```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48062-48071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19556]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0666; FRL-9712-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Illinois; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request from the State of Illinois to 
redesignate the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 
Illinois-Indiana (IL-IN) area (the Greater Chicago area) to attainment 
of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 
or standard). The Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area includes 
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

[[Page 48063]]

McHenry, and Will Counties and portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose 
Lake Townships) and Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties. The Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted this request on July 
23, 2009, and supplemented its request on September 16, 2011. In 
addition to approval of Illinois' ozone redesignation request, EPA is: 
(1) Approving the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard through 2025 and the State's 2002 Volatile Organic Compound 
(VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emission inventories, as revisions to 
the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Illinois portion 
of the Greater Chicago area; and (2) approving and finding adequate the 
State's 2008 and 2025 VOC and NOx Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 
(MVEBs).

DATES: This final rule is effective August 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No. 
EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0666. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket material is available either 
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty, 
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, doty.edward@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this rule?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
III. What actions is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this rule?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone 
standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (85 parts per billion (ppb) or 
higher exceeds the standard). EPA published a final rule designating 
and classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 
2004 (69 FR 23857). In that rulemaking, the Greater Chicago area was 
designated as nonattainment for the ozone standard. This area was 
classified as a moderate nonattainment area under subpart 2 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).
    On July 23, 2009, IEPA requested redesignation of the Illinois 
portion of the Greater Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard based on ozone data for the period of 2006-2008. On 
September 16, 2011, IEPA supplemented the original ozone redesignation 
request, submitting ozone data for the period of 2008-2010, revising 
the mobile source emission estimates using EPA's on-road mobile source 
emissions model, MOVES, and extending the demonstration of maintenance 
of the ozone standard through 2025, with new MVEBs, but without 
emission reductions resulting from implementation of EPA's Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR).
    On March 12, 2010, EPA issued a final rulemaking determining that 
the entire Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area had attained the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS based on three years of complete, quality-assured 
ozone data for the period of 2006-2008, and continuing through 2009 \1\ 
(75 FR 12088). On May 11, 2010, EPA issued a final rulemaking 
redesignating the Indiana portion (Lake and Porter Counties) of the 
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS (75 FR 26118).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
based on quality assured ozone data for 2010. See February 9, 2012, 
proposed rule (77 FR 6743).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 9, 2012 (77 FR 6743), EPA issued a notice of rulemaking 
proposing to approve Illinois' request to redesignate the Illinois 
portion of the Greater Chicago area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard, as well as proposing to approve Illinois' ten-year 
ozone maintenance plan for the area, VOC and NOx MVEBs, and 2002 VOC 
and NOx emission inventories as revisions of the Illinois SIP. This 
proposed rulemaking sets forth the basis for determining that Illinois' 
redesignation request meets the CAA requirements for redesignation for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Complete, quality-assured air quality 
monitoring data in the Greater Chicago area for 2008-2010 and for 2009-
2011 show that this area is currently attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Preliminary data available to date for 2012 are consistent with 
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The quality-
assured ozone data in the Greater Chicago area were discussed in the 
February 9, 2012, proposed rule for this rulemaking (77 FR 6747). Table 
1 summarizes the 2009-2011 annual fourth high ozone concentrations and 
2009-2011 ozone design values (three-year averages of the annual fourth 
high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations) for each of the 
monitoring sites in the Greater Chicago area. These and other ozone 
data for the Greater Chicago area are also documented at EPA's Web site 
http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.

 Table 1--Annual Fourth High Ozone Concentrations and Three-Year Averages for 2009-2011 (Concentrations in parts
                                               per million (ppm))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Three-year
    Site Name (site code)           County            2009            2010             2011           average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4500 W. 123rd Street, Alsip    Cook............           0.069           0.073  0.071..........           0.071
 (170310001).
3300 E. Cheltenham, Chicago    Cook............           0.065           0.074  0.079..........           0.073
 (170310032).
Wacker At Adams, Chicago       Cook............           0.076           0.077  No Data........  ..............
 (170310042).
5720 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago  Cook............           0.060           0.071  0.074..........           0.068
 (170310064).
1000 E. Ohio, Chicago          Cook............           0.062           0.075  0.074..........           0.070
 (170310072).
7801 Lawndale, Chicago         Cook............           0.067           0.068  0.073..........           0.069
 (1703100760.

[[Page 48064]]

 
6545 W. Hurlbut, Chicago       Cook............           0.064           0.070  0067...........           0.067
 (170311003).
729 Houston, Lemont            Cook............           0.067           0.073  0.069..........           0.070
 (170311601).
1820 S. 51st Avenue, Cicero    Cook............           0.067           0.068  0.072..........           0.069
 (170314002).
9511 W. Harrison Street,       Cook............           0.057           0.064  0.065..........           0.062
 Chicago (170314007).
750 Dundee Road, Northbrook    Cook............           0.069           0.072  0.076..........           0.072
 (170314201).
531 E. Lincoln, Evanston.....  Cook............           0.064           0.067  0.078..........           0.070
(170317002)..................
Route 53 (170436001).........  DuPage..........           0.059           0.064  0.068..........           0.064
665 Dundee Road, Elgin.......  Kane............           0.068           0.069  0.070..........           0.069
(170890005)..................
Golf and Jackson Streets,      Lake............           0.057           0.074  No Data........  ..............
 Waukegan (170971002).
