Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48103 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these actions: 

• Are not a ’’significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National Parks, Wilderness. 

Dated: July 24, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18951 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0899; FRL–9842–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Redesignation of the Chicago Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

redesignation request and State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

request submitted by the state of Illinois 

on October 15, 2010, and supplemented 

on September 16, 2011, and May 6, 

2013. The Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA) requested 

EPA to redesignate the Illinois portion 

of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN) nonattainment 

area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard) and requested EPA 

approval of Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance 

plan and PM2.5-related emission 

inventories for this area as revisions of 

the Illinois SIP. The Illinois portion 

(Chicago area) of this nonattainment 

area is: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 

McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable 

and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy 

County, and Oswego Township in 

Kendall County. EPA is proposing to 

grant the state’s redesignation request 

and to approve the requested Illinois 

SIP revisions, including the state’s plan 

for maintaining attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area 

through 2025. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Illinois’ 2008 and 2025 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 

the Chicago area. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 

NOX, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Volatile 

Organic Compound, ammonia, and 

primary PM2.5 emission inventories for 

this area. In the context of this proposal 

to redesignate the Chicago area, EPA 

addresses a number of additional issues, 

including the effects of two decisions of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or 

Court): The Court’s August 21, 2012, 

decision to vacate and remand to EPA 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR); and the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision to remand to EPA two 

final rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5

standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0899, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• EMail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

• Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0899. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

and viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Edward Doty at (312) 

886–6057 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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

or Doty.Edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

request? 

A. Has the area achieved attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard? 

B. Has the Chicago area and the State of 

Illinois met all applicable requirements 

of section 110 and part D of the Clean 

Air Act, and does the Chicago area have 

a fully approved SIP under section 

110(k) of the Clean Air Act for purposes 

of redesignation to attainment? 

1. Illinois Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Chicago Area Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the Clean Air 

Act 

a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

b. Part D Requirements 

2. The Chicago Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

3. Nonattainment Requirements 

4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the 

CAA 

a. Background 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 

Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Illinois’ 

Redesignation Request 

iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

C. Are the air quality improvements in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions? 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

a. Federal Emission Control Measures 

i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles 

and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 

ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule 

iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards 

iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreational Engine Standards 

b. Control Measures Statewide in Illinois 

and in Upwind Areas 

i. NOX SIP Call 

ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

c. Consent Decrees 

2. Emission Reductions 

a. Illinois’ Demonstration That Significant 

Emission Reductions Have Occurred in 

the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN 

Area and in Upwind Areas 

b. VOC and Ammonia Emission 

Reductions 

c. Conclusions Regarding Emission 

Reductions Between 2002 and 2005 in 

the Chicago Area 

D. Does Illinois have a fully approvable 

PM2.5 maintenance plan pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA for the Chicago 

area? 

1. What is required in a maintenance plan? 

2. Attainment Inventory 

3. Demonstration of Maintenance 

4. Monitoring Network 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

6. Contingency Plan 

7. Provision for Future Update of the 

Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

8. CAIR and CSAPR 

a. Background—Effect of the August 21, 

2012, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

b. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation 

Resulting From Court Decisions 

E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable MVEBs 

for the PM2.5 maintenance period? 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are 

the MVEBs for the Chicago area? 

2. What are safety margins? 

F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related 

emissions inventories for the Chicago 

area approvable under section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA? 

1. EPA’s Base Year Emissions Inventory 

SIP Policy 

2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission 

Inventories for the Chicago Area 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in the proposed rule. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

actions related to the redesignation of 

the Chicago area to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS based on quality assured, 

certified 2007–2012 air quality data. 

EPA is proposing to grant the 

redesignation of the Chicago area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA proposes to find that Illinois’ 

PM2.5 maintenance plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and is proposing 

to approve Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance 

plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

for the Chicago area as a revision to the 

Illinois SIP. The PM2.5 maintenance 

plan provides for the maintenance of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area 

through 2025. The state of Illinois has 

committed to revising this maintenance 

plan to cover an additional 10 years 

within eight years after EPA approves 

the redesignation of the Chicago area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve Illinois’ 

2008 and 2025 primary PM2.5 (fine 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48105 

1 Generally NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia (NH3), and 

primary PM2.5. 

2On March 29, 2013, EPA and other parties filed 

petitions in the Supreme Court seeking certiorari of 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. On 

June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court consolidated the 

petitions and granted certiorari. The Supreme 

Court’s decision to grant the petition is not a 

decision on the merits but instead a decision to 

review the case on its merits. As such, it does not 

alter the current status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this 

time, CAIR remains in place. 

particulates directly emitted by on-road 

motor vehicles) and NOX MVEBs for the 

Chicago area. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to find these MVEBs as 

adequate for purposes of transportation 

and general conformity demonstrations 

and determinations. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

Illinois’ 2002 primary PM2.5, NOX, SO2, 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), and 

ammonia emission inventories for the 

Chicago area as satisfying the 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for a current, accurate, and 

comprehensive emission inventory. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (primary 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants 1 emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary fine particulates 

formed from reactions involving SO2

emissions from power plants and 

industrial facilities. Nitrates, another 

common type of secondary particulate, 

are formed from combustion emissions 

of NOX (primarily Nitrogen Oxide (NO) 

and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)) from 

power plants, mobile sources, and other 

combustion sources. 

EPA promulgated the first air quality 

standards for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997, at 

62 FR 38652. In this rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated an annual standard at a 

level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) of ambient air, based on a threeyear average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site 

(the site’s PM2.5 design value for the 

annual standard). In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard at a level of 65 mg/m3, 

based on a three-year average of the 

annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA 

published air quality area designations 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

based on air quality data for calendar 

years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, 

EPA designated the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This 

area includes the Chicago area in 

Illinois and Lake and Porter Counties in 

Indiana. 

On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, 

EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5

standard), but revised the 24-hour PM2.5

standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the 

three-year average of the annual 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations. In response to legal 

challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5

standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) remanded this standard to EPA 

for further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Since the 

Chicago area is designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, today’s proposed action 

addresses redesignation of this area only 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

On November 27, 2009, EPA made a 

final determination that the Chicago 

area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard (76 FR 62243). This 

determination of attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard was based on 

quality-assured annual-averaged PM2.5

concentrations for PM2.5 monitoring 

sites in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

IL–IN area for the period of 2006–2008. 

Based on our review of complete, 

quality-assured, and state-certified 

ambient PM2.5 monitoring data from 

2009–2012 in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area, we are proposing to 

determine that the Chicago area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 15, 2010, IEPA submitted 

a request to EPA for the redesignation of 

the Chicago area to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and for EPA 

approval of a SIP revision containing 

emission inventories and a maintenance 

plan for the area. The maintenance plan 

also includes 2008 and 2025 MVEBs for 

the Chicago area. In a supplemental 

submission to EPA on September 16, 

2011, the IEPA revised the on-road 

mobile source emissions and MVEBs in 

the original submittal to reflect the use 

of EPA’s MOVES model to calculate 

mobile source emissions. In a 

supplemental submission to EPA on 

May 6, 2013, the IEPA submitted VOC 

and ammonia emission inventories to 

supplement the emission inventories 

that had previously been submitted to 

explain the attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area and to 

demonstrate future maintenance of the 

PM2.5 standard in this area. 

In this proposed redesignation, EPA 

takes into account two recent decisions 

of the D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two 

Court decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on 

August 21, 2012, issued EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and 

remanded Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) and ordered EPA to 

continue administering the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . 

development of a valid replacement.’’ 

EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit 

denied all petitions for rehearing on 

January 24, 2013.2 In the second 

decision, on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and 

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Rule (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment of a NAAQS. Specifically, 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows 

for redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

based on current air quality data; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved an 

applicable SIP for the area under section 

110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

resulting from the implementation of 

the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions; (4) 

the Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; and, (5) the state containing the 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

A. Has the area achieved attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard? 

In a final rulemaking dated November 

27, 2009, at 76 FR 62243, EPA 

determined that the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area had attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This 

determination was based on complete, 

quality-assured monitoring data in this 

area for the calendar years of 2006– 

2008. 

In its September 16, 2011, 

redesignation request, Illinois presents 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Preliminary data for 2012 show that the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area continues to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard through 2012. 

quality-assured, state-certified PM2.5

data for the period of 2007–2009. These 

data show that the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard through 2009. 

