the attainment of the ozone 

standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area and the base year for 

the 10-year ozone standard maintenance 

demonstration) was the first year of a 

major recession. The commenter 

contends that emission reductions 

leading to the observed air quality 

improvement were the result of 

temporary economic conditions rather 

than the result of permanent emission 

reductions. 

Response 3: First, as set forth in EPA’s 

response to comment 2 above, EPA has 

considered the complete, quality 

assured and certified monitoring data 

for the bi-state nonattainment area for 

2011. These data show that the area has 

continued to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, and preliminary data 

for 2012 are consistent with continued 

attainment. A determination of 

attainment is based solely on air quality 

considerations, and, therefore, 

underlying economic conditions are not 

relevant to the limited inquiry that 

results in a determination. In another 

portion of this rulemaking, and with 

respect to a separate and independent 

criterion for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), EPA examines whether 

attainment is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. See 

discussion in the proposed rulemaking 

(77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012) and 

elsewhere in these responses to 

comments. 

The commenter provides no data to 

demonstrate that the economic 

recession of recent years had any impact 

on emissions in 2008. The commenter 

merely speculates that there was such 

an impact. Lacking any data to the 

contrary, we see no reason to assume 

that the lower emissions of 2008 

(relative to those of the base 

nonattainment year of 2002) were 

exclusively or predominantly an artifact 

of temporary emission reductions 

resulting from the economic recession. 

In addition, the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area has continued to 

attain the 1997 ozone standard over an 

extended period (over a number of 

sequential three-year periods, 2006– 

2008, 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and now 

2009–2011), with general downward 

trends in ozone design values at most 

monitoring sites in the area (see Table 

1 in the proposed rule for this 

rulemaking action, 77 FR 6747). Given 

the downward trend in ozone design 

values and the ozone design values 

below the 0.085 ppm ozone standard 

violation level, we see no reason to 

believe that a reversal in the economic 

situation in this area will cause a return 

to violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in this area in the foreseeable 

future. 

Comment 4 General: The commenter 

argues that Illinois and EPA have failed 

to comply with the ozone redesignation 

requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 

of the CAA, which requires that the 

observed improvement in air quality be 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions resulting from the 

State’s implementation of its SIP and 

implementation of applicable Federal 

air pollution control requirements and 

other permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. The commenter 

argues, in particular, that EPA relied on 

several emission control programs that 

are not permanent and enforceable. 

These questioned emission controls are 

specified in the following: 

Comment 4a: The commenter asserts 

that the NOX SIP call is not permanent 

and enforceable. The commenter notes 

that EPA found that the NOX emission 

reductions leading to attainment in the 

Greater Chicago area were due, in part, 

to the implementation of the NOX SIP 

call. The commenter argues that the 

NOX SIP call cannot be assumed to be 

permanent and enforceable because it 

has been replaced, and, therefore, no 

longer exists. In addition, the NOX SIP 

call is implemented through a cap-andtrade program, which means that no 

actual NOX emission reduction may 

have been required for any specified 

source upwind of the high ozone areas 

in the Greater Chicago area. The 

commenter cites a 2009 decision by the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which the 

commenter believes held that EPA 

cannot use cap-and-trade programs to 

satisfy an area-specific statutory 

mandate. See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

Response 4a: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s position that emission 

reductions associated with the NOX SIP 

call cannot be considered to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP call 

transition to CAIR can be found at http://www.epa.

gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/faq-10.html. EPA 

guidance regarding the NOX SIP call transition for 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/

faqs.html. 

permanent and enforceable. The 

commenter’s first argument—that the 

NOX emission reductions are not 

permanent and enforceable because the 

NOX SIP call has been replaced—is 

based on a misunderstanding of the 

relationship between the CAIR and the 

NOX SIP call. While the CAIR ozoneseason trading program replaced the 

ozone-season NOX trading program 

developed in the NOX SIP call (70 FR 

25290), nothing in the CAIR relieved 

states of their NOX SIP call obligations. 