Illinois Beach State Park,     Lake............           0.075           0.078  0.076..........           0.076
 Zion (170971007).
First Street and Three Oaks    McHenry.........           0.066           0.065  0.071..........           0.67
 Road, Cary (171110001).
36400 S. Essex Road            Will............           0.063           0.065  0.061..........           0.063
 (171971011).
201 Mississippi Street, Gary   Lake............           0.058           0.064  0.066..........           0.063
 (180890022).
1751 Oliver Street, Whiting    Lake............           0.062           0.069  0.069..........           0.067
 (180890030).
1300 141 Street, Hammond       Lake............           0.065           0.069  0.072..........           0.069
 (180892008).
84 Diana Road, Ogden Dunes     Porter..........           0.067           0.067  0.068..........           0.067
 (181270024).
1000 Wesley/Valparaiso Water   Porter..........           0.064           0.061  0.063..........           0.063
 Department (181270026).
Chiwaukee Prairie, Pleasant    Kenosha.........           0.071           0.081  0.081..........           0.078
 Prairie (550590019).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary background for today's action is contained in EPA's 
February 9, 2012, proposal to approve Illinois' redesignation request, 
and in EPA's March 12, 2010, final rulemaking determining that the area 
has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In these rulemakings, we 
noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm at all ozone 
monitoring sites in an area. See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for 
further information. To support the redesignation of the area to 
attainment of the NAAQS, the area must show attainment based on 
complete, quality-assured data for the most recent three-year period. 
The data completeness requirement, for any given monitoring site, is 
met when the three-year average of days with valid ambient monitoring 
data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 
percent data completeness, as determined in accordance with appendix I 
of 40 CFR part 50. Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate a nonattainment 
area to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data are 
available demonstrating that the area has attained the standard and if 
the State meets all applicable redesignation requirements specified in 
section 107(d)(E) and section 175A of the CAA.
    The February 9, 2012, proposed rule provides a detailed discussion 
of how Illinois' ozone redesignation request meets the CAA 
requirements. Complete, quality-assured and certified air quality 
monitoring data in the Greater Chicago area for 2009-2011 and 
preliminary data available for 2012 show that this area is currently 
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With the final approval of its 
VOC and NOx emission inventories, Illinois has met all CAA requirements 
for redesignation of the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area 
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Illinois has 
demonstrated that attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 
maintained in the Greater Chicago area through 2025 with or without the 
implementation of EPA's CAIR. Finally, Illinois has adopted 2008 and 
2025 MVEBs that are supported by Illinois' ozone maintenance 
demonstration and adopted ozone maintenance plan.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the February 9, 
2012, proposed rule. During the comment period, we received one comment 
set from an individual representing the Sierra Club. These comments are 
summarized and addressed below.
    Comment 1: The commenter argues that it is inappropriate to 
redesignate the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area to 
attainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard when EPA intends to 
designate this area as nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standard, and asserts that EPA is delaying the implementation of the 
2008 8-hour ozone standard.
    Response 1: We disagree with the commenter. The area's status with 
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard is not relevant to the area's 
attainment status under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. It would be 
inappropriate to defer or reject the redesignation of the area under 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on EPA's designation of the area 
under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
    On June 11, 2012, EPA published its designation for the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone standards. 77 FR 34221. 
EPA designated the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area as nonattainment 
with a classification of marginal for the 2008 ozone standards. The 
area's status with respect to the 2008 ozone standards, however, does 
not affect or prevent redesignation of the area to attainment for the 
1997 ozone standard. The 1997 ozone standard currently remains in 
effect, and, thus, EPA continues to evaluate the area's designation 
status with respect to that standard. Until the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard is revoked, it remains in effect and independent of the 2008 
8-hour ozone standards, and EPA continues to evaluate and act upon 
states' redesignation requests with respect to the 1997 ozone standard.
    EPA has in the past continued to redesignate areas under existing 
standards even after the adoption of new standards for the same 
pollutant. After adopting the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA continued 
to redesignate areas for the 1-hour ozone standard

[[Page 48065]]

until the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked. See, for example the 
Cincinnati ozone redesignation for the 1-hour ozone standard, 70 FR 
35946 (June 21, 2005) and the Atlanta ozone redesignation for the 1-
hour ozone standard, 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005).
    Subsequent to the adoption of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and 
designation of areas for this standard, EPA has continued to 
redesignate areas to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 
See, for example, the Detroit, Michigan redesignation, 74 FR 30950 
(June 29, 2009); Clearfield and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania 
redesignation, 74 FR 11674 (March 19, 2009); Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 
redesignation, 73 FR 29436 (May 21, 2008); and, Door and Manitowoc 
Counties, Wisconsin redesignation, 75 FR 39635 (July 12, 2010). Also 
see the redesignation of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012).
    Comment 2: The commenter argues that EPA has failed to consider 
ambient monitoring data from 2011 even though Illinois has already 
submitted and certified these data. The commenter asserts that the EPA 
must include these data in its consideration of Illinois' ozone 
redesignation request and provide the public with the opportunity to 
review and comment on these data before making any final decision on 
Illinois' ozone redesignation request.
    Response 2: At the time EPA prepared the proposed rule for 
rulemaking on Illinois' ozone redesignation request, EPA had not yet 
received Illinois' certification of the 2011 ozone data. At the time of 
EPA's proposed redesignation of the area, the 2008-2010 ozone data were 
the most recent three years of State-certified data available to EPA. 
