[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48103-48123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18948]


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

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: [email protected].
     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

[[Page 48104]]

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 
[email protected].

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

[[Page 48105]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Generally NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia 
(NH3), and primary PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ([micro]g/m\3\) of ambient air, based on a three-year 
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 [micro]g/m\3\, 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 [micro]g/m\3\ (2006 annual 
PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 
standard to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, 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 Chicago-Gary-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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 48106]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Preliminary data for 2012 show that the Chicago-Gary-Lake 
County, IL-IN area continues to attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard through 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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               14.3            11.9            11.1            12.3            11.3            11.3
                                 Edison.
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-Gary-Lake 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--Commonwealt            12.4            11.8            11.6            11.6
                             h Edison.
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

[[Page 48107]]

 
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-Gary-Lake 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.

[[Page 48108]]

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 Chicago-Gary-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

[[Page 48109]]

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-Gary-Lake 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NSR program controls the growth and permitting of major 
source emissions in nonattainment areas.
    \5\ PSD requirements control the growth of new source emissions 
in areas designated as attainment for a NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Federally-supported 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

[[Page 48110]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Applicable 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 48111]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sierra 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request 
is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 48112]]

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has, for many years, interpreted 
attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining 
the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, and contingency measures.

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Sec.  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

[[Page 48113]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, 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).
    \15\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Chicago-Gary-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.

[[Page 48114]]

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 non-road 
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 non-road 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 spark-ignition 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-Gary-Lake 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

[[Page 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 
Chicago-Gary-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 Chicago-Gary-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

[[Page 48116]]

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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                          Source sector                                2002            2008          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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                          Source sector                                2002            2008          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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                          Source sector                                2002            2008          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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX                                             SO2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          State                                                               Percent                                         Percent
                                                               2002            2008          reduction         2002            2008          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

[[Page 48117]]

 
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 Chicago-Gary-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Chicago-Gary-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.

[[Page 48118]]

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 on-road 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
          Source sector                2008            2015            2020            2025          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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
          Source sector                2008            2015            2020            2025          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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
          Source sector                2008            2015            2020            2025          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

[[Page 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 [micro]g/m\3\; 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

[[Page 48120]]

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 Chicago-Gary-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

[[Page 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                           Ammonia
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Source sector                                                         Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Estimated emissions                Safety margin              Motor vehicle emission
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------             budgets
                          Year                                                                                           -------------------------------
                                                           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

[[Page 48122]]

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, on-road 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 
category-specific 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 
off-road 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 on-road 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 on-road 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48123]]

    After IEPA compiled the June 2006 document, IEPA revised the 2002 
on-road mobile source emissions using EPA's MOVES mobile source 
emissions model. The derivation of the 2008 on-road 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