In fact, in the preamble to CAIR, EPA 

emphasized that the states and certain 

units covered by the NOX SIP call but 

not by CAIR must still satisfy the 

requirements of the NOX SIP call. EPA 

provided guidance regarding how such 

states could meet these obligations.2 In 

no way did EPA suggest that states 

could disregard their NOX SIP call 

obligations. (70 FR 25290). For NOX SIP 

call states, the CAIR NOX ozone season 

program provides a way to continue to 

meet the NOX SIP call obligations for 

electric generating units (EGUs) and 

large non-electric generating units 

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

51.905(f) specifically provide that the 

provisions of the NOX SIP call, 

including the statewide NOX emission 

budgets, continue to apply. 

In summary, the requirements of the 

NOX SIP call remain in force. They are 

permanent and enforceable as are state 

regulations developed to implement the 

requirements of the NOX SIP call. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s second argument—that the 

emission reductions associated with the 

NOX SIP call cannot be considered 

permanent and enforceable because the 

NOX SIP call provides for a trading 

program. There is no support for the 

commenter’s argument that EPA must 

ignore all emission reductions achieved 

by the NOX SIP call simply because the 

mechanism used to achieve the 

emission reductions is an emissions 

trading program. As a general matter, 

trading programs establish mandatory 

caps on emissions and permanently 

reduce the total emissions allowed by 

sources subject to the programs. The 

emission caps and associated controls 

are enforced through the associated SIP 

rules or Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and 

increase in emissions by a utility 

necessitates a corresponding sale of 

allowances and results in an emission 

reduction by another utility. Given the 

regional nature of ozone formation and 

transport, the emission reductions will 

have an air quality benefit that will 

compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase. 

In addition, the case cited by the 

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

1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not support 

the commenter’s position. The case 

addressed EPA’s determination that the 

CAA nonattainment area RACT 

requirement was satisfied by the NOX

SIP call trading program. The court held 

that, because EPA had not demonstrated 

that the trading program would result in 

sufficient emission reductions within a 

nonattainment area, its determination 

that the program satisfied RACT was not 

supported. Id. 1256–58. The court 

explicitly noted that EPA might be able 

to reinstate the provision providing that 

compliance with the NOX SIP call 

satisfies NOX RACT for EGUs for 

particular nonattainment areas if, upon 

conducting a technical analysis, it could 

demonstrate that the NOX SIP call 

results in greater emissions reductions 

in a nonattainment area than would be 

achieved if RACT-level controls were 

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

case, EPA’s comparison of emissions in 

2002 and 2008 in this rulemaking 

necessarily looked only at changes in 

emissions ‘‘in the nonattainment area.’’ 

As such, the commenter’s reliance on 

NRDC v. EPA is misplaced. 

Comment 4b: The commenter 

contends that EPA cannot rely on the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

to provide permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions because the 

implementation of this rule has been 

stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit. The 

commenter contends that this stay 

makes CSAPR neither permanent nor 

enforceable. In addition, the commenter 

notes that CSAPR is to be implemented 

through a cap-and-trade program, and, 

therefore, as summarized in Comment 

4a, CSAPR cannot be relied on to 

produce permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. Further, EPA 

cannot take credit for the promise of any 

emission control program that would 

replace CSAPR should the Court 

remand or vacate CSAPR. 

Response 4b: Illinois has not relied on 

CSAPR to demonstrate that attainment 

was due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions or to demonstrate 

that it will maintain the standard. EPA 

did not credit Illinois with NOX

emission reductions from the 

implementation of CSAPR for 

attainment or maintenance of the 1997 

ozone standard. While CSAPR was 

listed by the State as a possible 

contingency measure in the State’s 

ozone maintenance plan, EPA did not 

credit Illinois with NOX emission 

reductions resulting from the 

implementation of CSAPR, nor did the 

State take credit for any such emission 

reduction when demonstrating 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

standard. As such, the stay of CSAPR is 

not relevant here. 