We have also obtained quality-assured 

and state-certified data for the states of 

Illinois and Indiana for 2010, 2011, and 

2012. Data recorded in EPA’s AQS show 

that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL– 

IN area initially attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard beginning in 

2005–2007, and this area has continued 

to attain this standard through 2012.3

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

PM2.5 annual air quality data for the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area 

for the period of 2007–2012. These data 

have been quality-assured and certified 

by the states of Illinois and Indiana. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, IL–IN PM2.5

NONATTAINMENT AREA

(In μg/m3) 

County Monitoring site 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Illinois Monitoring Sites 

Cook ................. Blue Island ................ 14.3 12.5 11.7 11.6 11.6 10.9 

Cook ................. Chicago—Commonwealth Edison.14.3 11.9 11.1 12.3 11.3 11.3 

Cook ................. Chicago—Springfield 15.2 12.0 11.3 12.0 (2) 11.5 (2) 11.9 

Cook ................. Chicago—Mayfair ..... 15.5 12.2 12.7 12.6 11.8 11.6 

Cook ................. Chicago—SE Police 14.1 11.8 11.0 12.5 N/A N/A 

Cook ................. Chicago—Washington.15.7 12.5 11.6 14.0 12.6 11.5 

Cook ................. Cicero ........................ 14.8 13.3 (2) 12.8 (2) 11.9 11.4 10.4 

Cook ................. Des Plaines ............... 12.7 11.4 11.0 10.6 10.6 10.9 

Cook ................. McCook (1) ............... 15.6 12.9 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 

Cook ................. Northbrook ................ 13.2 10.1 9.3 9.3 10.2 10.2 

Cook ................. Schiller Park (1) ........ 15.4 13.6 (2) 12.9 12.6 13.3 13.1 

Cook ................. Summit ...................... 14.8 12.0 11.6 12.2 11.0 11.3 

DuPage ............. Naperville .................. 13.8 11.3 9.8 11.7 10.5 10.1 

Kane ................. Aurora ....................... 13.2 10.3 10.0 11.3 9.8 10.0 

Kane ................. Elgin .......................... 14.5 10.8 9.8 11.4 10.8 9.9 

Lake .................. Zion ........................... 11.9 9.3 8.8 9.7 N/A N/A 

McHenry ........... Cary .......................... 11.6 10.1 9.6 10.2 10.1 10.1 

Will .................... Braidwood ................. 12.1 (2) 10.3 8.7 10.0 10.4 9.3 

Will .................... Joliet .......................... 14.6 11.7 10.5 11.8 10.2 11.1 

Indiana Monitoring Sites 

Lake .................. Franklin School ......... 14.4 12.0 11.3 12.5 11.4 10.7 

Lake .................. Griffith ....................... 13.2 11.7 11.0 12.4 11.2 N/A 

Lake .................. Madison Street .......... 14.6 12.3 12.1 12.9 12.1 11.5 

Lake .................. Hammond—Purdue .. 13.8 11.7 15.9 12.3 11.4 10.6 

Lake .................. Clark High School ..... 13.7 12.4 10.8 11.9 10.7 10.5 

Porter ................ Ogden Dunes ............ 13.8 10.9 11.3 11.6 10.6 9.9 

Notes: (1) Annual standard for PM2.5 does 

not apply to these sites due to their proximity 

to industrial or roadway sources and lack of 

representation of general population 

exposure; and (2) the data for these sites and 

years do not meet data completeness 

requirements (see a discussion of this issue 

below). 

Table 2 gives the three-year averages 

of the annual PM2.5 concentrations for 

2007–2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, and 

2010–2012 for each of the PM2.5

monitoring sites in the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN PM2.5

nonattainment area. 

TABLE 2—THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, 

IL–IN PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA

County Monitoring site 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Illinois Monitoring Sites 

Cook ................. Blue Island ........................................................................ 12.8 11.9 11.6 11.4 

Cook ................. Chicago—Commonwealth Edison .................................... 12.4 11.8 11.6 11.6 

Cook ................. Chicago—Springfield ........................................................ 12.8 11.8 11.6 11.6 

Cook ................. Chicago—Mayfair ............................................................. 13.5 12.5 12.4 12.0 

Cook ................. Chicago—SE Police ......................................................... 12.3 11.8 N/A N/A 

Cook ................. Chicago—Washington ...................................................... 13.3 12.7 12.7 12.7 

Cook ................. Cicero ............................................................................... 13.1 12.7 12.0 11.2 

Cook ................. Des Plaines ...................................................................... 11.7 11.0 10.7 10.7 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48107 

TABLE 2—THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, 

IL–IN PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued 

County Monitoring site 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Cook ................. McCook ............................................................................. 13.7 12.7 12.6 12.6 

Cook ................. Northbrook ........................................................................ 10.9 9.6 9.6 9.9 

Cook ................. Schiller Park ..................................................................... 14.0 13.0 12.9 13.0 

Cook ................. Summit .............................................................................. 12.8 11.9 11.6 11.5 

DuPage ............. Naperville .......................................................................... 11.6 10.9 10.7 10.8 

Kane ................. Aurora ............................................................................... 11.2 10.5 10.4 10.4 

Kane ................. Elgin .................................................................................. 11.6 10.7 10.7 10.7

Lake .................. Zion ................................................................................... 10.0 9.3 N/A N/A 

McHenry ........... Cary .................................................................................. 10.4 10.0 10.0 10.1 

Will .................... Braidwood ......................................................................... 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.9 

Will .................... Joliet ................................................................................. 10.2 11.3 10.8 11.0 

Indiana Monitoring Sites 

Lake .................. Franklin School ................................................................. 11.4 11.9 11.7 11.5 

Lake .................. Griffith ............................................................................... 11.2 11.7 11.5 N/A

Lake .................. Madison Street ................................................................. 12.1 12.4 12.4 12.2 

Lake .................. Hammond—Purdue .......................................................... 11.4 13.3 13.2 11.4 

Lake .................. Clark High School ............................................................. 10.7 11.7 11.1 11.0 

Porter ................ Ogden Dunes ................................................................... 10.6 11.3 11.2 10.7 

The data in tables 1 and 2 show that 

all PM2.5 monitors in the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN area have recorded 

PM2.5 concentrations attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard during the most 

recent three years of quality-assured, 

state-certified of PM2.5 data collection. 

As noted above, however, the PM2.5 data 

for several sites in table 1 need further 

discussion. 

First, under 40 CFR 58.30(a)(1), for 

monitoring sites with data that are 

representative of relatively unique, 

generally localized concentrations, the 

data are compared only to the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and not to the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Illinois has two sites, 

McCook and Schiller Park, that the IEPA 

believes are not representative of 

exposure for the general populace due 

to the proximity of these sites to 

localized industrial or roadway sources. 

EPA is not judging whether this 

designation is appropriate. The 

applicable regulation, at 40 CFR 

58.30(a)(2), recognizes that some 

microscale sites collect data that are 

representative of multiple locations 

with localized high concentrations, and 

provides in these cases that the data are 

appropriate for comparison to the 

annual PM2.5 standard. The Schiller 

Park site is near a major highway, and 

the site may be representative of 

multiple locations in the Chicago area 

that have similar proximity to major 

highways. For this reason, Table 1 above 

includes annual mean PM2.5

concentrations for this site. In any case, 

this site shows annual mean PM2.5

concentrations that meet the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

With regard to the McCook 

monitoring site, we agree with the IEPA 

that this is a monitoring site that is 

located near a localized industrial 

source and produces PM2.5

concentrations that are not generally 

representative of exposure for the 

general populace on a long-term basis. 

As such, in keeping with 40 CFR 

58.30(a)(1), the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at this site should not be 

compared to the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard when judging the attainment 

status of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

IL–IN area. In any case, this site also 

shows annual mean PM2.5

concentrations that meet the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

EPA concludes that no violation of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard has 

been recorded in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area for any three-year 

period during 2007–2012. For the 

reasons discussed above, EPA proposes 

to determine that the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

Illinois commits to continue 

monitoring PM2.5 in the Chicago area 

according to an EPA-approved 

monitoring plan, as required to confirm 

and assure maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in this area. If 

changes in the PM2.5 monitoring system 

become necessary, IEPA will work with 

EPA to ensure the continued adequacy 

of the monitoring system. Illinois will 

continue to quality-assure the 

monitoring data to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

B. Has the Chicago area and the State 

of Illinois met all applicable 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the Clean Air Act, and does the 

Chicago area have a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act for purposes of redesignation to 

attainment? 

We are proposing to find that Illinois 

has met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation of the Chicago area under 

section 110 of the CAA (general SIP 

requirements). We are also proposing to 

find that the Illinois SIP meets all SIP 

requirements currently applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. We 

are proposing to find that all applicable 

requirements of the Illinois SIP, for 

purposes of redesignation, have been 

implemented, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. As 

discussed below, in this section, EPA is 

proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 

NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emissions 

inventory and 2007 VOC and ammonia 

emissions inventory as meeting the 

section 172(C)(3) requirement for a 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

In making these proposed 

determinations, we have ascertained 

which SIP requirements are applicable 

for purposes of redesignation, and have 

concluded that there are SIP measures 

meeting these requirements and that 

they are approved or will be approved 

by the time of final rulemaking on the 

State’s PM2.5 redesignation request. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1. Illinois Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Chicago Area 

Under Section 110 and Part D of the 

Clean Air Act 

a. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 

implementation plan submitted by a 

state must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and, among other things, must: 

(1) Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (2) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; (4) include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; (5) include criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring and reporting; (6) 

include provisions for air quality 

modeling; and (7) provide for public 

and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. However, the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP requirements 

are not linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification. EPA 

believes that the requirements linked 

with an area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, we believe that 

these requirements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Further, we believe that section 

110(a)(2) elements other than those 

described above that are not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and that are not linked with an area’s 

attainment status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements regardless of an 

area’s designation and after the area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements that are linked with 

an area’s designation and classification 

are the relevant measures which we 

must consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, 

May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 

Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, 

May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion of this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour 

ozone redesignation (65 FR 3780, June 

19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed the Illinois SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable to the state’s request for 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of the Illinois SIP 

addressing section 110 requirements, 

including provisions addressing 

particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.720. In 

a submittal dated December 12, 2007, 

Illinois addressed infrastructure SIP 

elements required under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for PM2.5 under the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA 

approved this submittal on August 12, 

2011, at 76 FR 41075. The requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), however, are 

statewide SIP requirements that are not 

linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status 

of the Chicago area. Therefore, EPA 

believes that these infrastructure 

elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s PM2.5 redesignation request. 

b. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, if EPA 

approves the base year emissions 

inventories, discussed in section V.F 

below, the Illinois SIP will meet the SIP 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under part D of the CAA 

for the Chicago area. 

Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 

172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

for nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

The applicable subpart 1 

requirements are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9) of the CAA. A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the state 

plans for all nonattainment areas to 

provide for the implementation of 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. 

EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all states with 

nonattainment areas to consider all 

available control measures and to adopt 

and implement such measures as are 

reasonably available for implementation 

in these areas as components of the 

areas’ attainment demonstrations (the 

attainment demonstrations must address 

RACM). Because attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS has been achieved 

in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN 

area, no additional RACM measures are 

needed to provide for attainment, and 

the section 172(c)(1) requirements are 

no longer considered to be applicable as 

a prerequisite for approval of Illinois’ 

redesignation request, provided the area 

continues to attain the standard until 

the redesignation of the Chicago area 

occurs. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

Section 172(c)(2) requires plans for all 

nonattainment areas to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

toward attainment of the NAAQS. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS (General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 

CFR 51.1009. In addition, because the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the requirement for RFP under 

section 172(c)(2), as well as the 

requirement for contingency measures 

under section 172(c)(9), is not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and EPA approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. Illinois submitted a 2002 

base year emissions inventory for 

primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in June 

2006, and documented this emissions 

inventory in a June 2006 publication 

titled ‘‘Illinois Base Year Particulate 

Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002’’. As 

discussed below in section V.F, EPA is 

proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 base 

year emission inventories as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) emission inventory 

requirement for the Chicago area. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

emissions for major new and modified 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48109 

4The NSR program controls the growth and 

permitting of major source emissions in 

nonattainment areas. 5PSD requirements control the growth of new 

source emissions in areas designated as attainment 

for a NAAQS. 

stationary sources to be allowed in an 

area, and section 172(c)(5) requires 

source permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources in the nonattainment 

area. EPA approved Illinois NSR 

program 4 on December 17, 1992 (57 FR 

59928), September 27, 1995 (60 FR 

49780), and May 13, 2003 (68 FR 

25504). Further, EPA has determined 

that, since PSD requirements 5 will 

apply after redesignation, the Chicago 

area and the state of Illinois need not 

comply with the requirement that a NSR 

program be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the state 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without implementation of part 

D NSR. A more detailed rationale for 

this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

titled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment’’ (Nichols 

memorandum). Illinois has 

demonstrated that the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN area will be able to 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard without the continued 

implementation of the state’s part D 

NSR program. Therefore, EPA concludes 

that Illinois need not have a fully 

approved part D NSR program as an 

applicable requirement for approval of 

the state’s redesignation request. The 

state’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Chicago area upon 

redesignation to attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. See redesignation 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and, Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain emission control measures 

necessary to provide for attainment of 

the standard. Because attainment has 

been reached in the Chicago area, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, in 

section V.B.1.a, we conclude that the 

Illinois SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes 

of redesignation. 

Subpart 1 Section 176(c)(4)(D) 

Conformity SIP Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities including 

highway projects, conform to the air 

quality planning goals of the SIPs. The 

requirement to determine conformity 

applies to transportation plans, 

programs and projects developed, 

funded or approved under title 23 of the 

U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act 

(transportation conformity), as well as to 

all other federally-supported or funded 

projects (general conformity). State 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability, which 

EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA 

requirements. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment since such 

areas would be subject to section 175A 

maintenance plans. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

Federal rules if state rules are not yet 

approved, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to view these requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 

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

this interpretation. See also 60 FR 

62748, 62749–62750 (December 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

EPA approved Illinois’ general 

conformity SIP on December 23, 1997 

(62 FR 67000). Illinois does not have a 

Federally-approved transportation 

conformity SIP. However, Illinois 

performs conformity analyses pursuant 

to EPA’s Federal conformity rules. 

Illinois has submitted on-road mobile 

source emission budgets for the Chicago 

area of 5,100 tons per year (TPY) of 

primary PM2.5 and 127,951 TPY of NOX

for 2008 and 2,377 TPY of primary 

PM2.5 and 44,224 TPY of NOX for 2025, 

respectively. Illinois must use these 

MVEBs in any conformity determination 

that is effective on or after the effective 

date of the PM2.5 maintenance plan 

approval and effective date of EPA’s 

approval of the redesignation of the 

Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

2. The Chicago Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

Upon final approval of Illinois’s 

comprehensive 2002 emissions 

inventories, EPA will have fully 

approved the Illinois SIP for the Chicago 

area under section 110(k) of the CAA for 

all requirements applicable for purposes 

of redesignation to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals when 

rulemaking on a redesignation request 

(See page 3 of the September 4, 1992, 

John Calcagni memorandum titled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ 

(Calcagni memorandum); Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)), plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 Fr 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). 

Since the passage of the CAA in 1970, 

Illinois has adopted and submitted, and 

EPA has fully approved, SIP provisions 

addressing various required SIP 

elements under the particulate matter 

standards. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Illinois’s 2002 

base year emissions inventories for the 

Chicago area as meeting the requirement 

of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

3. Nonattainment Requirements 

No Illinois SIP provision applicable 

for redesignation of the Chicago area is 

currently disapproved, conditionally 

approved or partially approved. 

4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the 

CAA 

a. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than to the particulate matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title 

I. 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of the redesignation 

proposed rule, EPA addresses the effect 

of the Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling on 

the proposed redesignation. As 

explained below, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision does not prevent EPA 

from redesignating the Chicago area to 

attainment. Even in light of the Court’s 

decision, redesignation for this area is 

appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s 

longstanding interpretations of the 

CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to Illinois’ redesignation request and 

disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 implementation rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the state’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the Chicago 

area’s maintenance plan, which EPA 

views as approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes 

of Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating Illinois’ 

redesignation request for the Chicago 

area, to the extent that implementation 

under subpart 4 would impose 

additional requirements for areas 

designated nonattainment, EPA believes 

that those requirements are not 

‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E), and, thus, EPA is 

not required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

Chicago area redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See Calcagni memorandum. See 

also ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).6 In this case, at the time 

that Illinois submitted its redesignation 

request, requirements under subpart 4 

were not due, and indeed, were not yet 

known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Chicago area 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the state submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone nonattainment areas 

redesignated subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the 

Court found that EPA was not permitted 

to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard solely under subpart 1, and 

held that EPA was required under the 

statute to implement the standard under 

the ozone-specific requirements of 

subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 

South Coast decision, in evaluating and 

acting upon redesignation requests for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 

were submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arise after the states submit their 

redesignation requests, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting redesignation requests, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation requests beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area, for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted, would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48111 

7Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

8PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

9The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request is discussed below. 

10 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, and contingency measures. 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The state submitted its 

redesignation request on October 15, 

2010, but the Court did not issue its 

decision remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require the state’s fully-completed 

and pending redesignation request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in January 2013, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the state had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),7

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize the state of Illinois by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the redesignation 

request. For EPA now to reject the 

redesignation request solely because the 

state did not expressly address subpart 

4 requirements, of which it had no 

notice, would inflict the same 

unfairness condemned by the Court in 

Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Illinois’ 

Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

state submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Chicago area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the Chicago 

area, though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Chicago area, EPA notes that subpart 

4 incorporates components of subpart 1 

of part D, which contain general air 

quality planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

Section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself, 

contains specific planning and 

scheduling requirements for PM10 8

nonattainment areas, and under the 

Court’s January 4, 2013, decision in 

NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory 

requirements also apply for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Chicago area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment area. Under section 188 

of the CAA, all areas designated as 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4 

would initially be classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

as moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the areas as 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impacts of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) an 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose, for redesignation purposes, any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.9 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program is not 

considered an applicable requirement 

for redesignation, provided that the area 

can maintain the standard with a PSD 

program after redesignation. A detailed 

rationale for this view is described in 

the Nichols memorandum. See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,10 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or subpart 4, any area that 

is attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has, 

for many years, interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

‘therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 

13564, April 16, 1992). The General 

Preamble also explained that: 

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

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that, even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 11 and, thus, are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard, for the purpose of evaluating 

a pending request to redesignate the 

area to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble 

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context, has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the area has 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Under 

its longstanding interpretation, EPA is 

proposing to determine here that the 

area meets the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA, in this 

section, addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors, such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources, in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court, in its January 4, 2013, 

decision, made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, 

EPA believes that its proposed 

redesignation of the Chicago area is 

consistent with the Court’s decision on 

this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the 

Court, citing section 189(e), stated that 

‘‘for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, 

a precursor is ‘presumptively 

regulated,’’’ the Court expressly 

declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, 

the regulatory consequence would be to 

consider the need for regulation of all 

precursors from any sources in the area 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48113 

12Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

13The Chicago area has reduced VOC emissions 

through the implementation of various control 

programs including VOC RACT regulations and 

various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 

programs. 