Illinois has subsequently certified its 2011 ozone data for the 
Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area.
    Indiana has certified its 2011 ozone data for the Indiana portion 
of the Greater Chicago area. In addition, Wisconsin has certified the 
2011 ozone data for the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site in Kenosha 
County, generally considered to be the peak ozone design value site 
attributable to emissions in the Greater Chicago area.
    The complete, certified 2011 ozone data, along with ozone data for 
2009 and 2010, show that the Greater Chicago area continues to attain 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The highest 8-hour ozone design value 
for the 2009-2011 period was recorded at the Chiwaukee Prairie 
monitoring site, with a value of 0.077 parts per million. All of these 
data show that the area continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard during the 2009-2011 period. Preliminary ozone data for 2012 
for the Greater Chicago area and for Chiwaukee Prairie are consistent 
with the Greater Chicago area's continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard. EPA has, thus, considered these data, which reflect 
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Although the 
2011 data were not certified at the time of proposal, these data were 
available to the public through EPA's Air Quality System and commenters 
could have reviewed the data and addressed them in comments.
    Comment 3: The commenter asserts that the consideration of the 2011 
data is particularly important because 2008 (the attainment year used 
by the IEPA to document the emissions reduction-basis for the 
attainment of the ozone standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 
area and the base year for the 10-year ozone standard maintenance 
demonstration) was the first year of a major recession. The commenter 
contends that emission reductions leading to the observed air quality 
improvement were the result of temporary economic conditions rather 
than the result of permanent emission reductions.
    Response 3: First, as set forth in EPA's response to comment 2 
above, EPA has considered the complete, quality assured and certified 
monitoring data for the bi-state nonattainment area for 2011. These 
data show that the area has continued to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, and preliminary data for 2012 are consistent with continued 
attainment. A determination of attainment is based solely on air 
quality considerations, and, therefore, underlying economic conditions 
are not relevant to the limited inquiry that results in a 
determination. In another portion of this rulemaking, and with respect 
to a separate and independent criterion for redesignation under section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii), EPA examines whether attainment is due to permanent 
and enforceable emission reductions. See discussion in the proposed 
rulemaking (77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012) and elsewhere in these 
responses to comments.
    The commenter provides no data to demonstrate that the economic 
recession of recent years had any impact on emissions in 2008. The 
commenter merely speculates that there was such an impact. Lacking any 
data to the contrary, we see no reason to assume that the lower 
emissions of 2008 (relative to those of the base nonattainment year of 
2002) were exclusively or predominantly an artifact of temporary 
emission reductions resulting from the economic recession.
    In addition, the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area has continued 
to attain the 1997 ozone standard over an extended period (over a 
number of sequential three-year periods, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-
2010, and now 2009-2011), with general downward trends in ozone design 
values at most monitoring sites in the area (see Table 1 in the 
proposed rule for this rulemaking action, 77 FR 6747). Given the 
downward trend in ozone design values and the ozone design values below 
the 0.085 ppm ozone standard violation level, we see no reason to 
believe that a reversal in the economic situation in this area will 
cause a return to violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in this 
area in the foreseeable future.
    Comment 4 General: The commenter argues that Illinois and EPA have 
failed to comply with the ozone redesignation requirement of section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, which requires that the observed 
improvement in air quality be due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions resulting from the State's implementation of its SIP and 
implementation of applicable Federal air pollution control requirements 
and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The commenter 
argues, in particular, that EPA relied on several emission control 
programs that are not permanent and enforceable. These questioned 
emission controls are specified in the following:
    Comment 4a: The commenter asserts that the NOX SIP call 
is not permanent and enforceable. The commenter notes that EPA found 
that the NOX emission reductions leading to attainment in 
the Greater Chicago area were due, in part, to the implementation of 
the NOX SIP call. The commenter argues that the 
NOX SIP call cannot be assumed to be permanent and 
enforceable because it has been replaced, and, therefore, no longer 
exists. In addition, the NOX SIP call is implemented through 
a cap-and-trade program, which means that no actual NOX 
emission reduction may have been required for any specified source 
upwind of the high ozone areas in the Greater Chicago area. The 
commenter cites a 2009 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 
which the commenter believes held that EPA cannot use cap-and-trade 
programs to satisfy an area-specific statutory mandate. See NRDC v. 
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    Response 4a: EPA disagrees with the commenter's position that 
emission reductions associated with the NOX SIP call cannot 
be considered to be

[[Page 48066]]

permanent and enforceable. The commenter's first argument--that the 
NOX emission reductions are not permanent and enforceable 
because the NOX SIP call has been replaced--is based on a 
misunderstanding of the relationship between the CAIR and the 
NOX SIP call. While the CAIR ozone-season trading program 
replaced the ozone-season NOX trading program developed in 
the NOX SIP call (70 FR 25290), nothing in the CAIR relieved 
states of their NOX SIP call obligations. In fact, in the 
preamble to CAIR, EPA emphasized that the states and certain units 
covered by the NOX SIP call but not by CAIR must still 
satisfy the requirements of the NOX SIP call. EPA provided 
guidance regarding how such states could meet these obligations.\2\ In 
no way did EPA suggest that states could disregard their NOX 
SIP call obligations. (70 FR 25290). For NOX SIP call 
states, the CAIR NOX ozone season program provides a way to 
continue to meet the NOX SIP call obligations for electric 
generating units (EGUs) and large non-electric generating units 
(nonEGUs). In addition, the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 
51.905(f) specifically provide that the provisions of the 
NOX SIP call, including the statewide NOX 
emission budgets, continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA guidance regarding the NOX SIP call 
transition to CAIR can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/faq-10.html. EPA guidance regarding the 
NOX SIP call transition for the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR) can be found at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/faqs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the requirements of the NOX SIP call remain 
in force. They are permanent and enforceable as are state regulations 
developed to implement the requirements of the NOX SIP call.