In addition, modeling performed by 

EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking 

process also demonstrates that the 

counties in the Greater Chicago area will 

have ozone levels below the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard in both 2012 and 

2014 without emission reductions from 

CSAPR or CAIR, with the highest value 

for any county in the area projected to 

be 81.1 ppb without the implementation 

of CSAPR/CAIR-based emission 

controls. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support 

Document,’’ Appendix B, pages B–9, B– 

10, B–11, and B–33, which is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Although Illinois did list the ‘‘CrossState Air Pollution Rule’’ as a possible 

contingency measure in the ozone 

maintenance plan, this measure is only 

one of many that may be selected 

should the contingency plan be 

triggered. EPA has concluded, in its 

consideration of the ozone maintenance 

plan contingency measures, that there 

are other contingency measures 

sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA, without the 

consideration of CSAPR. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

assertion that EPA cannot rely on the 

emission reductions resulting from the 

implementation of CSAPR because 

CSAPR would be implemented through 

the application of an emissions trading 

program, see our response to the 

commenter’s similar comment with 

regard to emissions trading under EPA’s 

NOx SIP call in the response to 

comment 4a above. In addition, CSAPR 

contains assurance provisions that 

guarantee that emission reductions will 

occur in specific states. 

Comment 4c: The commenter asserts 

that Illinois emission control rules are 

not permanent and enforceable. To 

support this assertion, the commenter 

argues that Illinois’ Consumer Products 

and Architectural and Industrial 

Coatings (AIM) rules have been adopted 

only by the State, and that, until these 

rules are approved by the EPA and 

incorporated into the SIP they cannot be 

relied upon for redesignation. 

Response 4c: EPA in fact finalized 

approval of Illinois’ consumer products 

and AIM rules on June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 

33659. Thus, the commenter’s concern 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 48067 

3See September 4, 1992, memorandum from John 

Calcagni entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ pp. 

4 and 8–9. 

4The nonattainment designation of the Greater 

Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

was based on 2001–2003 ozone data. 

is moot. Moreover, EPA wishes to note 

that it is not necessary for every change 

in emissions between the nonattainment 

year (in this case 2002) and the 

attainment year (2008) to be permanent 

and enforceable. Rather, the 

improvement in air quality necessary for 

the area to attain must be reasonably 

attributable to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions. As 

discussed in the proposed rule at 77 FR 

6754 (February 9, 2012), Illinois and 

upwind areas have implemented a 

number of permanent and enforceable 

regulatory control measures which have 

reduced emissions and have resulted in 

a corresponding improvement in ozone 

air quality. Even if EPA did not finalize 

action on Illinois’ consumer products 

and AIM rules before completing action 

on the State’s ozone redesignation 

request, these emission reductions are 

not necessary to demonstrate that the 

improvement in air quality is reasonably 

attributable to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

Comment 4d: The commenter asserts 

that the use of 2008 air quality data is 

inappropriate to demonstrate that the 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is due to the implementation 

of permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. The commenter claims that 

EPA simply documented the changes in 

emissions between 2002 and 2008 to 

demonstrate that the observed ozone air 

quality improvement is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions during this period. The 

commenter contends that this is 

unacceptable for a number of reasons. 

First, the commenter asserts that EPA 

has done nothing to connect the 

emission changes with air quality 

impacts. The commenter claims that 

EPA has conducted no analyses to prove 

that emission reductions between 2002 

and 2008 have led to reduced ozone 

concentrations and attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Second, the commenter argues that 

using a single attainment year, 2008, is 

arbitrary because, as explained in 

preceding comments, the impact of capand-trade emission control programs, 

such as the NOX SIP call and CSAPR, 

can cause emissions to vary over time 

and location as sources buy, sell, and 

trade emission allowances. 

Third, the commenter characterizes 

the choice of 2008 is further problematic 

because 2008 marked the beginning of a 

large economic recession in this 

country. The commenter contends that 

this resulted in decreased electricity 

demand, decreased automobile, truck, 

and shipping traffic, and decreased 

factory production. The commenter 

contends that EPA makes the 

‘‘unsupported and implicit conclusion’’ 

that monitored changes in ozone levels 

between 2002 and 2008 were due to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emission controls rather 

than to changes in meteorology, 

economic conditions, temporary, or 

voluntary (not enforceable) emission 

controls. The commenter asserts that 

EPA provides no analysis showing that 

the recession was not the cause of the 

2002–2008 emission reduction and 

observed ozone air quality 

improvement. 