14See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California-San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that imposed 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

15See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

to demonstrate attainment and to apply 

the section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Chicago area, EPA believes 

that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The Chicago 

area has attained the 1997 PM2.5

standard without any specific additional 

controls of VOC and ammonia 

emissions from any sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.12

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of major stationary sources of 

ammonia and VOC. Thus, we must 

address here whether additional 

controls of ammonia and VOC from 

major stationary sources are required 

under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in 

order to redesignate the area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA, in 

this proposal, proposes to determine 

that the SIP has met the provisions of 

section 189(e) with respect to ammonia 

and VOC as precursors. This proposed 

supplemental determination is based on 

our findings that: (1) The Chicago area 

contains no major stationary sources of 

ammonia; and (2) existing major 

stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.13 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in this area. See 57 FR 13539– 

13542. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for the control of PM2.5 under 

the attainment planning provisions of 

subpart 4, those provisions in and of 

themselves do not require additional 

controls of these precursors for an area 

that already qualifies for redesignation. 

Nor does EPA believe that requiring 

Illinois to address precursors differently 

than they have already would result in 

a substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.14 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.15 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Chicago area 

has already attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS with its current approach to 

regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to 

conclude, in the context of this 

redesignation, that there is no need to 

revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Illinois’ request for 

redesignation of the Chicago area. In the 

context of a redesignation, the area has 

shown that it has attained the standard. 

Moreover, the state has shown and EPA 

has proposed to determine that 

attainment in this area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions on all precursors necessary 

to provide for continued attainment. It 

follows logically that no further control 

of additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the Chicago 

area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Illinois were required 

to address precursors for the Chicago 

area under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA’s 

remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, EPA would still conclude that the 

area had met all applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

C. Are the air quality improvements in 

the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN 

Area due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions? 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA 

requires the state to demonstrate that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. EPA finds that Illinois has 

demonstrated that the observed PM2.5

air quality improvement in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. In making this 

demonstration, Illinois first determined 

and documented the change in primary 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area 

between 2002 (a standard-violation 

year) and 2008 (an attainment year). 

Illinois demonstrated that the reduction 

in emissions and the corresponding 

improvement in air quality over the 

intervening period (2002–2008) can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that have been 

implemented in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area and in surrounding 

contributing areas in the recent years. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

The following is a discussion of the 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the 

Chicago area and in upwind areas. 

a. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in PM2.5 precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide in 

Illinois and in upwind areas as a result 

of the following Federal emission 

control measures, with additional 

emission reductions expected in the 

future. Federal emission control 

measures include the following. 

i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 

40 CFR part 86, subpart S. These 

emission control requirements result in 

lower VOC, NOX, and SO2 emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. The 

Federal rules were phased in between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

that, by the end of the phase-in period, 

the following vehicle NOX emission 

reductions will occur nationwide: 

passenger cars (light duty vehicles), 77 

percent; light duty trucks, minivans, 

and sports utility vehicles, 86 percent; 

and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, 

and heavier trucks, 69 to 95 percent. 

VOC emission reductions will be 

approximately 12 percent for passenger 

cars, 18 percent for smaller sports utility 

vehicles, light trucks, and minivans, and 

15 percent for larger sports utility vans, 

and heavier trucks. Some of the 

emission reductions resulting from new 

vehicle standards occurred during the 

2008–2010 attainment period; however, 

additional emission reductions will 

continue to occur throughout the 

maintenance period as new vehicles 

replace older vehicles. The Tier 2 

standards also reduced the sulfur 

content of gasoline to 30 parts per 

million (ppm) beginning in January 

2006. 

ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule 

EPA issued this rule on January 18, 

2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule went into 

effect in 2004 and includes standards 

limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel. 

A second phase took effect in 2007 and 

resulted in reduced PM2.5 emissions 

from heavy-duty highway diesel engines 

and further reduced the highway diesel 

fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm. The full 

implementation of this rule is estimated 

to achieve a 90 percent reduction in 

direct PM2.5 emissions (including direct 

emissions of sulfates) and a 95 percent 

reduction of NOX emissions for new 

engines using low sulfur diesel fuel, 

compared to existing engines using 

higher sulfur content fuel. The 

reductions in fuel sulfur content 

occurred by the 2008–2010 attainment 

period. Some of the emissions 

reductions resulting from new vehicle 

standards also occurred during the 

2008–2010 attainment period; however, 

additional emission reductions will 

continue to occur throughout the 

maintenance period as the fleet of older 

heavy-duty diesel engines turns over. 

This rule will also lower SO2 emissions 

from engines using the low sulfur diesel 

fuel, resulting in lower PM2.5

concentrations; however, EPA has not 

estimated the level of this emission 

reduction and the level of its impact on 

PM2.5 concentrations. 

iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards 

On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA 

promulgated a rule to establish emission 

standards for large non-road diesel 

engines, such as those used in 

construction, agriculture, or mining 

operations, and to regulate the sulfur 

content in non-road diesel fuel. The 

engine emission standards in this rule 

are to be phased in between 2008 and 

2014. This rule reduced the allowable 

sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel by 

over 99 percent. Prior to 2006, non-road 

diesel fuel averaged approximately 

3,400 ppm in sulfur content. This rule 

limited non-road diesel fuel content to 

500 ppm starting in 2007, with a further 

reduction to 15 ppm starting in 2010. 

The combined engine standards and 

fuel sulfur content limits reduce NOX

and PM2.5 emissions (including direct 

emissions of sulfates) from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90 percent 

compared to pre-control non-road 

engines using the higher sulfur content 

fuel. This rule achieved all of the 

reductions in fuel sulfur content by 

2010. Some emission reductions from 

the new engine emission standards were 

realized over the 2008–2010 period; 

although most of the engine emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period as the fleet of nonroad diesel engines turns over. 

iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines 

and Recreational Engine Standards 

On November 8, 2002 67 FR 68243), 

EPA promulgated emission standards 

for groups of previously unregulated 

non-road engines. These engines 

include large spark-ignition engines, 

such as those used in forklifts and 

airport ground-service equipment; 

recreational vehicles using sparkignition engines, such as off-highway 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and 

snowmobiles; and, recreational marine 

diesel engines. Emission standards for 

large spark-ignition engines were 

implemented in two tiers, with Tier I 

starting in 2004 and Tier 2 starting in 

2007. Recreational vehicle emission 

standards were phased in from 2004 

through 2012. Marine diesel engine 

standards were phased in from 2006 

through 2009. 

With full implementation of all of the 

non-road spark-ignition engine and 

recreational engine standards, an overall 

72 percent reduction in VOC, 80 percent 

reduction in NOX, and 56 percent 

reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions are expected by 2020. Some 

of these emission reductions occurred 

by the 2008–2010 attainment period, 

and additional emission reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period as 

the fleets turn over. 

b. Control Measures Statewide in 

Illinois and in Upwind Areas 

Due to the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates as components of PM2.5 in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area, 

the PM2.5 air quality in this area is 

strongly affected by regulation of SO2

and NOX emissions from power plants 

in areas upwind of the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN area. The emission 

control regulations impacting the 

upwind area include the following. 

i. NOX SIP Call 

On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), 

EPA issued a NOX SIP call requiring the 

District of Columbia and 22 states to 

reduce emissions of NOX from Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs), large 

industrial boilers, and cement kilns. 

Affected states were required to comply 

with Phase I of the SIP call beginning in 

2004, and with Phase II beginning in 

2007. NOX emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP call are 

permanent and enforceable. The state of 

Illinois and other nearby upwind states, 

including Michigan, Indiana, and 

Kentucky were subject to the NOX SIP 

call. 

ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

EPA proposed CAIR on January 30, 

2004, at 69 FR 4566, promulgated CAIR 

on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and 

promulgated associated Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April 

28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, in order to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and 

improve air quality in areas across 

Eastern United States. However, on July 

11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated and 

remanded both CAIR and the associated 

CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). EPA petitioned for a rehearing, 

and the D.C. Circuit issued an order 

remanding CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48115 

EPA without vacatur. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). The D.C. Circuit, thereby, left 

CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily 

preserve the environmental values 

covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaced it 

with a rule consistent with the Court’s 

opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed 

EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ 

consistent with the July 11, 2008 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing this 

action. Id. 

EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 

48208, August 8, 2011) to replace CAIR. 

See 76 FR 59517. As noted above, CAIR 

requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric 

generating units to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the 

ozone and fine particulate matter they 

form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 

70093. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696 

F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all 

petitions for rehearing on January 24, 

2013. EPA and other parties have filed 

petitions for certiorari to the U.S. 

Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the 

U.S. Supreme Court granted the 

petitions for certiorari. Nonetheless, 

EPA intends to continue to act in 

accordance with the EME Homer City 

opinion until the U.S. Supreme Court 

issues its decision. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is here proposing to 

determine that these emission 

reductions are sufficiently permanent 

and enforceable for purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) (and for 

purposes of assessing maintenance of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area, 

as discussed below, for CAA section 

175A). 

c. Consent Decrees 

Two petroleum refineries, the CITGO 

and Exxon Mobil refineries, have units 

subject to Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirements for 

purposes of achieving reduced haze 

levels: The CITGO refinery in Lemont, 

Illinois and the Exxon Mobil refinery 

south of Joliet, Illinois. Both refineries 

will be required to reduce emissions by 

a Federal consent decree resolving an 

enforcement action brought by EPA 

against a number of refineries. The 

consent decrees require the CITGO and 

Exxon Mobil refineries (and other 

refineries in Illinois) to operate controls 

at the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) level. Illinois 

evaluated the subject-to-BART units at 

the CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries 

in the consent decree. It found that the 

NOX and SO2 emission limits for these 

units satisfy BART. 

A consent decree between the United 

States and CITGO Petroleum 

Corporation was entered in the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas on October 6, 2004 (No. H–04– 

3883). The consent decree requires the 

company to operate Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) and a wet scrubbing 

system at its Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Unit (FCCU) that will reduce NOX

emissions by more than 90 percent and 

SO2 emissions by 85 percent. The 

controls on the FCCU are expected to 

result in a reduction of NOX emissions 

from 1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and SO2

emissions from 10,982.5 to 107.9 TPY 

by 2013. CITGO has also added a tail gas 

recovery unit that reduces SO2

emissions from its sulfur train units 

from 4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent 

reduction. The emission controls on all 

units at CITGO’s Lemont refinery will 

reduce NOX emissions by 1,268 TPY 

and SO2 emissions by 15,123 TPY. 

A consent decree between the United 

States and Exxon Mobil Corporation 

was entered in the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois on 

October 11, 2005 (No. O5–C–5809). The 

consent decree for Exxon Mobil requires 

SCR operation on its FCCU in addition 

to maintenance of the existing wet 

scrubbing system. The controls on the 

FCCU result in a 1,636.2 TPY decrease 

in NOX emissions from 1,818.0 to 181.8 

TPY and a 9,667.7 TPY decrease in SO2

emissions from 9,865.0 to 197.3 TPY. 

Exxon Mobil has also added a tail gas 

recovery unit on its south sulfur 

recovery unit. That unit reduces SO2

emissions by 9,153.8 TPY to 186.8 TPY. 

The emission controls at Exxon Mobil’s 

Joliet refinery will reduce NOX

emissions by 1,695 TPY and SO2

emissions by 18,821 TPY. 

These two consent decrees are 

Federally enforceable and also require 

that the refineries submit permit 

applications to Illinois to incorporate 

the required emission limits into 

Federally enforceable air permits (other 

than Title V). Therefore, emission limits 

established by the consent decrees may 

be relied upon by Illinois for addressing 

the BART requirement for these 

facilities and for crediting toward the 

reduction of PM2.5 levels in the Chicago 

area and maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area. 

2. Emission Reductions 

a. Illinois’ Demonstration That 

Significant Emission Reductions Have 

Occurred in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN Area and In Upwind 

Areas 

To demonstrate that significant 

emission reductions have resulted in 

attainment, Illinois compared the 

Chicago area NOX, SO2, and primary 

PM2.5 emissions for 2002 with those of 

2008. As noted above, the 2008 

emissions represent those for a year in 

which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

IL–IN area was attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard (2008 is the 

middle year of the 2007–2009 period in 

which the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

IL–IN area initially attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard), and 2002 

represents a year in which the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area was 

violating this standard. 

The derivation of the 2002 (base year) 

emissions is discussed in more detail 

below in section V.F. The derivation of 

the 2008 (attainment year) emissions is 

discussed in more detail here. 

The 2008 emissions were based on 

actual source activity levels. The point 

source emissions were compiled from 

Illinois’ 2008 Annual Emissions Reports 

(AERs) submitted to the IEPA by 

individual source facilities. Area source 

emissions were calculated using the 

most recently available emission 

calculation methodologies, emission 

factors developed by EPA, and activity 

data (population, employment, fuel use, 

etc.) specific to 2008. On-road mobile 

source emissions were calculated using 

EPA’s MOVES emissions model with 

2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data 

provided by the Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT). Off-road mobile 

source emissions were calculated using 

either EPA’s NONROAD emission 

model (for all non-road sources except 

commercial marine vessels, 

locomotives, and aircraft) or information 

supplied by contractors (for marine 

vessels, locomotives, and aircraft). 

Biogenic emissions were not included 

in the emission inventories since these 

emissions are assumed to remain 

constant over time (biogenic emissions 

are not included in the 2002, 2008, 

2015, and 2025 emissions summarized 

in this proposed rule). 

The 2002 and 2008 Chicago area 

emissions (covering only the Illinois 

portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area) are summarized in 

tables 3 through 5 below. All emissions 

are in units of TPY. All summarized 

emissions are documented in Illinois’ 

August 17, 2011 ‘‘Maintenance Plan for 

the Chicago Nonattainment Area for the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48116 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (Revised).’’ 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2008 NOX EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR

(TPY) 

Source sector 2002 2008 Net change 

2002–2008 

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 54,050 35,939 ¥18,111 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 32,325 32,318 ¥7 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 187,632 127,951 ¥59,681 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 87,426 51,184 ¥36,242 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 361,433 247,391 ¥114,042 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2008 PRIMARY PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA BY SOURCE

SECTOR

(TPY) 

Source sector 2002 2008 Net change 

2002–2008 

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 2,757 3,859 1,102 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 22,356 9,189 ¥13,167 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 6,573 5,100 ¥1,473 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 4,834 3,653 ¥1,181 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 36,520 21,800 ¥14,720 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2008 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR

(TPY) 

Source sector 2002 2008 Net change 

2002–2008 

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 121,598 90,706 ¥30,892 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 3,290 4,109 819 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 4,472 537 ¥3,935 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 3,743 779 ¥2964 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 133,103 96,130 ¥36,973 

Tables 3 through 5 show that NOX, 

SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions in the 

Chicago area have decreased 

significantly between 2002 and 2008. 

In addition to the local PM2.5

precursor emission reductions, we 

believe that regional NOX and SO2

emission reductions resulting from the 

implementation of EPA’s Acid Rain 

Program (ARP) (see 40 CFR parts 72 

through 78), NOX SIP call, and CAIR 

have significantly contributed to the 

PM2.5 air quality improvement in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area. 

To assess the change in regional 

emissions from states believed to 

significantly contribute to annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area, we have considered 

statewide NOX and SO2 emissions from 

EGUs reported for 2002 and 2008 in 

EPA’s ARP/CAIR database. To limit the 

number of states considered, we have 

selected those states with emissions that 

have been modeled to have significantly 

contributed to elevated PM2.5

concentrations in Cook County, Illinois 

(a modeling receptor site considered to 

be representative of the regional 

transport into the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area. Table 6 summarizes 

statewide NOX and SO2 emissions for 

EGUs previously summarized in the 

proposed rule for the redesignation of 

Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. See 76 FR 59600, 59608– 

59609, September 27, 2011. 

TABLE 6—STATEWIDE EGU EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2008 

(TPY) 

State 

NOX SO2

2002 2008 Percent 

reduction 2002 2008 Percent reduction 

Illinois ....................................................... 174,246 119,930 31.2 353,699 257,357 27.2 

Indiana ..................................................... 281,146 190,092 32.4 778,868 565,459 27.4 

Iowa .......................................................... 78,956 49,023 37.9 127,847 109,293 14.5 

Kentucky .................................................. 198,598 157,903 21.4 482,653 344,356 28.7 

Michigan ................................................... 132,623 107,623 18.9 342,998 326,500 4.8 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48117 

16For a thorough discussion of VOC emission 

controls and estimates (2002 and 2008) and 

projected (2015, 2020, and 2025) VOC emission 

levels (summertime emissions) in the Chicago area, 

see EPA’s proposed rule for the redesignation of the 

Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard (77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012). We 

observe here that the estimated/projected 

summertime VOC emission reductions in the 

Chicago area also generally reflect reductions in 

annual emissions of VOC in this area. 

TABLE 6—STATEWIDE EGU EMISSIONS FOR 2002 AND 2008—Continued 

(TPY) 

State 

NOX SO2

2002 2008 Percent 

reduction 2002 2008 Percent reduction 

Minnesota ................................................. 86,663 60,230 30.5 101,285 71,926 29.0 

Ohio .......................................................... 370,497 235,049 36.6 1,132,069 709,914 37.3 

Pennsylvania ............................................ 200,909 183,658 8.6 889,765 831,914 6.5 

Wisconsin ................................................. 88,970 47,794 46.3 181,256 129,693 32.1 

Total .................................................. 1,612,708 1,151,302 28.6 4,400,440 3,346,412 24.0 

As can be seen in table 6, the 

implementation of CAIR resulted in 

significant reductions in regional, 

statewide NOX and SO2 emissions from 

EGUs in the states EPA finds are 

contributing significantly to the annual 

PM2.5 concentrations in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area. Since 

CAIR remains in place until EPA can 

replace it with an acceptable new 

region-wide emissions control rule, we 

believe these emission reductions to be 

permanent and enforceable. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, primary PM2.5 and precursor 

PM2.5 emissions (SO2 and NOX) have 

significantly decreased between 2002 

and 2008 in the Chicago area and in 

states with EGU emissions significantly 

impacting the annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Chicago area. 

b. VOC and Ammonia Emission 

Reductions 

For several reasons, we believe that 

VOC emission reductions in the Chicago 

area and in upwind states have also 

contributed to the observed 

improvement in annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Chicago area and 

in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN 

area as a whole. In addition, for several 

reasons, we also believe that changes in 

ammonia emissions have not 

significantly impacted the observed 

annual PM2.5 concentrations in these 

areas. 