    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's second argument--that the 
emission reductions associated with the NOX SIP call cannot 
be considered permanent and enforceable because the NOX SIP 
call provides for a trading program. There is no support for the 
commenter's argument that EPA must ignore all emission reductions 
achieved by the NOX SIP call simply because the mechanism 
used to achieve the emission reductions is an emissions trading 
program. As a general matter, trading programs establish mandatory caps 
on emissions and permanently reduce the total emissions allowed by 
sources subject to the programs. The emission caps and associated 
controls are enforced through the associated SIP rules or Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs). Any purchase of allowances and increase in 
emissions by a utility necessitates a corresponding sale of allowances 
and results in an emission reduction by another utility. Given the 
regional nature of ozone formation and transport, the emission 
reductions will have an air quality benefit that will compensate, at 
least in part, for the impact of any emission increase.
    In addition, the case cited by the commenter, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 
1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not support the commenter's position. The 
case addressed EPA's determination that the CAA nonattainment area RACT 
requirement was satisfied by the NOX SIP call trading 
program. The court held that, because EPA had not demonstrated that the 
trading program would result in sufficient emission reductions within a 
nonattainment area, its determination that the program satisfied RACT 
was not supported. Id. 1256-58. The court explicitly noted that EPA 
might be able to reinstate the provision providing that compliance with 
the NOX SIP call satisfies NOX RACT for EGUs for 
particular nonattainment areas if, upon conducting a technical 
analysis, it could demonstrate that the NOX SIP call results 
in greater emissions reductions in a nonattainment area than would be 
achieved if RACT-level controls were installed in that area. Id. at 
1258. In this case, EPA's comparison of emissions in 2002 and 2008 in 
this rulemaking necessarily looked only at changes in emissions ``in 
the nonattainment area.'' As such, the commenter's reliance on NRDC v. 
EPA is misplaced.
    Comment 4b: The commenter contends that EPA cannot rely on the 
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to provide permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions because the implementation of this rule 
has been stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. The commenter contends that this stay makes CSAPR 
neither permanent nor enforceable. In addition, the commenter notes 
that CSAPR is to be implemented through a cap-and-trade program, and, 
therefore, as summarized in Comment 4a, CSAPR cannot be relied on to 
produce permanent and enforceable emission reductions. Further, EPA 
cannot take credit for the promise of any emission control program that 
would replace CSAPR should the Court remand or vacate CSAPR.
    Response 4b: Illinois has not relied on CSAPR to demonstrate that 
attainment was due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions or 
to demonstrate that it will maintain the standard. EPA did not credit 
Illinois with NOX emission reductions from the 
implementation of CSAPR for attainment or maintenance of the 1997 ozone 
standard. While CSAPR was listed by the State as a possible contingency 
measure in the State's ozone maintenance plan, EPA did not credit 
Illinois with NOX emission reductions resulting from the 
implementation of CSAPR, nor did the State take credit for any such 
emission reduction when demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 ozone 
standard. As such, the stay of CSAPR is not relevant here.
    In addition, modeling performed by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking 
process also demonstrates that the counties in the Greater Chicago area 
will have ozone levels below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in both 
2012 and 2014 without emission reductions from CSAPR or CAIR, with the 
highest value for any county in the area projected to be 81.1 ppb 
without the implementation of CSAPR/CAIR-based emission controls. See 
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,'' 
Appendix B, pages B-9, B-10, B-11, and B-33, which is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    Although Illinois did list the ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' 
as a possible contingency measure in the ozone maintenance plan, this 
measure is only one of many that may be selected should the contingency 
plan be triggered. EPA has concluded, in its consideration of the ozone 
maintenance plan contingency measures, that there are other contingency 
measures sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 175A of the 
CAA, without the consideration of CSAPR.
    With regard to the commenter's assertion that EPA cannot rely on 
the emission reductions resulting from the implementation of CSAPR 
because CSAPR would be implemented through the application of an 
emissions trading program, see our response to the commenter's similar 
comment with regard to emissions trading under EPA's NOx SIP call in 
the response to comment 4a above. In addition, CSAPR contains assurance 
provisions that guarantee that emission reductions will occur in 
specific states.
    Comment 4c: The commenter asserts that Illinois emission control 
rules are not permanent and enforceable. To support this assertion, the 
commenter argues that Illinois' Consumer Products and Architectural and 
Industrial Coatings (AIM) rules have been adopted only by the State, 
and that, until these rules are approved by the EPA and incorporated 
into the SIP they cannot be relied upon for redesignation.
    Response 4c: EPA in fact finalized approval of Illinois' consumer 
products and AIM rules on June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33659. Thus, the 
commenter's concern

[[Page 48067]]

is moot. Moreover, EPA wishes to note that it is not necessary for 
every change in emissions between the nonattainment year (in this case 
2002) and the attainment year (2008) to be permanent and enforceable. 