Finally, the commenter argues that 

EPA has not shown that the 2008 

emissions inventory reflects permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions 

occurring between 2002 and 2008. The 

2008 emissions inventory appears to be 

the ‘‘actual’’ or the ‘‘projected’’ 

emissions from an unidentified group of 

sources. The commenter argues that 

there is a significant difference between 

what sources actually emit and what 

sources are allowed to emit, and that the 

IEPA and EPA have incorrectly assumed 

that allowable emissions are equal to 

actual emissions. 

Response 4d: EPA’s conclusion here 

is fully supported by the facts and 

applicable legal criteria. EPA policy 3

and longstanding practice allows states 

to demonstrate permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions by 

comparing emissions occurring during 

the nonattainment period (represented 

by emissions during one of the years in 

the three-year period used to designate 

an area as nonattainment,4 in this case 

2002) with emissions occurring during 

the attainment period (represented by 

emissions during one of the three 

attainment years, in this case 2008, 

which is part of the three-year period, 

2006–2008, in which Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area first attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard). In EPA’s 

determination of attainment and 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

request, EPA considered data for the 

2008–2010 time period, which was then 

the most recent quality-assured, 

certified three years of data available. 

See 77 FR 6743, 6746 (February 9, 

2012). Therefore, selecting 2008 as the 

representative attainment year and 

comparing emissions for this year to 

those of the representative violation 

year, 2002, is an appropriate and longestablished approach that demonstrates 

emission reductions in the period 

between the years of nonattainment and 

attainment. These emission reductions, 

therefore, can be reasonably seen to 

account for the observed air quality 

improvement. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that EPA has conducted no 

analyses to prove that emission 

reductions between 2002 and 2008 led 

to reduced ozone concentrations. EPA’s 

analyses included comparison of 

emissions for the representative 

nonattainment year to the emissions for 

the representative attainment year. This 

comparison, which established the 

existence of significant emission 

reductions that resulted in attainment, 

and also linked these emission 

reductions to control measures, is 

consistent with longstanding practice 

and EPA policy for making such a 

demonstration. As noted in the 

proposed rulemaking for this 

redesignation (77 FR 6754, February 9, 

2012), the State of Illinois documented 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

between 2002 and 2008 in the Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area and 

the emission control measures that have 

been implemented in the Illinois 

portion of the Greater Chicago area. 

These emission control measures 

resulted from the State’s adoption and 

implementation of regulations, 

including regulations to: Control NOX

emissions at electric generating utilities 

and large industrial combustion sources 

under EPA’s NOX SIP call; control 

emissions and implement New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), 

and Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT) standards for new 

sources; control VOC solvent emissions 

for aerosol coatings and AIM coatings 

and consumer solvents; control vehicle 

emissions through the implementation 

of enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance; control vehicle refueling 

emissions; and control vehicle 

evaporative emissions through use of 

low volatility fuels and reformulated 

gasoline. In addition to the State’s 

implementation of state-specific 

emission control measures, Federal 

emission control measures have also 

been implemented in the Greater 

Chicago area, including: Tier 2 emission 

standards for vehicles; Tier 4 nonroad 

diesel engine standards; marine 

compression-ignition engine standards; 

and locomotive engine standards. As 

noted in the February 9, 2012, proposed 

rule, all of these emission controls have 

been implemented since the 2001–2003 

ozone standard violation period for the 

Greater Chicago area. Therefore, it is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

reasonable to conclude that the 

emission reductions resulting from 

these emission controls contributed to 

the attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the Greater Chicago area. 

See the February 9, 2012, proposed rule 

(77 FR 6754 and 6759) for discussions 

of implemented emission control 

measures and how Illinois derived the 

2002 and 2008 VOC and NOX emissions, 

demonstrating emission reductions 

between the 2002 violation year and 

2008 attainment year. 

The State demonstrated that the 

implementation of these emission 

controls along with other ongoing 

emission controls resulting from 

continued implementation of the 

Illinois SIP have led to the emission 

reductions used to demonstrate the 

emissions reduction in this area. To 

derive the 2008 emissions, the State 

determined source category-specific 

emission control factors associated with 

the implemented emission controls. 