First, as noted elsewhere in this 

proposed rule in EPA’s discussion of 

section 189(e) of the CAA, VOC 

emissions in the Chicago area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants.16 Second, total 

ammonia emissions throughout the 

Chicago area are very low, estimated to 

be 9,885.71 TPY in 2002. See table 12 

below. This amount of ammonia 

emissions appears especially small in 

comparison to the total amounts of SO2, 

NOX, and even direct PM2.5 emissions in 

the area in 2002. Third, as described 

below, available information shows that 

no PM2.5 precursor, including VOC and 

ammonia, is expected to increase over 

the maintenance period so as to 

interfere with or undermine the state’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

c. Conclusions Regarding Emission 

Reductions Between 2002 and 2005 in 

the Chicago Area 

In summary, emissions data provided 

by the state support the conclusion that 

significant reductions in the emissions 

of SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, and VOC 

occurred in the Chicago area between 

2002 and 2008. During the same period, 

emissions of ammonia are believed to 

have had minimal impact on PM2.5

concentrations in the Chicago area. We 

believe that the emission reductions of 

the significant PM2.5 precursors and 

primary PM2.5 in the Chicago area and 

in upwind states are responsible for the 

observed improvement in annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area. For the reasons set 

forth above, we conclude that the 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Chicago area can be 

explained on the basis of permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions within 

the Chicago area and in the states 

regulated by CAIR. 

D. Does Illinois have a fully approvable 

PM2.5 maintenance plan pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA for the Chicago 

area? 

In conjunction with Illinois’ request 

to redesignate the Chicago area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, IEPA submitted a SIP revision 

to provide for maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area through 

2025. This maintenance plan 

demonstrates that emissions in the 

Chicago area will remain at or below the 

attainment levels throughout the 

maintenance period and provides for 

corrective action should the 1997 

annual standard be violated or 

threatened in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area during the 

maintenance period. The following 

summarizes the details of the 

maintenance plan and maintenance 

demonstration. 

1. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A of 

the CAA require that states demonstrate 

that the areas to be redesignated will 

continue to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after EPA approves the 

redesignations of the areas to attainment 

of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the 

CAA sets forth the required elements of 

a maintenance plan. Under section 

175A, a state must also commit to 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

within eight years of redesignation to 

provide for maintenance of the standard 

for an additional 10 years after the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency measures with a 

schedule for implementation, as EPA 

deems necessary, to assure prompt 

correction of any future violations of the 

standard. 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

states that a maintenance plan should 

address the following items: (1) The 

attainment emission inventories; (2) a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance of the standard for the 10 

years of the maintenance period; (3) a 

commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network; (4) the factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the standard; 

and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the standard. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48118 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2. Attainment Inventory 

As noted above, IEPA developed NOX, 

SO2, and primary PM2.5 emission 

inventories for 2008, one of the years 

used to demonstrate monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. The 2008 emissions are 

summarized in tables 3 through 5 above. 

3. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

IEPA submitted a maintenance plan 

dated August 17, 2011, which includes 

a demonstration of maintenance for the 

Chicago area, as required by section 

175A of the CAA. This demonstration 

shows maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard through 2025 by 

showing that current and future 

emissions of NOX, SO2, and primary 

PM2.5 emissions for the Chicago area 

will remain at or below attainment year 

emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration may be based on such an 

emissions inventory approach. See Wall 

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

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099– 

53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 

25430–25432 (May 12, 2003). 

Illinois used emission projections for 

2015, 2020, and 2025 to demonstrate 

maintenance. For each of the applicable 

PM2.5 precursors (pollutants), IEPA 

prepared emission estimates for the 

same source sectors used by IEPA for 

the 2008 attainment year. IEPA assumed 

biogenic emissions to remain constant, 

and did not consider them in the 

maintenance demonstration analysis. 

IEPA used EPA’s MOVES mobile 

source model and projected traffic levels 

and other related mobile source factors 

to estimate on-road mobile source 

emissions for the maintenance 

demonstration years. The projected onroad mobile source emissions assume 

the continued use of reformulated 

gasoline, the continued phase-in of the 

Tier 2 motor vehicle emission 

standards, and the operation of an 

enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program in the Chicago 

area. Total VMT for 2015, 2020, and 

2025 were derived by assuming that the 

VMT will increase at a rate of 1.5 

percent per year after 2008. The 2008 

and 2025 on-road mobile source 

emissions were used to establish MVEBs 

for the Chicago area. See the additional 

discussion of the MVEBs in section V.E 

of this proposed rule. 

Chicago area point and area source 

emissions for 2015, 2020, and 2025 were 

estimated using the 2008 attainment 

year emissions and growth factors 

appropriate for each source category. 

Off-road emission projections were 

developed using the growth factors 

contained in EPA’s NONROAD model. 

Tables 7 through 9 summarize the 

projected NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5

emissions for 2008, 2015, 2020, and 

2025 by source sector. 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 NOX EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE CHICAGO

AREA

Source sector 2008 2015 2020 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point Sources ....................................................................... 35,939 27,082 28,500 29,638 ¥6,301 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 32,318 32,997 33,277 33,687 1,369 

On-Road Mobile ................................................................... 127,951 68,491 40,599 38,456 ¥89,495 

Off-Road Mobile ................................................................... 51,184 35,927 28,271 27,173 ¥24,011 

Totals ............................................................................ 247,391 164,497 130,648 128,954 ¥118,437 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 SO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE CHICAGO

AREA

Source sector 2008 2015 2020 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point Sources ....................................................................... 90,706 58,092 53,452 56,310 ¥34,396 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 4,109 4,266 4,332 4,407 298 

On-Road Mobile ................................................................... 537 504 477 488 ¥49 

Off-Road Mobile ................................................................... 779 866 919 1,215 436 

Totals ............................................................................ 96,130 63,727 59,180 62,420 ¥33,710 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 PRIMARY PM2.5 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR

THE CHICAGO AREA

Source sector 2008 2015 2020 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point Sources ....................................................................... 3,859 4,169 4,391 4,604 745 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 9,189 9,676 10,009 10,377 1,188 

On-Road Mobile ................................................................... 5,100 3,071 2,119 2,067 ¥3,033 

Off-Road Mobile ................................................................... 3,653 2,995 2,398 2,267 ¥1,386 

Totals ............................................................................ 21,800 19,911 18,918 19,316 ¥2,484 

Comparison of the 2008 and projected 

2015, 2020, and 2025 emissions 

demonstrates that future NOX, SO2, and 

primary PM2.5 emissions through 2025 

will remain below the 2008 levels in the 

Chicago area. 

In a September 27, 2011 proposed 

rulemaking (76 FR 59600, 59610) for the 

redesignation of Lake and Porter 

Counties, Indiana (the Indiana portion 

of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN 

area) to attainment of the 1997 annual 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48119 

PM2.5 standard, we also evaluated the 

2008, 2015, 2020, and 2025 emissions 

for the entire Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area. Table 10 repeats the 

summary of the area’s emission totals as 

documented in the September 27, 2011 

proposed rule. 

TABLE 10—CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, IL–IN AREA 2008 AND PROJECTED EMISSION TOTALS

[TPY] 

Year NOX SO2 Primary PM2.5

2008 ................................................................................................................................. 278,649.74 152,367.68 32,069.68 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 187,557.31 107,285.55 25,128.65 

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 156,231.26 98,829.89 24,729.26 

2025 ................................................................................................................................. 149,198.79 99,453.24 25,074.10 

Tables 7 through 10 show that 

emissions will remain at or below 2008 

emission levels in the Chicago area and 

in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN 

area through 2025. Therefore, the state 

has demonstrated maintenance of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard for a period 

extending ten years and beyond from 

the time EPA may be expected to 

complete rulemaking on the state’s 

PM2.5 redesignation request. 

4. Monitoring Network 

Illinois commits to continue 

monitoring PM2.5 levels according to the 

EPA-approved monitoring plan, as 

required to ensure maintenance of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. If changes 

are needed in the PM2.5 monitoring 

network, the IEPA will work with the 

EPA to ensure the adequacy of the 

monitoring network. 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Chicago 

area and in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area depends, in part, on 

the state’s efforts toward tracking 

indicators of continued attainment 

during the maintenance period. Illinois’ 

plan for verifying continued attainment 

of the standard in these areas consists of 

continued ambient PM2.5 monitoring in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58 and continued tracking of 

emissions through periodic updates of 

PM2.5, SO2 and NOX emissions 

inventories for the Chicago area, as 

required by the Federal Consolidated 

Emission Reporting Rule (codified at 40 

CFR 51 subpart A). 

6. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that might occur after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were controlled through the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Illinois has adopted a contingency 

plan for the Chicago area to address 

possible future violations of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. The contingency 

plan provides for two levels of action. 

A Level I response would be triggered 

whenever: (1) The highest monitored 

PM2.5 concentration in any year at any 

monitoring station in the Chicago 

maintenance area exceeds 15 mg/m3; or 

(2) the Chicago maintenance area’s total 

PM2.5, SO2 or NOX emissions increase 

more than 5 percent above the 2008 

emissions. A Level I trigger will result 

in an evaluation of current PM2.5 air 

quality and/or emission trends to 

determine if adverse emission trends are 

likely to continue. If so, Illinois will 

determine what and where controls may 

be required, as well as level of 

emissions reductions needed, to avoid a 

violation of the NAAQS. The study will 

be completed within 9 months. If 

necessary, control measures will be 

adopted within 18 months of 

determination of the Level I triggering 

and implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable, taking into consideration 

the ease of implementation and the 

technical and economic feasibility of the 

selected measures. 

A Level II response will be triggered 

if a violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard occurs at any monitoring 

station in the Chicago maintenance area. 

If triggered, Illinois will conduct an 

analysis to determine appropriate 

measures to address the cause of the 

violation. Analysis will be completed 

within six months. Selected control 

measures will be implemented within 

18 months of the violation. Potential 

control measures contained in Illinois’ 

contingency plan include the following: 

• Illinois’ Multi-Pollutant Program for 

EGUs 

• NOX RACT 

• Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

• Broader geographic applicability of 

existing control measures 

• Tier 2 vehicle standards and low 

sulfur fuel standard 

• Heavy duty diesel standards and low 

sulfur diesel fuel standard 

• High-enhanced vehicle inspection/ 

maintenance (On-board Diagnostics II 

(OBDII)) 

• Federal railroad/locomotive standards 

• Federal commercial marine vessel 

engine standards 

• Architectural/Industrial Maintenance 

(AIM) coatings 

• Commercial and consumer products 

rules 

• Aerosol coating rules, and 

• Portable fuel container rules. 

Note that some of these rules are Federal 

rules and are already being 

implemented. If a future violation of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 occurs, IEPA will 

analyze the future emission reduction 

potential from these rules to determine 

if these future emission reductions will 

be sufficient to mitigate the PM2.5 air 

quality problem. 

EPA believes that Illinois’ 

contingency plan satisfies the pertinent 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

7. Provision for Future Update of the 

Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Illinois commits to submit to EPA 

an updated maintenance plan eight 

years after EPA redesignates the Chicago 

area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

standard. The revised maintenance plan 

is intended to cover an additional 10- 

year period beyond the initial 10-year 

maintenance period. As required by 

section 175A of the CAA, Illinois has 

also committed to retain and implement 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48120 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the emission control measures 

contained in the maintenance plan. If 

changes are needed in the control 

measures, Illinois commits to submit 

these changes to EPA as requested SIP 

revisions and to demonstrate that these 

emission control measure revisions will 

not interfere with the maintenance of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN area. 

Finally, the state affirms that Illinois 

has the legal authority to implement and 

enforce the requirements of the 

maintenance plan pursuant to the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Act. 

8. CAIR and CSAPR 

a. Background—Effect of the August 21, 

2012, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 

FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace 

CAIR, which has been in place since 

2005. See 76 FR 59517. CAIR requires 

significant reductions in emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from EGUs to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants 

and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in 

the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The 

D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded that rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

CSAPR included regulatory changes 

to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and 

CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 

and beyond. See 76 FR 48322. Although 

the Chicago area redesignation request 

and Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance plan 

rely on emission reductions associated 

with CAIR, EPA is proposing to approve 

the redesignation request and PM2.5

maintenance plan based, in part, on the 

fact that CAIR is to remain in place until 

it is replaced by an acceptable interstate 

transport control rule. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer City (No. 11–1302 and 

consolidated cases). The Court also 

indicated that EPA was expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until judicial review of CSAPR 

was completed. 

As discussed above, on August 21, 

2012, the D.C. Circuit issued the 

decision in EME Homer City to vacate 

and remand CSAPR and ordered EPA to 

continue administrating CAIR ‘‘pending 

. . . development of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City at 38. 

The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for 

rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and 

other parties have filed petitions for 

certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On 

June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court 

granted the petitions for certiorari. 

Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to 

act in accordance with the EME Homer 

City opinion until the U.S Supreme 

Court issues its decision. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment and 

maintenance is due to emission 

reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is 

here determining that those reductions 

are sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes of CAA 

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

EPA promulgates a valid replacement 

rule to substitute for CAIR. As noted 

above, the Chicago area PM2.5

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan relies on the emission reductions 

from CAIR. Illinois adopted CAIR 

emission control rules in 2007 and 

required compliance with these rules in 

two phases, one with compliance 

required by 2009, and the final phase 

with compliance required by 2015. 

CAIR was, thus, in place and getting 

emission reductions when the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL–IN area was 

monitoring attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard during the 2008– 

2011 period. 

To the extent that Illinois is relying on 

CAIR in its maintenance plan to support 

continued attainment into the future, 

the recent directive from the D.C. 

Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that 

the emission reductions associated with 

CAIR will be permanent and enforceable 

for the necessary time period. EPA has 

been ordered by the Court to develop a 

new rule to address interstate transport 

to replace CSAPR and the opinion 

makes clear that after promulgating that 

new rule EPA must provide states an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to 

implement that rule. Thus, CAIR will 

remain in place until EPA has 

promulgated a final rule through a 

notice-and- comment rulemaking 

process, states have had an opportunity 

to draft and submit SIPs in response to 

it, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to 

determine if they can be approved, and 

EPA has taken action on the SIPs, 

including promulgating FIPs if 

appropriate. The Court’s clear 

instruction to EPA is that it must 

continue to administer CAIR until a 

valid replacement exists, and thus EPA 

believes that CAIR emission reductions 

many be relied upon until the necessary 

actions are taken by EPA and states to 

administer CAIR’s replacement. 

Furthermore, the Court’s instruction 

provides an additional backstop: by 

definition, any rule that replaces CAIR 

and meets the Court’s direction would 

require upwind states to have SIPs that 

eliminate any significant contributions 

to downwind nonattainment and 

prevent interference with maintenance 

in downwind areas. 

Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated 

reliance interests include the interests of 

states that reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR which brought certain 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with the NAAQS. If EPA were 

prevented from relying on reductions 

associated with CAIR in redesignation 

actions, states would be forced to 

impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the Court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for regulatory purposes, 

such as redesignations. Following 

promulgation of the replacement rule 

for CSAPR, EPA will review existing 

SIPs as appropriate to identify whether 

there are any issues that need to be 

addressed. 

b. Maintenance Plan Precursor 

Evaluation Resulting From Court 

Decisions 

In this proposal EPA is also 

considering the impact of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), on the 

maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the 

CAA. EPA believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. Based on documentation 

provided by the state and supporting 

information, EPA believes that the 

maintenance plan for the Chicago area 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48121 

need not include any additional 

emission reductions of VOC or ammonia 

in order to provide for continued 

maintenance of the standard. 

Emissions inventories used in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA– 

452/R–12–005, December 2012) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC and 

ammonia emissions in the Chicago area 

are projected to decrease by 59,126 TPY 

and 583 TPY, respectively between 2007 

and 2020. See table 11 below. While the 

RIA emissions inventories are only 

projected out to 2020, there is no reason 

to believe that these downward trends 

would not continue through 2025. 

Given that the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area is already attaining 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, even 

with the current levels of VOC and 

ammonia emissions in the Chicago area, 

the downward trends in VOC and 

ammonia would be consistent with 

continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. Even if ammonia 

emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, 

the overall emission reductions 

projected in SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, 

and VOC would be sufficient to offset 

the increase in annual PM2.5

concentrations resulting from the 

increase in ammonia emissions. For 

these reasons, EPA believes that local 

ammonia (and VOC) emissions will not 

increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard during 

the maintenance period. 

TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR

THE CHICAGO AREA BASED ON RIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Source sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Fires ......................................................... 442 442 0 31 31 0 

Area .......................................................... 109,052 107,202 ¥1,850 8,865 9,135 270 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 46,784 25,007 ¥21,777 58 71 13 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 53,688 19,133 ¥34,555 2,525 1,363 ¥1,162 

Point ......................................................... 16,101 15,157 ¥944 332 628 296 

Totals ................................................ 226,067 166,941 ¥59,126 11,811 11,228 ¥583 

E. Has Illinois adopted acceptable 

MVEBs for the PM2.5 maintenance 

period? 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Chicago area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans and Transportation 

Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be 

evaluated for conformity with SIPs. 

Consequently, Illinois’s PM2.5

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan provide MVEBs, conformance with 

which will assure that motor vehicle 

emissions are at or below levels that can 

be expected to provide for attainment 

and maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. Illinois’ redesignation 

request includes mobile source emission 

budgets for NOX and primary PM2.5 for 

2008 and 2025. Table 12 shows the 2008 

and 2025 MVEBs and 2025 ‘‘safety 

margins’’ (see discussion below) for the 

Chicago area. Table 12 also shows the 

estimated 2008 and 2025 mobile source 

emissions for the Chicago area. Illinois 

did not provide MVEBs for SO2 because 

it concluded, consistent with EPA’s 

presumptions regarding this PM2.5

precursor, that emissions of this 

pollutant from motor vehicles are not 

significant contributors to the Chicago 

area’s PM2.5 air quality problem. 

TABLE 12—2008 AND 2025 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA

[TPY] 

Year 

Estimated emissions Safety margin Motor vehicle emission 

budgets 

Primary 

PM2.5 NOX Primary 

PM2.5 NOX Primary 

PM2.5 NOX

2008 ......................................................... 5,100 127,951 — — 5,100 127,951 

2025 ......................................................... 2,067 38,456 310 5,768 2,377 44,224 

Table 12 shows substantial decreases 

in on-road mobile source NOX and 

primary PM2.5 emissions from 2008 to 

2025. These emission reductions are 

expected because newer vehicles subject 

to more stringent emission standards are 

continually replacing older, higher 

emitting vehicles. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2008 and 2025 MVEBs for 

the Chicago area into the SIP because, 

based on our review of the submitted 

PM2.5 maintenance plan, we have 

determined that the maintenance plan 

and MVEBs meet EPA’s criteria found in 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) for determining that 

MVEBs are adequate for use in 

transportation conformity 

determinations and are approvable 

because, when considered together with 

the submitted maintenance plan’s 

projected emissions, they provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL–IN area. 

2. What are safety margins? 

As noted in table 12, Illinois has 

included safety margins in the 2025 

MVEBs. A safety margin is the amount 

by which the total projected emissions 

from all sources of a given pollutant are 

less than the total emissions which 

would satisfy the applicable 

requirement for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance or 

a portion thereof (40 CFR 93.124(a)). 

The safety margins selected by IEPA 

would provide for a 15 percent increase 

in mobile source emissions for 2025 

above projected levels of these 

emissions. These safety margins are 

acceptable under EPA’s transportation 

conformity requirements because they 

would not cause the total emissions in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48122 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the Chicago area to exceed the 

attainment year levels. 

F. Are the 2002 base year PM2.5-related 

emissions inventories for the Chicago 

area approvable under section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA? 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

states to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of 

emissions for nonattainment areas. For 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas, states have 

typically submitted primary PM2.5, SO2, 

and NOX emission inventories covering 

one of the years of the three-year period 

used to determine the nonattainment 

status of an area. For the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, the annual PM2.5

concentrations for the years of 2001– 

2003 were used to establish the 

nonattainment status of areas. Illinois 

chose to submit PM2.5 emissions for 

2002 for purposes of meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Illinois documented these 

emissions and submitted this 

documentation to EPA in June 2006. 

1. EPA’s Base Year Emissions Inventory 

SIP Policy 

EPA’s SIP policy for base year 

emissions inventories for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard is specified in 

three policy statements. EPA’s main SIP 

requirements for a base year PM2.5- 

related emissions inventory are 

specified in section II.K of EPA’s April 

25, 2007 implementation rule for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard (72 FR 

20586, 20647). This rule requires the 

base year emissions inventory to be 

approved by the EPA as a SIP element 

(72 FR 20647), and requires the 

emissions inventory to cover the 

emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, 

and primary PM2.5 (72 FR 20648). The 

coverage of PM2.5 precursor emissions 

and emissions of primary PM2.5

(primary PM2.5 is also a precursor for 

secondary PM2.5 formation through 

atmospheric reactions) is required under 

40 CFR part 51 subpart A and 40 CFR 

51.1008 (72 FR 20648). Detailed 

emissions inventory guidance for PM2.5

(and other pollutants) is contained in 

EPA’s ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance 

for Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations’’ (August 

2005, EPA–454/R–05–001). Finally, a 

November 18, 2002 policy 

memorandum titled ‘‘2002 Base Year 

Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr 

Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze 

Programs’’ recommends that the PM2.5- 

based emissions inventory be developed 

for a base year of 2002. It is noted that 

IEPA has generally followed all of these 

guidelines in the development of the 

base year emissions inventory for the 

PM2.5 SIP. 

2. 2002 Base Year PM2.5-Related 

Emission Inventories for the Chicago 

Area 

Illinois documented the 2002 primary 

PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and 

CO emissions in a June 2006 document 

titled ‘‘Illinois Base Year Particulate 

Matter and Haze Inventory for 2002.’’ 

This document covers emissions for the 

entire state of Illinois, and summarizes 

the emissions by source type and major 

source category for the PM2.5

nonattainment areas of Chicago and 

Metro-East St. Louis. 

Emissions data for point, area, onroad mobile, off-road mobile, and 

biogenic emission sources were 

developed for the 2002 emissions 

inventories by the IEPA. The primary 

sources of data for point sources were 

AERs submitted by individual source 

facilities and source permit files. The 

June 2006 emissions document covers 

in detail the derivation of emissions for 

each source type identified as a point 

source. Table 3–1 (page 34) of Illinois’ 

June 2006 document includes the point 

source emission totals by county for 

each of the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

The Chicago area point source emission 

totals are summarized in table 13 below. 

Area source emissions were generally 

derived by multiplying source categoryspecific emission factors by certain 

indicator levels of source activity 

(source surrogates), such as county 

populations, employment estimates, and 

commodity sales estimates. The 

emission estimation techniques for each 

source category are thoroughly 

documented in the June 2006 document. 

The June 2006 document estimates the 

county-specific emissions by pollutant 

and by source type. 

As discussed above, IEPA used EPA’s 

NONROAD model to estimate 2002 offroad mobile source emissions for all 

non-road mobile source types except: (1) 

Railroad locomotives; (2) aircraft 

operations (including aircraft auxiliary 

power units, landings, takeoffs, and 

other aircraft operating modes); and, (3) 

commercial marine vessels. For the 

three source types not covered by 

NONROAD modeling, Illinois obtained 

source activity data and emissions from 

the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium, who contracted with 

several consultants to derive emissions 

specific to the Chicago, Metro-East St. 

Louis and remaining areas in the state 

of Illinois. 

IEPA used emission factors generated 

from EPA’s MOBILE6 computer model 

and VMT and vehicle speeds by 

roadway facility type (or functional 

class), freeway, arterial, etc., supplied 

by the local planning agency (Chicago 

Area Transportation Study and IDOT for 

the Chicago area) to estimate 2002 onroad mobile source emissions. IEPA also 

used vehicle age and type distribution 

data supplied by IDOT. The vehicle 

activity information was derived for 

each county to allow the determination 

of emissions by county. IEPA summed 

up VMT and vehicle emissions for each 

month of 2002 to determine annual onroad mobile source emissions by 

county. All MOBILE6 inputs and VMT 

levels were thoroughly documented. In 

addition to on-road emissions, IEPA 

also calculated stage II refueling 

(refueling of vehicles) emissions for the 

Chicago area. 

Table 13 (taken from Table B–1 in 

Appendix B of IEPA’s June 2006 

document shows the 2002 primary 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions 

totals by major source category for the 

Chicago area. 

TABLE 13—2002 FINE PARTICULATE AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA (TPY) DOCUMENTED IN

ILLINOIS’ JUNE 2006 PM2.5 EMISSIONS DOCUMENTATION

Soure type Ammonia NOX Primary PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Point Sources ....................................................................... 143.70 54,049.62 2,766.61 121,597.92 21,190.70 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 3,708.77 32,302.14 22,356.04 3,290.25 89,090.21 

On-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 5,986.95 167,619.73 3,070.58 3,850.04 59,599.97 

Off-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 46.29 87,426.24 4,834.30 3,742.62 53,272.30 

Totals ............................................................................ 9,885.71 341,397.73 33,027.53 132,480.83 223,153.18 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48123 

After IEPA compiled the June 2006 

document, IEPA revised the 2002 onroad mobile source emissions using 

EPA’s MOVES mobile source emissions 

model. The derivation of the 2008 onroad mobile source emissions using 

MOVES is documented in the August 

17, 2011, draft of IEPA’s maintenance 

plan for the Chicago area. In this same 

document, IEPA indicates that the 2002 

base year on-road mobile source 

emissions were recalculated using the 

same techniques. The 2002 emissions 

(including the MOVES-based on-road 

mobile source emissions) for the 

Chicago area are summarized in tables 

3, 4, and 5 above. 

We find that the state has thoroughly 

documented the 2002 emissions for 

primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 

the Chicago area. We also find that 

Illinois has used acceptable techniques 

and supporting information to derive 

these emissions. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 base 

year emissions inventory for the 

Chicago area for purposes of meeting the 

emission inventory requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these actions 

merely propose to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and do 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law and 

the CAA. For that reason, these 

proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: July 22, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18948 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 42 

[FAR Case 2012–028; Docket 2012–0028; 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AM40 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Contractor Comment Period, Past 

Performance Evaluations 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement provisions of law limiting 

the periods allowed for contractor 

comments on past performance 

evaluations and making past 

performance evaluations available to 

source selection officials sooner. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat at one of the addressees 

shown below on or before October 7, 

2013 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2012–028 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2012–028’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ 

that corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2012– 

028’’. Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2012– 

028’’ on your attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F 

Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20405–0001. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR Case 2012–028, in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1