Rather, the improvement in air quality necessary for the area to attain 
must be reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions 
in emissions. As discussed in the proposed rule at 77 FR 6754 (February 
9, 2012), Illinois and upwind areas have implemented a number of 
permanent and enforceable regulatory control measures which have 
reduced emissions and have resulted in a corresponding improvement in 
ozone air quality. Even if EPA did not finalize action on Illinois' 
consumer products and AIM rules before completing action on the State's 
ozone redesignation request, these emission reductions are not 
necessary to demonstrate that the improvement in air quality is 
reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions.
    Comment 4d: The commenter asserts that the use of 2008 air quality 
data is inappropriate to demonstrate that the attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard is due to the implementation of permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions. The commenter claims that EPA simply 
documented the changes in emissions between 2002 and 2008 to 
demonstrate that the observed ozone air quality improvement is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions during this period. The 
commenter contends that this is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
    First, the commenter asserts that EPA has done nothing to connect 
the emission changes with air quality impacts. The commenter claims 
that EPA has conducted no analyses to prove that emission reductions 
between 2002 and 2008 have led to reduced ozone concentrations and 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    Second, the commenter argues that using a single attainment year, 
2008, is arbitrary because, as explained in preceding comments, the 
impact of cap-and-trade emission control programs, such as the 
NOX SIP call and CSAPR, can cause emissions to vary over 
time and location as sources buy, sell, and trade emission allowances.
    Third, the commenter characterizes the choice of 2008 is further 
problematic because 2008 marked the beginning of a large economic 
recession in this country. The commenter contends that this resulted in 
decreased electricity demand, decreased automobile, truck, and shipping 
traffic, and decreased factory production. The commenter contends that 
EPA makes the ``unsupported and implicit conclusion'' that monitored 
changes in ozone levels between 2002 and 2008 were due to the 
implementation of permanent and enforceable emission controls rather 
than to changes in meteorology, economic conditions, temporary, or 
voluntary (not enforceable) emission controls. The commenter asserts 
that EPA provides no analysis showing that the recession was not the 
cause of the 2002-2008 emission reduction and observed ozone air 
quality improvement.
    Finally, the commenter argues that EPA has not shown that the 2008 
emissions inventory reflects permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions occurring between 2002 and 2008. The 2008 emissions 
inventory appears to be the ``actual'' or the ``projected'' emissions 
from an unidentified group of sources. The commenter argues that there 
is a significant difference between what sources actually emit and what 
sources are allowed to emit, and that the IEPA and EPA have incorrectly 
assumed that allowable emissions are equal to actual emissions.
    Response 4d: EPA's conclusion here is fully supported by the facts 
and applicable legal criteria. EPA policy \3\ and longstanding practice 
allows states to demonstrate permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions by comparing emissions occurring during the nonattainment 
period (represented by emissions during one of the years in the three-
year period used to designate an area as nonattainment,\4\ in this case 
2002) with emissions occurring during the attainment period 
(represented by emissions during one of the three attainment years, in 
this case 2008, which is part of the three-year period, 2006-2008, in 
which Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area first attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard). In EPA's determination of attainment and proposed 
approval of the redesignation request, EPA considered data for the 
2008-2010 time period, which was then the most recent quality-assured, 
certified three years of data available. See 77 FR 6743, 6746 (February 
9, 2012). Therefore, selecting 2008 as the representative attainment 
year and comparing emissions for this year to those of the 
representative violation year, 2002, is an appropriate and long-
established approach that demonstrates emission reductions in the 
period between the years of nonattainment and attainment. These 
emission reductions, therefore, can be reasonably seen to account for 
the observed air quality improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See September 4, 1992, memorandum from John Calcagni 
entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment,'' pp. 4 and 8-9.
    \4\ The nonattainment designation of the Greater Chicago area 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was based on 2001-2003 ozone 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA has conducted 
no analyses to prove that emission reductions between 2002 and 2008 led 
to reduced ozone concentrations. EPA's analyses included comparison of 
emissions for the representative nonattainment year to the emissions 
for the representative attainment year. This comparison, which 
established the existence of significant emission reductions that 
resulted in attainment, and also linked these emission reductions to 
control measures, is consistent with longstanding practice and EPA 
policy for making such a demonstration. As noted in the proposed 
rulemaking for this redesignation (77 FR 6754, February 9, 2012), the 
State of Illinois documented changes in VOC and NOX 
emissions between 2002 and 2008 in the Illinois portion of the Greater 
Chicago area and the emission control measures that have been 
implemented in the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area. These 
emission control measures resulted from the State's adoption and 
implementation of regulations, including regulations to: Control 
NOX emissions at electric generating utilities and large 
industrial combustion sources under EPA's NOX SIP call; 
control emissions and implement New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAPS), and Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards 
for new sources; control VOC solvent emissions for aerosol coatings and 
AIM coatings and consumer solvents; control vehicle emissions through 
the implementation of enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance; 
control vehicle refueling emissions; and control vehicle evaporative 
emissions through use of low volatility fuels and reformulated 
gasoline. In addition to the State's implementation of state-specific 
emission control measures, Federal emission control measures have also 
been implemented in the Greater Chicago area, including: Tier 2 
emission standards for vehicles; Tier 4 nonroad diesel engine 
standards; marine compression-ignition engine standards; and locomotive 
engine standards. As noted in the February 9, 2012, proposed rule, all 
of these emission controls have been implemented since the 2001-2003 
ozone standard violation period for the Greater Chicago area. 