Note that the State applied emission 

control factors only for those source 

categories covered by State or Federal 

emission control requirements and for 

specific sources subject to permanent, 

enforceable source closures. The State 

took no credit for temporary or nonpermanent emission reductions 

resulting from voluntary emission 

control measures or source activity 

downturn resulting from the current 

downturn in the economy. The source 

category-specific emission control 

factors, along with source categoryspecific growth factors, were applied to 

the 2002 base year emissions to project 

the 2008 emissions. Emission 

reductions resulting from source 

closures occurring between 2002 and 

2008 and determined to be permanent 

(including forfeiture of source permits) 

were also considered and factored into 

the emission projections, but produced 

relatively small emission reductions 

compared to the impacts of 

implemented emission controls. Since 

most source categories had positive 

growth factors, almost all projected 

emission reductions can be attributed to 

the impacts of implemented emission 

controls. Therefore, the State has 

demonstrated that the derived emission 

reduction that occurred between 2002 

and 2008 is due to the implementation 

of emission controls. 

The CAA does not specifically require 

the use of ozone modeling to make a 

demonstration that the observed ozone 

air quality improvement is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions resulting from the 

implementation of emission controls. It 

has not been the general practice of 

states to do so in demonstrating 

emission reductions for purposes of 

ozone redesignation requests. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

contention that using emissions from a 

single attainment year is arbitrary due to 

the year-to-year variation in emission 

levels resulting from the 

implementation of cap-and-trade 

programs. As a general matter, trading 

programs establish mandatory caps on 

emissions and permanently reduce total 

emissions allowed for sources subject to 

the programs. The emission caps and 

associated controls are enforced through 

the associated SIP rules and FIPs. Any 

purchase of emission allowances and 

increase in emissions by a utility 

necessitates a corresponding sale of 

emission allowances and reduction in 

emissions by another utility. Given the 

regional nature of ozone formation and 

transport, the emissions reduction will 

have an ozone air quality benefit that 

will compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase. 

With respect to NOX SIP call emission 

reductions within the Greater Chicago 

area, there is no evidence of significant 

temporal variation in emissions levels. 

In fact, actual emissions from NOX SIP 

call sources in the Chicago area have not 

varied much from year-to-year over the 

2003–2011 time period. Some of the 

largest emitters in the Greater Chicago 

area that are covered by the NOX SIP 

call are operating near full capacity. In 

addition, an analysis of ozone season 

NOX emission rates and total operating 

hours for all NOX SIP call sources in 

this area shows that annual levels of 

NOX emission rates (tons per hour of 

operation) have generally trended 

downward subsequent to 2003 as a 

result of the implementation of emission 

controls. 

While the commenter expressed 

concerns that an economic downturn 

was responsible for the observed air 

quality improvement, the commenter 

has made no demonstration that the 

reduction in emissions and observed 

improvement in air quality is due to an 

economic recession, changes in 

meteorology, or temporary or voluntary 

emission reductions. In addition, as 

noted previously, the CAA does not 

require modeling to make any such 

demonstration. There are no data 

demonstrating that the observed air 

quality improvement is due to the 

economic downturn, temporary changes 

in meteorology, or voluntary emission 

reductions, and, as discussed above, 

EPA’s modeling for the CSAPR 

demonstrates that the Greater Chicago 

area would attain the NAAQS in 2012 

and 2014 with or without 

implementation of CAIR, which is place 

only temporarily. We, thus, have no 

reason to believe that factors other than 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions let to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard in the Greater 

Chicago area. 

Finally, with regard to consideration 

of actual versus allowable/permitted 

emission levels, longstanding practice 

and EPA policy allows for the use of 

actual emissions when demonstrating 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. Sources seldom emit at 

maximum allowable emission levels, 

and assuming that all sources 

simultaneously operate at maximum 

capacity would grossly overestimate 

emission levels. For this reason, EPA 

believes actual emissions are the 

appropriate emission levels to consider 

when comparing nonattainment year 

emissions with attainment year 

emissions to demonstrate the basis for 

improvements in peak ozone levels. 

EPA also notes that the certified 

monitoring data establish that the area 

has been attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard continuously during the 

periods of 2006–2008, 2007–2009, 

2008–2010, and 2009–2011, and that 

EPA’s modeling demonstrates that the 

Greater Chicago area would have 

attainment air quality in 2012 and 2014 

with or without the implementation of 

CAIR. Emissions reductions have 

continued during this extended period 

as the State has continued to implement 

and enforce emission controls in 

addition to those required by CAIR. 

Comment 5: The commenter claims 

that EPA has not conducted an adequate 

analysis of the effect redesignation to 

attainment will have on attainment and 

maintenance of other NAAQS under 

section 110(l) of the CAA. The 

commenter complains that EPA has 

failed to conduct an adequate analysis 

of the ozone redesignation impacts with 

respect to the 1997 annual fine 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 1-hour 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Response 5: Section 110(l) of the CAA 

provides in part: ‘‘the Administrator 

shall not approve a revision of a plan if 

the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress * * *, or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ As a 

general matter, EPA must and does 

consider section 110(l) requirements for 

every SIP revision, including whether 

the revision would ‘‘interfere with’’ any 

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

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 48069 

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

58134 (October 5, 2005). 

The Illinois redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard neither revises nor 

removes any existing emission control 

requirements. On that basis, EPA 

concludes that the redesignation will 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of the air quality 

standards. Moreover, the maintenance 

plan itself demonstrates that the 

emission emissions of NOX and VOC in 

the Greater Chicago area will remain at 

or below the attainment year (2008) 

levels through 2025, thus demonstrating 

non-interference with other pollutants, 

in particular fine pollutants, that are 

formed through reactions and processes 

involving NOX and/or VOC. In addition, 

contingency measures, if subsequently 

activated, can be selected to ensure noninterference through lowered emission 

levels. 

The commenter does not provide any 

information in the comment to indicate 

that approval of this redesignation 

would have any impact on the area’s 

ability to comply with any of the 

referenced NAAQS. In fact, the ozone 

maintenance plan provided with the 

State’s redesignation request 

demonstrates a decline in VOC and NOX

emissions over the timeframe of the 10- 

plus year maintenance period. This 

reflects the fact that the redesignation 

does not relax any existing emission 

control rules or emission limits, nor will 

the redesignation alter the status quo air 

quality. The commenter has not 

explained why the redesignation might 

interfere with attainment of any 

standard or with satisfaction of any 

other CAA requirement, and EPA finds 

no basis under section 110(l) for EPA to 

disapprove the SIP revision (ozone 

maintenance plan and emissions 

inventories) at issue or to disapprove 

the requested ozone redesignation. 

Comment 6: The commenter asserts 

that EPA cannot approve Illinois’ 2002 

emissions inventory as meeting the 

emission inventory requirement of 

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

number of reasons. In particular, the 

commenter believes that Illinois’ mobile 

source emission inventories, based on 

the use of EPA’s MOVES model, does 

not account for the increase VOC and 

NOX emissions that would result from 

the use of up to 15 percent ethanol 

content in gasoline recently approved 

by the EPA. The commenter argues that 

many car and light-duty truck emission 

control systems are not designed to 

control vehicle emissions with blends of 

15 percent ethanol (Ethanol 15 or E15). 

The commenter believes that EPA has 

not accounted for the extra VOC and 

NOX emissions that would result from 

the use of E15. 

Response 6: First, it is noted that this 

comment was directed at EPA’s 

proposed approval of Illinois’ 2002 base 

period emissions. The commenter’s 

concern is not relevant to approval of 

the 2002 base year emission inventories 

because the EPA-approved use of E15 

fuels was not in place during 2002. The 

use of E15 fuels was approved by EPA 

well after 2002. Therefore, the mobile 

source emissions for 2002 could not 

have reflected the future use of E15 

fuels. 

With regard to the use of E15 fuels in 

later years, it is noted that, in 2010 and 

2011, EPA granted partial waivers for 

the use of E15 fuels in Model Year (MY) 

2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles (75 FR 68094, November 4, 

2010 and 76 FR 4662, January 26, 2011). 