Therefore, it is

[[Page 48068]]

reasonable to conclude that the emission reductions resulting from 
these emission controls contributed to the attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard in the Greater Chicago area. See the February 9, 
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 6754 and 6759) for discussions of 
implemented emission control measures and how Illinois derived the 2002 
and 2008 VOC and NOX emissions, demonstrating emission 
reductions between the 2002 violation year and 2008 attainment year.
    The State demonstrated that the implementation of these emission 
controls along with other ongoing emission controls resulting from 
continued implementation of the Illinois SIP have led to the emission 
reductions used to demonstrate the emissions reduction in this area. To 
derive the 2008 emissions, the State determined source category-
specific emission control factors associated with the implemented 
emission controls. Note that the State applied emission control factors 
only for those source categories covered by State or Federal emission 
control requirements and for specific sources subject to permanent, 
enforceable source closures. The State took no credit for temporary or 
non-permanent emission reductions resulting from voluntary emission 
control measures or source activity downturn resulting from the current 
downturn in the economy. The source category-specific emission control 
factors, along with source category-specific growth factors, were 
applied to the 2002 base year emissions to project the 2008 emissions. 
Emission reductions resulting from source closures occurring between 
2002 and 2008 and determined to be permanent (including forfeiture of 
source permits) were also considered and factored into the emission 
projections, but produced relatively small emission reductions compared 
to the impacts of implemented emission controls. Since most source 
categories had positive growth factors, almost all projected emission 
reductions can be attributed to the impacts of implemented emission 
controls. Therefore, the State has demonstrated that the derived 
emission reduction that occurred between 2002 and 2008 is due to the 
implementation of emission controls.
    The CAA does not specifically require the use of ozone modeling to 
make a demonstration that the observed ozone air quality improvement is 
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from the 
implementation of emission controls. It has not been the general 
practice of states to do so in demonstrating emission reductions for 
purposes of ozone redesignation requests.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that using emissions 
from a single attainment year is arbitrary due to the year-to-year 
variation in emission levels resulting from the implementation of cap-
and-trade programs. As a general matter, trading programs establish 
mandatory caps on emissions and permanently reduce total emissions 
allowed for sources subject to the programs. The emission caps and 
associated controls are enforced through the associated SIP rules and 
FIPs. Any purchase of emission allowances and increase in emissions by 
a utility necessitates a corresponding sale of emission allowances and 
reduction in emissions by another utility. Given the regional nature of 
ozone formation and transport, the emissions reduction will have an 
ozone air quality benefit that will compensate, at least in part, for 
the impact of any emission increase.
    With respect to NOX SIP call emission reductions within 
the Greater Chicago area, there is no evidence of significant temporal 
variation in emissions levels. In fact, actual emissions from 
NOX SIP call sources in the Chicago area have not varied 
much from year-to-year over the 2003-2011 time period. Some of the 
largest emitters in the Greater Chicago area that are covered by the 
NOX SIP call are operating near full capacity. In addition, 
an analysis of ozone season NOX emission rates and total 
operating hours for all NOX SIP call sources in this area 
shows that annual levels of NOX emission rates (tons per 
hour of operation) have generally trended downward subsequent to 2003 
as a result of the implementation of emission controls.
    While the commenter expressed concerns that an economic downturn 
was responsible for the observed air quality improvement, the commenter 
has made no demonstration that the reduction in emissions and observed 
improvement in air quality is due to an economic recession, changes in 
meteorology, or temporary or voluntary emission reductions. In 
addition, as noted previously, the CAA does not require modeling to 
make any such demonstration. There are no data demonstrating that the 
observed air quality improvement is due to the economic downturn, 
temporary changes in meteorology, or voluntary emission reductions, 
and, as discussed above, EPA's modeling for the CSAPR demonstrates that 
the Greater Chicago area would attain the NAAQS in 2012 and 2014 with 
or without implementation of CAIR, which is place only temporarily. We, 
thus, have no reason to believe that factors other than permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions let to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard in the Greater Chicago area.
    Finally, with regard to consideration of actual versus allowable/
permitted emission levels, longstanding practice and EPA policy allows 
for the use of actual emissions when demonstrating permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions. Sources seldom emit at maximum 
allowable emission levels, and assuming that all sources simultaneously 
operate at maximum capacity would grossly overestimate emission levels. 
For this reason, EPA believes actual emissions are the appropriate 
emission levels to consider when comparing nonattainment year emissions 
with attainment year emissions to demonstrate the basis for 
improvements in peak ozone levels. EPA also notes that the certified 
monitoring data establish that the area has been attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard continuously during the periods of 2006-2008, 2007-
2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011, and that EPA's modeling demonstrates 
that the Greater Chicago area would have attainment air quality in 2012 
and 2014 with or without the implementation of CAIR. Emissions 
reductions have continued during this extended period as the State has 
continued to implement and enforce emission controls in addition to 
those required by CAIR.
    Comment 5: The commenter claims that EPA has not conducted an 
adequate analysis of the effect redesignation to attainment will have 
on attainment and maintenance of other NAAQS under section 110(l) of 
the CAA. The commenter complains that EPA has failed to conduct an 
adequate analysis of the ozone redesignation impacts with respect to 
the 1997 annual fine particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS, the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) NAAQS, the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Response 5: Section 110(l) of the CAA provides in part: ``the 
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision 
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress * * *, or any other applicable 
requirement of this chapter.'' As a general matter, EPA must and does 
consider section 110(l) requirements for every SIP revision, including 
whether the revision would ``interfere with'' any applicable 
requirement. See, e.g., 70 FR 53, 57 (January 3, 2005); 70 FR 17029, 
17033 (April 4, 2005); 70 FR 28429,

[[Page 48069]]

28431 (May 18, 2005); and 70 FR 58119, 58134 (October 5, 2005).
    The Illinois redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard neither revises nor removes any existing 
emission control requirements. On that basis, EPA concludes that the 
redesignation will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any 
of the air quality standards. Moreover, the maintenance plan itself 
demonstrates that the emission emissions of NOX and VOC in 
the Greater Chicago area will remain at or below the attainment year 
(2008) levels through 2025, thus demonstrating non-interference with 
other pollutants, in particular fine pollutants, that are formed 
through reactions and processes involving NOX and/or VOC. In 
addition, contingency measures, if subsequently activated, can be 
selected to ensure non-interference through lowered emission levels.
    The commenter does not provide any information in the comment to 
indicate that approval of this redesignation would have any impact on 
the area's ability to comply with any of the referenced NAAQS. In fact, 
the ozone maintenance plan provided with the State's redesignation 
request demonstrates a decline in VOC and NOX emissions over 
the timeframe of the 10-plus year maintenance period. This reflects the 
fact that the redesignation does not relax any existing emission 
control rules or emission limits, nor will the redesignation alter the 
status quo air quality. The commenter has not explained why the 
redesignation might interfere with attainment of any standard or with 
satisfaction of any other CAA requirement, and EPA finds no basis under 
section 110(l) for EPA to disapprove the SIP revision (ozone 
maintenance plan and emissions inventories) at issue or to disapprove 
the requested ozone redesignation.
    Comment 6: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve Illinois' 
2002 emissions inventory as meeting the emission inventory requirement 
of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA for a number of reasons. In particular, 
the commenter believes that Illinois' mobile source emission 
inventories, based on the use of EPA's MOVES model, does not account 
for the increase VOC and NOX emissions that would result 
from the use of up to 15 percent ethanol content in gasoline recently 
approved by the EPA. The commenter argues that many car and light-duty 
truck emission control systems are not designed to control vehicle 
emissions with blends of 15 percent ethanol (Ethanol 15 or E15). The 
commenter believes that EPA has not accounted for the extra VOC and 
NOX emissions that would result from the use of E15.
    Response 6: First, it is noted that this comment was directed at 
EPA's proposed approval of Illinois' 2002 base period emissions. The 
commenter's concern is not relevant to approval of the 2002 base year 
emission inventories because the EPA-approved use of E15 fuels was not 
in place during 2002. The use of E15 fuels was approved by EPA well 
after 2002. Therefore, the mobile source emissions for 2002 could not 
have reflected the future use of E15 fuels.
    With regard to the use of E15 fuels in later years, it is noted 
that, in 2010 and 2011, EPA granted partial waivers for the use of E15 
fuels in Model Year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles (75 
FR 68094, November 4, 2010 and 76 FR 4662, January 26, 2011). As 
discussed in the waiver decisions, there may be some small emission 
impacts for the use of E15. E15 is expected to cause a small immediate 
emissions increase in NOX emissions. However, due to its 
lower volatility than the E10 fuels currently in use, its use is also 
expected to result in lower evaporative emissions. Other possible 
emissions impacts may be from the misfueling of E15 in vehicles or 
engines for which its use is not approved, i.e., MY 2000 and older 
motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines and vehicles, motorcycles and all 
non-road engines, vehicles, and equipment. EPA has promulgated a 
separate rule dealing specifically with the mitigation of misfueling to 
reduce potential emissions impacts from misfueling (76 FR 44406, July 
25, 2011).
    EPA's partial waiver for E15 is based on extensive studies done by 
the Department of Energy, as well as EPA's engineering assessment, to 
determine the effects on exhaust and evaporative emissions for the 
vehicle fleet prior to and after the partial waiver. The criteria for 
granting the waiver was not that there are no emission impacts for E15, 
but rather that vehicles operating on E15 would not be expected to 
violate their emission standards in-use.
    The E15 partial waivers do not require that E15 be made or sold, 
and it is unclear if and to what extent E15 may even be used in 
Illinois. Even if E15 is introduced into commerce in Illinois, 
considering the likely small and offsetting direction of the emission 
impacts, the limited set of motor vehicles approved for its use, and 
the measures required to mitigate misfueling, EPA believes that any 
potential emission impacts of E15 will be less than the margin of 
safety by which Illinois shows maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard.
    Comment 7: The commenter argues that EPA has not accounted for the 
effects of changes in weather in its analysis of Illinois' ozone 
redesignation request. The commenter asserts that EPA should have 
adjusted monitored ozone levels to account for the varying impacts of 
meteorology. The commenter contends that EPA cannot approve Illinois' 
ozone resignation request without a weather adjusted analysis. In 
addition, the commenter believes that EPA has erred in not considering 
the impacts that climate change will have on ozone formation during the 
maintenance period.
    Response 7: A determination that an area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard is based on an objective review of the air quality 
data for a specified period. There are no provisions in the CAA for 
considering the impacts of changing meteorology and adjusting monitored 
ozone concentrations to reflect a standardized set of meteorological 
data or some historical range of meteorological data. Therefore, we 
disagree with the commenter's argument that EPA should have adjusted 
ozone levels to assess the impacts of meteorology during the attainment 
period versus meteorology more reflective of historical high ozone 
periods. In addition, it should be noted that the very nature of the 
three-year averaging of ozone concentrations used to assess compliance 
with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is used, in part, to negate the 
impacts of year-to-year variations in meteorology on ozone formation.
    By the same reasoning, we also disagree with the commenter that EPA 
must, in the context of a redesignation rulemaking, consider the impact 
of climate change on future ozone formation. While EPA agrees that 
climate change is a serious environmental issue, at this time EPA does 
not believe that an area-specific climate change analysis must occur in 
the context of rulemaking on a redesignation request and maintenance 
plan. Even if EPA chose to make such an assessment, it is virtually 
impossible, especially given the relatively limited spatial and 
temporal focus of a redesignation request and related maintenance plan, 
to project or predict the local meteorological changes that might 
result from climate change. Current modeling uncertainties result in 
conflicting projections of the spatial patterns of future changes in 
meteorological variables and the specific regional distributions of 
future ozone changes across the United States.

[[Page 48070]]

Modeling guidance is not yet available for the type of area-specific 
analysis of effects or climate change on ozone concentrations required 
for SIP planning. EPA, therefore, believes it is premature to require a 
precise mathematical accounting in the SIP process for the effect of 
higher ambient temperatures due to climate change on ozone 
concentrations. EPA is ready to reevaluate this position when the state 
of science and confidence in projection improve. Given the above, at 
this time, EPA is not in a position to forecast the impact climate 
change may have on future ozone considerations with the specificity 
needed for evaluating a state's ozone maintenance demonstration. See 
EPA's similar reasoning in its approval of Kentucky's section 110(a)(1) 
maintenance for Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky, 76 FR 21853 (April 14, 
2011). Finally, EPA notes that the Greater Chicago area has continued 
to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard since the 2006-2008 monitoring 
period, and that its attainment of the standard has withstood the 
challenges of meteorological variability for many years longer than 
required. Elsewhere in this notice, EPA has addressed extensively its 
reasoning for concluding, as required for redesignation, that 
attainment is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, 
rather than to unduly favorable meteorology.

Conclusion of Comment Review and Response

    We conclude that none of the comments discussed above provides a 
basis for precluding EPA from finalizing the actions we proposed on 
February 9, 2012.

III. What actions is EPA taking?

    After reviewing Illinois' ozone redesignation request, EPA has 
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in 
section 107(d)(3)(E) f the CAA. Therefore, EPA is approving the 
redesignation of the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago area to 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving 
Illinois' ozone maintenance plan for the Illinois portion of the 
Greater Chicago area as a revision of the Illinois SIP based on 
Illinois' demonstration that the plan meets the requirements of section 
175A of the CAA. EPA is approving the 2002 VOC and NOX 
emission inventories for the Illinois portion of the Greater Chicago 
area as meeting the requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. 
Finally, EPA is also approving and finding adequate Illinois' 2008 and 
2025 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Illinois portion of the 
Greater Chicago area. For 2008, these MVEBs are 117.23 tons per ozone 
season weekday for VOC and 373.52 tons per ozone season weekday for 
NOX. For 2025, these MVEBs are 48.13 tons per ozone season 
weekday for VOC and 126.27 tons per ozone season weekday for 
NOX.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause 
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This 
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of 
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA 
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective 
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which 
provides that rulemaking activities may become effective less than 30 
days after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption 
or relieves a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an 
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise 
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the 
rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, 
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that 
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes 
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning 
requirements for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. For these 
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action 
to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 
Accordingly, these actions do not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law and the CAA. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and,
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate,

[[Page 48071]]

the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2012. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraphs (mm)(2) and (nn) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  52.726  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (mm) * * *
    (2) Approval--Illinois' 2002 volatile organic compounds and 
nitrogen oxides emission inventories satisfy the emissions inventory 
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act for the Illinois 
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area under 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    (nn) Approval--On July 23, 2009, and September 16, 2011, Illinois 
submitted a request to redesignate the Illinois portion of the Chicago-
Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area to attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. The Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 
County, Illinois-Indiana area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 
McHenry, and Will Counties and portions of Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose 
Lake Townships) and Kendall (Oswego Township) Counties. As part of the 
redesignation request, the State submitted a plan for maintaining the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard through 2025 in the area as required by 
section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the section 175A maintenance 
plan includes a contingency plan. The ozone maintenance plan 
establishes 2008 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Illinois 
portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area of 
117.23 tons per day (tpd) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 
373.52 tpd for nitrogen oxides (NOX). In addition, the 
maintenance plan establishes 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana 
area of 48.13 tpd for VOC and 125.27 tpd for NOX.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.314 is amended by revising the entry for Chicago-Gary-
Lake County, IL-IN in the table entitled ``Illinois--1997 8-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                            Illinois--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Designation \a\                   Classification
               Designated area               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date \1\           Type           Date \1\           Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN:
    Cook County.............................       8/13/2012
    DuPage County...........................  ...............     Attainment.
    Grundy County (part)....................
        Aux Sable Township..................
        Goose Lake Township.................
    Kane County.............................
    Kendall County (part)...................
        Oswego Township.....................
    Lake County.............................
    McHenry County..........................
    Will County.............................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-19556 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```