As discussed in the waiver decisions, 

there may be some small emission 

impacts for the use of E15. E15 is 

expected to cause a small immediate 

emissions increase in NOX emissions. 

However, due to its lower volatility than 

the E10 fuels currently in use, its use is 

also expected to result in lower 

evaporative emissions. Other possible 

emissions impacts may be from the 

misfueling of E15 in vehicles or engines 

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

MY 2000 and older motor vehicles, 

heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

motorcycles and all non-road engines, 

vehicles, and equipment. EPA has 

promulgated a separate rule dealing 

specifically with the mitigation of 

misfueling to reduce potential emissions 

impacts from misfueling (76 FR 44406, 

July 25, 2011). 

EPA’s partial waiver for E15 is based 

on extensive studies done by the 

Department of Energy, as well as EPA’s 

engineering assessment, to determine 

the effects on exhaust and evaporative 

emissions for the vehicle fleet prior to 

and after the partial waiver. The criteria 

for granting the waiver was not that 

there are no emission impacts for E15, 

but rather that vehicles operating on E15 

would not be expected to violate their 

emission standards in-use. 

The E15 partial waivers do not require 

that E15 be made or sold, and it is 

unclear if and to what extent E15 may 

even be used in Illinois. Even if E15 is 

introduced into commerce in Illinois, 

considering the likely small and 

offsetting direction of the emission 

impacts, the limited set of motor 

vehicles approved for its use, and the 

measures required to mitigate 

misfueling, EPA believes that any 

potential emission impacts of E15 will 

be less than the margin of safety by 

which Illinois shows maintenance of the 

1997 ozone standard. 

Comment 7: The commenter argues 

that EPA has not accounted for the 

effects of changes in weather in its 

analysis of Illinois’ ozone redesignation 

request. The commenter asserts that 

EPA should have adjusted monitored 

ozone levels to account for the varying 

impacts of meteorology. The commenter 

contends that EPA cannot approve 

Illinois’ ozone resignation request 

without a weather adjusted analysis. In 

addition, the commenter believes that 

EPA has erred in not considering the 

impacts that climate change will have 

on ozone formation during the 

maintenance period. 

Response 7: A determination that an 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is based on an objective review 

of the air quality data for a specified 

period. There are no provisions in the 

CAA for considering the impacts of 

changing meteorology and adjusting 

monitored ozone concentrations to 

reflect a standardized set of 

meteorological data or some historical 

range of meteorological data. Therefore, 

we disagree with the commenter’s 

argument that EPA should have 

adjusted ozone levels to assess the 

impacts of meteorology during the 

attainment period versus meteorology 

more reflective of historical high ozone 

periods. In addition, it should be noted 

that the very nature of the three-year 

averaging of ozone concentrations used 

to assess compliance with the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard is used, in part, to 

negate the impacts of year-to-year 

variations in meteorology on ozone 

formation. 

By the same reasoning, we also 

disagree with the commenter that EPA 

must, in the context of a redesignation 

rulemaking, consider the impact of 

climate change on future ozone 

formation. While EPA agrees that 

climate change is a serious 

environmental issue, at this time EPA 

does not believe that an area-specific 

climate change analysis must occur in 

the context of rulemaking on a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan. Even if EPA chose to make such 

an assessment, it is virtually impossible, 

especially given the relatively limited 

spatial and temporal focus of a 

redesignation request and related 

maintenance plan, to project or predict 

the local meteorological changes that 

might result from climate change. 

Current modeling uncertainties result in 

conflicting projections of the spatial 

patterns of future changes in 

meteorological variables and the 

specific regional distributions of future 

ozone changes across the United States. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Modeling guidance is not yet available 

for the type of area-specific analysis of 

effects or climate change on ozone 

concentrations required for SIP 

planning. EPA, therefore, believes it is 

premature to require a precise 

mathematical accounting in the SIP 

process for the effect of higher ambient 

temperatures due to climate change on 

ozone concentrations. EPA is ready to 

reevaluate this position when the state 

of science and confidence in projection 

improve. Given the above, at this time, 

EPA is not in a position to forecast the 

impact climate change may have on 

future ozone considerations with the 

specificity needed for evaluating a 

state’s ozone maintenance 

demonstration. See EPA’s similar 

reasoning in its approval of Kentucky’s 

section 110(a)(1) maintenance for 

Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky, 76 FR 

21853 (April 14, 2011). Finally, EPA 

notes that the Greater Chicago area has 

continued to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard since the 2006–2008 

monitoring period, and that its 

attainment of the standard has 

withstood the challenges of 

meteorological variability for many 

years longer than required. Elsewhere in 

this notice, EPA has addressed 

extensively its reasoning for concluding, 

as required for redesignation, that 

attainment is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions, rather 

than to unduly favorable meteorology. 

Conclusion of Comment Review and 

Response 

We conclude that none of the 

comments discussed above provides a 

basis for precluding EPA from finalizing 

the actions we proposed on February 9, 

2012. 

III. What actions is EPA taking? 

After reviewing Illinois’ ozone 

redesignation request, EPA has 

determined that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) f the CAA. Therefore, EPA 

is approving the redesignation of the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving 

Illinois’ ozone maintenance plan for the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area as a revision of the Illinois SIP 

based on Illinois’ demonstration that the 

plan meets the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. EPA is approving the 

2002 VOC and NOX emission 

inventories for the Illinois portion of the 

Greater Chicago area as meeting the 

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

CAA. Finally, EPA is also approving 

and finding adequate Illinois’ 2008 and 

2025 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the 

Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 

area. For 2008, these MVEBs are 117.23 

tons per ozone season weekday for VOC 

and 373.52 tons per ozone season 

weekday for NOX. For 2025, these 

MVEBs are 48.13 tons per ozone season 

weekday for VOC and 126.27 tons per 

ozone season weekday for NOX. 

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

EPA finds there is good cause for this 

action to become effective immediately 

upon publication. This is because a 

delayed effective date is unnecessary 

due to the nature of a redesignation to 

attainment, which relieves the area from 

certain CAA requirements that would 

otherwise apply to it. The immediate 

effective date for this action is 

authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking activities may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 

The purpose of the 30-day waiting 

period prescribed in section 553(d) is to 

give affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s rule relieves the State of 

planning requirements for this 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. For these 

reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to 

become effective on the date of 

publication of this action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by State law. A redesignation 

to attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these actions do 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law and 

the CAA. For that reason, these actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 48071 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 12, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: July 27, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.726 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (mm)(2) and (nn) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(mm) * * * 

(2) Approval—Illinois’ 2002 volatile 

organic compounds and nitrogen oxides 

emission inventories satisfy the 

emissions inventory requirements of 

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

the Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana area under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

(nn) Approval—On July 23, 2009, and 

September 16, 2011, Illinois submitted a 

request to redesignate the Illinois 

portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, Illinois-Indiana area to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The Illinois portion of the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IllinoisIndiana area includes Cook, DuPage, 

Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will 

Counties and portions of Grundy (Aux 

Sable and Goose Lake Townships) and 

Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties. 

As part of the redesignation request, the 

State submitted a plan for maintaining 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard through 

2025 in the area as required by section 

175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the 

section 175A maintenance plan 

includes a contingency plan. The ozone 

maintenance plan establishes 2008 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Illinois portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, Illinois-Indiana area of 

117.23 tons per day (tpd) for volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and 373.52 

tpd for nitrogen oxides (NOX). In 

addition, the maintenance plan 

establishes 2025 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the Illinois 

portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, Illinois-Indiana area of 48.13 

tpd for VOC and 125.27 tpd for NOX. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 81.314 is amended by 

revising the entry for Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL-IN in the table entitled 

‘‘Illinois—1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.314 Illinois. 

* * * * * 

ILLINOIS—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN: 

Cook County ............................................................................................. 8/13/2012 

DuPage County ......................................................................................... ........................ Attainment. 

Grundy County (part).

Aux Sable Township.

Goose Lake Township.

Kane County.

Kendall County (part).

Oswego Township.

Lake County.

McHenry County.

Will County.

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–19556 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES