ACT document also provided a quantitative overview of cleaning solvents
used and a model solvent management system for accounting and tracking
solvent usage. The model solvent management system was provided as a
tool for facilities to use in tracking their solvent usage. The ACT
document also provided a methodology for calculating emissions in a
consistent way.
    Although the industrial cleaning solvent product category includes
a variety of different products with differing VOC contents, and
although these products are used in different ways by a wide range of
industries, we believe that there are two basic approaches to achieve
VOC emission reductions. First, the users of the products can control
emissions through work practices targeted at the activities and sources
of emissions specific to the user's industry (e.g., keeping solvent
containers covered, properly storing and disposing of used shop towels
and solvent, etc.). Second, users can also reduce overall VOC emissions
through solvent substitution (e.g., use of low-VOC, no-VOC, or low-
vapor pressure solvents). Theoretically, solvent substitution could be
achieved at the point of manufacture or at the point of use, but in
practice it is usually the user who selects the solvent or mixture of
solvents to use in the various industrial cleaning operations
throughout a facility. Either individually or in tandem, these two
general approaches are effective strategies to achieve significant
emission reductions from this product category, notwithstanding the
variation in the products, their users, and their specific uses.
3. State and Local Regulations
    Many State and local agencies, including a number of the California
Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), have developed strategies for
reducing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents. Typically,
these strategies include both work practices governing the use of the
products and VOC limits governing the VOC content of the products. A
table identifying and summarizing some of these existing State and
local measures is included in the draft CTG document for this product
category.
    To identify potential control recommendations for the draft CTG,
EPA reviewed the existing State and local regulations governing VOC
emissions from this product category. The review indicated that the

regulations in three of the California AQMDs (South Coast, Bay Area,
and Sacramento) are good models to evaluate, because these rules are
consistent with each other in format and approach, the technical
information developed to support these regulations is readily
available, and these regulations are more current than those of other
jurisdictions. Additionally, several case studies were available from
the California AQMDs pertaining to their rules that help illustrate how
specific facilities achieved VOC reductions and at what cost. Moreover,
many other State and local agencies either have, or are considering,
using the current regulations from the California AQMDs as models for
the format and content their own control strategies. If the California
AQMD strategies are effective, EPA believes that there can be a benefit
to extending these measures to other nonattainment areas and
maintaining nationwide consistency, as appropriate.
    The regulations adopted in the California AQMDs all have
requirements for both work practices and VOC content limits for solvent
cleaning materials. A comparison of the various AQMD regulations
governing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents indicates
that the work practice provisions are similar and require product users
to implement generally accepted practices that have been shown to be
effective in mitigating evaporative losses from solvent storage,
handling, and disposal activities. These work practices are further
discussed in the draft CTG and in section B below.
    Although the work practice requirements are similar among the
AQMDs, the VOC content limits and rule applicability differ somewhat
from District to District. For example, South Coast AQMD Rule 1171
(2005) has a ``general use'' VOC limit of 25 grams VOC per liter of
cleaning material that applies to most industries. In cases where water
based cleaners or low-VOC solvent cleaners cannot be used, however,
South Coast AQMD allows higher limits for a number of specific
industries as provided for in section 1171(c) of their rule.
    By comparison, Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, provides for a
``general use'' limit of 50 grams VOC per liter of cleaning material,
unless emissions are controlled by an emission control system with an
overall abatement efficiency of at least 85 percent. The Bay Area rule
exempts relatively few specific operations (e.g., electrical apparatus
components, electronic components, precision optics, research and
development laboratories, etc.) from the ``general use'' limit (see Bay
Area AQMD's section 8-4-116). In addition, the Bay Area rule exempts
cleaning operations subject to other specific Bay Area AQMD rules.
There are 18 such exemptions listed in Bay Area AQMD's section 8-4-117
(e.g., architectural coating, light and medium duty motor vehicle
assembly plants, plastic parts and products, etc.).
    EPA's review of existing and State and local approaches to reduce
VOC emissions from this product category indicates that strategies that
include both work practices and VOC content limits can be effective and
should be the basis for a CTG under CAA section 183(e).

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The following sections describe recommendations EPA is providing in
the draft CTG document for industrial cleaning solvents, including a
discussion of the recommended control measures and a description of
industries to which these recommendations apply. These recommendations
are discussed in more detail in the draft CTG document, which also
incorporates the entire 1994 ACT document.
1. Control Measures
    Based on our analysis of State and local requirements, primarily
the California AQMD measures, the draft CTG recommends both work
practices and a generally applicable VOC content limit for most
operations modeled after the Bay Area AQMD rule.
a. Work Practices
     The draft CTG recommends practices similar to those required by
the California AQMDs. Specifically, these are: (1) Covering open
containers and used applicators; (2) minimizing air circulation around
cleaning operations; (3) properly disposing of used solvent and shop
towels; and (4) implementing equipment practices that minimize
emissions (e.g., keeping parts cleaners covered, maintenance of
cleaning equipment to repair solvent leaks, etc.).
b. VOC Content Limit
    The draft CTG recommends a generally applicable VOC content limit
of 50 grams VOC per liter (0.42 1b/gal) of cleaning material, unless
emissions are controlled by an emission control system with an overall
abatement efficiency of at least 85 percent. This limit is modeled on
the ``general use'' category of the Bay Area AQMD solvent cleaning
regulations, taking into account the specific exclusions provided for
in the Bay Area AQMD rule and described earlier. In addition to the Bay
Area exclusions, and as discussed earlier, the more stringent South
Coast AQMD ``general use'' limit is accompanied by higher limits for
several individual operations (e.g., cleaning of ultraviolet ink
application equipment, screen printing, cleaning of coating application
equipment, etc.). When developing RACT measures for industrial cleaning
operations, we suggest that State and local agencies consider the
specific industries and operations in their jurisdictions and the
individual requirements of those operations and tailor their rules to
those specific scenarios accordingly. Furthermore, in considering
existing cleaning requirements as bases for specific exemptions from
their general industrial cleaning solvents rules, State and local
agencies should take into account how current those measures are. EPA
believes that more recent rules are likely to be more effective than
older, possibly outdated, rules. We remind the States that the ultimate
determination of whether any specific State or local measures meet any
applicable RACT requirement will occur during the notice and comment
rulemaking process associated with EPA action on SIP submissions.
c. Alternative Vapor Pressure Limit
    In addition to the VOC content limit recommended here, EPA solicits
comment on possible use of a composite vapor pressure limit, for
example, 8 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 degrees Celsius, as (1)
a replacement for the 50 g/l VOC content limit entirely; or (2) an
alternative limit that may be used in lieu of the 50 g/l VOC content
limit for specific operations as determined by the State or local
agency.
    EPA is considering this option because, historically, some State
and local agencies have specified composite vapor pressure limits in
their cleaning requirements. For example some States (e.g., Illinois,
Connecticut, New York, etc.) limit solvents used in cold cleaning to
1.0 mmHg. California's Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
allows a composite vapor pressure of 33 mmHg for solvents used for
cleaning of coating application equipment and other cleanup of uncured
coatings, adhesives, inks, and resins and for cleaning of electronic
and electrical components, medical devices, and aerospace components.
2. Applicability
    In the draft CTG, EPA recommends that, in general, these measures
should have broad applicability to any industrial cleaning operations
that have VOC emissions of at least 6.8 kg/day (15

lb/day), before controls. This level of emissions has been the
applicability threshold for many CTG in the past. Furthermore, it is
consistent with the intent of CAA section 183(e) to address
individually small uses of consumer and commercial products that, in
the aggregate, are significant sources of VOC emissions. We recommend
that, for purposes of determining this threshold, aggregate emissions
from all solvent cleaning activities associated with covered operations
at a given facility are included. As described above, we also recommend
that specific industry category exclusions, similar to the ones
provided for in the Bay Area and South Coast rules but tailored to the
States'' individual situations, accompany the applicability threshold.
    In addition to the exclusions a State or local agency may specify
as a result of the existence of effective measures that address
cleaning operations associated with specific source categories within
its jurisdiction, we recommend that the States exclude from
applicability those cleaning operations in the following categories
listed for regulation under CAA section 183(e): Aerospace coatings,
wood furniture coatings, shipbuilding and repair coatings, flexible
packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials,
letterpress printing materials, flat wood paneling coatings, large
appliance coatings, metal furniture coatings, paper film and foil
coating, plastic parts coatings, miscellaneous metals parts coatings,
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, miscellaneous industrial
adhesives, and auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings.\11\ For
three of these product categories (i.e., aerospace coatings, wood
furniture coatings, and shipbuilding and repair coatings), EPA has
already issued CTGs that address cleaning operations. For the remaining
categories, EPA intends to include control measures for cleaning
associated with these categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is
appropriate for the respective categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA may amend the list and exercise its discretion in
scheduling its actions under CAA section 183(e) in order to achieve
an effective regulatory program. Should EPA revise the list in the
future, these categories could change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,550 facilities in
ozone nonattainment areas that would be affected by the draft CTG.
These facilities had emissions that exceed the emission threshold of
6.8 kg (15 1b) of VOC per day. Total aggregate VOC emissions from
solvent cleaning operations from these sources are approximately 64,000
Mg/yr (71,000 tpy). EPA used studies published by the Bay Area AQMD to
estimate the cost of compliance for the measures recommended in the
draft CTG. According to these estimates, EPA believes that affected
sources may either incur minimal additional costs or realize a savings
on a case-by-case basis, depending primarily on facts such as how much
they currently spend to operate high-VOC content solvent-based parts
cleaners, and the cost of organic solvent disposal.
    The Bay Area AQMD studies indicate that replacing high-VOC cleaning
materials with low-VOC, water-based cleaning materials, for
applications in which these materials are similar in effectiveness to
high-VOC materials, results in a cost savings. The CTG for industrial
cleaning solvents is guidance for the States. Although States can adopt
the recommendations in the CTG, they may choose not to follow those
recommendations and instead adopt other technically-sound approaches
that meet the requirements of RACT in the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations. Accordingly, there is necessarily some uncertainty in any
prediction of costs and emission impacts associated with the
recommendations in the CTG. Nevertheless, assuming that States address
the VOC emissions from this product category in accordance with the
recommendations in the CTG or comparable approaches, EPA anticipates a
net cost savings.\12\ We based this prediction on an assumption that
substitution of low-VOC materials for high-VOC materials is possible
for all uses. Because this assumption is not true for some
applications, this prediction may not be valid in all cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ From a purely economic perspective, the CTG does not
produce a cost savings, because the recommendations contained in the
document represent control methods that are currently available to
facilities. Facilities can implement the recommended approach of
using low-VOC materials today and recognize a cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation

    In determining whether to develop a national rule or a CTG for the
product category of industrial cleaning solvents under CAA section
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in Section
I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with
this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from industrial
cleaning solvents.
    This section is divided into two parts, each of which addresses two
of the factors relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) determination.
In the first part, we determine that the most effective means of
achieving VOC emission reductions in this category is through controls
at the point of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on
facilities that conduct solvent cleaning), and this can only be
accomplished through a CTG. We further explain that the approaches in
the draft CTG are consistent with existing effective state and local
VOC strategies. In the second part, we discuss how the distribution and
place of use of the products in this category also support the use of a
CTG. We further explain that there are control approaches for this
category that result in significant VOC emission reductions and that
such reductions could only be obtained by controlling the use of the
product through a CTG. Such reductions could not be obtained through a
regulation under CAA section 183(e) because the controls affect the
end-user, which is not a regulated entity under CAA section
183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons described
more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve much greater VOC
emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated
with the industrial cleaning solvents product category: (1) Limiting
the VOC content of the cleaning materials, and (2) implementing work
practices governing the use of the products.
    A national rule affecting industrial cleaning solvent manufacturers
that limits the VOC content of the cleaning materials sold suffers from
the same deficiencies noted above with regard to lithographic printing,
letterpress printing, flexible packaging printing, and flat wood
paneling coating. Specifically, although facilities performing cleaning
operations generally purchase cleaning materials from vendors serving
their respective industry, nothing in a national rule governing
manufacturers would preclude them from purchasing bulk solvents or
other multipurpose cleaning materials from other vendors. The general
availability of bulk solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from
vendors that would not be subject to the

regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the
regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content of all
cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of specified end
use, which would ensure that only low-VOC materials are available for
any use. Such an approach is unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning
materials and solvents are sold for multiple different commercial and
industrial purposes. Reducing the VOC content of all materials merely
to achieve VOC emission reduction from two limited product categories,
could preclude the use of such materials in many important, legitimate
contexts. Furthermore, many general-purpose solvents used for cleaning
are single compounds (e.g., toluene) or are mixtures (e.g., mineral
spirits) that are by nature 100 percent VOC. Consequently, they cannot
be reformulated to low-VOC content.
    The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from
industrial cleaning solvents is to control the use of such materials
through a CTG. The draft CTG recommends limiting the VOC content of
cleaning materials. With the CTG, the VOC content restrictions would
apply to the facility performing cleaning operations regardless of the
source of the cleaning materials.
    Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a CAA
section 183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at
the end-user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices
such as keeping solvents and shop towels in closed containers. This
measure alone results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning
emissions, when used in conjunction with low-VOC cleaning materials.
These reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e)
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent
with approaches taken by States and localities for industrial cleaning
operations, and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC
emissions.
    Based on the sources of significant VOC emissions from industrial
cleaning solvents and the available strategies for reducing such
emissions, the most effective means of achieving VOC emission
reductions from this product category is through controls at the point
of use of the product (i.e., through controls on facilities performing
solvent cleaning activities), and this can only be accomplished through
a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG are also consistent
with effective state and local VOC control strategies. These two
factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective
as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
    The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for industrial cleaning solvents.
    First, the products described above are used at manufacturing,
repair, service, and other facilities in specific, identifiable
locations. This stands in contrast to other consumer products, such as
architectural coatings, that are widely distributed and used by
innumerable small users (e.g. individual consumers in the general
public). Because the VOC emissions are occurring at commercial
facilities, implementation and enforcement of controls concerning the
use of products are feasible and therefore the nature of the product's
place of use further counsels in favor of the CTG approach.
    Second, a CTG will achieve equal or greater emission reduction than
a national rule for each source of VOC emissions from industrial
cleaning solvents, and, in total, a CTG will achieve significantly more
emission reduction than a national rule for this category. A CTG will
achieve a significant VOC emission reduction from cleaning materials
through the combined use of low-VOC cleaning materials and work
practices. A national rule could not effectively regulate the VOC
content of cleaning materials, and a national rule cannot require work
practices. In summary, a CTG will achieve a significant reduction in
VOC emissions from the industrial cleaning solvents category while a
national rule would achieve little, if any, emission reduction.
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for industrial cleaning solvents will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection
requirements and therefore is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed
determination, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
imposes no regulatory requirements. EPA is proposing take final action
to list the five Group II consumer and commercial product categories
addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA section 183(e) of the Act.
The listing action alone does not impose any regulatory requirements.
EPA's proposed determination that a CTG will be substantially as
effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions
in ozone nonattainment areas means that EPA has concluded that it is
not appropriate to issue federal regulations under CAA section 183(e)
to regulate VOC emissions from these five product categories. Instead,
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form
of CTG that provide recommendations to States concerning potential
methods to achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product
categories. In addition to the proposed determination, EPA is also
taking comment on draft CTG for these five product categories. When
finalized, these CTG will be guidance documents. EPA does not directly
regulate any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA
issues CTG to provide States with guidance on appropriate regulations
to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected sources within
certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG does trigger an
obligation on the part of the States to issue State regulations, but
States are not obligated to issue regulations identical to the Agency's
CTG. States may follow the guidance or deviate from it, and the
ultimate determination of whether a State regulation meets the RACT
requirements of the CAA would be determined through notice and comment
rulemaking in the Agency's action on each State's State Implementation
Plan. Thus, States retain discretion in determining what degree to
follow the CTGs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 U.S.C.
1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes any
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local,
or Tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i),
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A),
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
    EPA has determined that the listing action, the proposed
determination that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a
regulation for these product categories, and the proposed draft CTGs
for these categories, do not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the listing
action, the proposed determination and the proposed draft CTGs contain
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because they contain no regulatory requirements that
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
    The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGs are
substantially as effective as regulations for these product categories,
and the proposed draft CTGs do not have federalism implications. They
do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this
action does not impact that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply
to the proposed determination and proposed draft CTGs. However, in the
spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA is
soliciting comment on the listing action, the proposed determination,
and the proposed draft CTGs from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Tribal implications.''
    The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGs would be
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission
reductions from these product categories, and the proposed draft CTGs
do not have Tribal implications as defined by EO 13175. They do not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that
the listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft
CTGs impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the listing
action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs do not
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal
government and Tribes in implementing the Clean Air Act. Because
listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs
do not have Tribal implications, EO 13175 does not apply.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria,
Section 5B501 of the EO directs the Agency to evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
    The listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed
draft CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are
not economically significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive
Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulations. The
listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not include
regulatory requirements based on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
EO 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any action by an
agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or
is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation,
including notices of inquiry, advance notices of final rulemaking, and
notices of final rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory
action under EO 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a ``significant energy
action.'' EPA has determined that listing action, the proposed
determination, and the proposed draft CTGs are a not significant
regulatory action under EO 12866, and that they are not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGS will be
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission
reductions, and the proposed draft CTGs do not involve technical
standards and therefore the NTTAA does not apply.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' provides
for Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations,
including tribes.
    EPA believes that the listing action, the proposed determination,
and the proposed draft CTGs should not raise any environmental justice
issues. The purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain VOC emission
reductions to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The health
and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the
establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be
protective of the public with an adequate margin of safety. EPA's
listing of the products, determination that CTGs are substantially as
effective as regulations, and proposed draft CTGs, are actions intended
to help States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.

    Dated: July 27, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, part 59, Subpart
A is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 59--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(e).

    2. Subpart A is added to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

Sec.  59.1  Final Determinations Under Section 183(e)(3)(C).

    This section identifies the consumer and commercial product
categories for which EPA has determined that CTGs will be substantially
as effective as regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings; and
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents.

[FR Doc. 06-6640 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26272-26273]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2014-E-0070 and FDA-2014-E-0071]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; GATTEX

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for GATTEX and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product GATTEX
(teduglutide [rDNA origin]). GATTEX is indicated for treatment of adult
patients with Short Bowel Syndrome who are dependent on parenteral
support. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term
restoration applications for GATTEX (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,789,379 and
7,056,886) from NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested
FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent
term restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised the
USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period and that the approval of GATTEX represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO
requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for

GATTEX is 4,959 days. Of this time, 4,571 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 388 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: May 27, 1999. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that
the date the investigational new drug application became effective was
on May 27, 1999.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: November
30, 2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for GATTEX (NDA 203441) was submitted on November 30,
2011.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 21, 2012. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203441 was approved on
December 21, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,388 days or 5 years of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 6, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by November 3, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-11000 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 22157]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4429-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4429-DR), dated April 23, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 23, 2019.

    Alcorn, Carroll, Itawamba, Lafayette, Lee, Montgomery, Panola,
Prentiss, Quitman, Tallahatchie, Union, Webster, and Yalobusha
Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-10203 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50551-50556]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21877]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0383; FRL-9985-09-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, Illinois'
certification that its SIP satisfies the nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or Standard). Final
approval of the Illinois NNSR certification SIP will permanently stop
the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks triggered by EPA's
February 3 and December 11, 2017 findings that Illinois failed to
submit an NNSR plan for the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Naperville,
Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin area (Chicago Nonattainment Area).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0383 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ogulei, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [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. Background
II. Summary of the State's Submittal
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Upon
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to
designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based
on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data available at
the conclusion of the designation process. For ozone NAAQS, EPA must
also classify any nonattainment areas at the time of designation based
on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the
area's ``design value'' \1\). See CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1)
and 77 FR 34225. The possible classifications are ``Marginal,''
``Moderate,'' ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' and ``Extreme.'' Nonattainment
areas with a lower classification (such as marginal areas) have ozone
levels that are closer to meeting the standard than areas with a higher
classification (such as Extreme areas). See CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 40 CFR 50.15, the ``design value'' for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule titled ``Implementation
of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (SIP Requirements Rule), which
detailed the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality
management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for
areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR
12264 (March 6, 2015).\2\ Areas that were designated as marginal ozone
nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
no later than 36 months after the effective date of area designations
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., July 20, 2015), based on 2012-
2014 monitoring data. See 40 CFR 51.1103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment
area SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including
requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology,
reasonably available control measures, major new source review,
emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of
compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also
revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to
the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172
and also to the ozone-specific planning requirements of CAA section
182. States in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) \3\ are additionally
subject to the requirements outlined in CAA section 184. Ozone
nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/
or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control
requirements than those in higher classifications. For a marginal area,
a state is required to submit a baseline emissions inventory, adopt a
SIP requiring emissions statements from stationary sources, and
implement a NNSR program for the relevant ozone standard. See CAA
section 182(a). For each higher ozone nonattainment

classification, a state must comply with all lower area classification
requirements, plus additional emissions controls and more expansive
NNSR offset requirements. For example, the state must comply with all
marginal area classification requirements plus it must submit SIP
revisions to: (1) Provide for reductions of emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) of at
least 15 percent from baseline emissions over 6 years; (2) require the
implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT); (3)
provide for a vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program; (4) include contingency measures for failure to attain; and
(5) include stage II gasoline vapor recovery requirements. See 42
U.S.C. 7511a(b) and 7502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The OTR is comprised of the following states: Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of
Columbia. 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a). States in the OTR are required to
submit SIP revisions addressing reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements for the pollutants that form ozone,
even if the areas in the state meet the ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA classified the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
area (Chicago Nonattainment Area) as a marginal nonattainment area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 11, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012)
using certified ambient air quality monitoring data from calendar years
2009-2011. See 77 FR 34221. The Chicago area includes Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties and parts of Grundy and Kendall
Counties in Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana; and part of
Kenosha County in Wisconsin.
    On May 4, 2016, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA
determined that the Chicago area failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the July 20, 2015, marginal area attainment deadline and did
not meet the CAA section 181(a)(5) criteria, as interpreted in 40 CFR
51.1107, for a 1-year attainment date extension. See 81 FR 26697 (May
4, 2016). Thus, EPA reclassified this area by operation of law as
moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.\4\ In that action, EPA
established January 1, 2017, as the due date for the state to submit
all moderate area nonattainment plan SIP requirements applicable to
newly reclassified areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Metro-East area also did not attain the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015; however, EPA found this area to be
eligible for a 1-year attainment date extension, for a new
attainment date of July 20, 2016. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the SIP Requirements Rule, Illinois was required to
develop a SIP revision addressing NNSR requirements for its marginal
ozone nonattainment areas by July 20, 2015. See 80 FR 12266 (March 6,
2015). Additionally, because the Chicago area was reclassified to
moderate nonattainment, Illinois was required to submit a moderate area
NNSR SIP by January 1, 2017. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).\5\ NNSR is
a preconstruction review permit program that applies to new major
stationary sources or major modifications at existing sources located
in a nonattainment area. See CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173 and 182. The
specific NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located
in 40 CFR 51.160-165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Illinois' obligation to submit the NNSR SIP was not affected
by the D.C. Circuit Court's February 16, 2018 decision on portions
of the SIP Requirements Rule in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
v. EPA, No. 15-1115, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3636 (DC Cir. Feb. 16,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2017 Findings of Failure To Submit SIPs for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS

    On February 3, 2017, EPA found that 15 states and the District of
Columbia failed to submit SIP revisions to satisfy certain
nonattainment plan requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 82 FR
9158. EPA found, inter alia, that Illinois failed to timely submit a
SIP revision to satisfy NNSR requirements for the Chicago and Metro-
East \6\ ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, on December 11, 2017,
EPA found, inter alia, that Illinois failed to timely submit a revision
to its SIP to satisfy moderate NNSR requirements for the Chicago area.
See 82 FR 58118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Metro-East area includes the Illinois portion of the St.
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, Missouri-Illinois ozone nonattainment
area, which includes Madison, Monroe and St. Clair Counties in
Illinois, and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis
Counties and the City of St. Louis in Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These findings established certain deadlines for the imposition of
sanctions if a state does not submit a timely SIP revision addressing
the requirements for which EPA made the findings and the requirement
for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address any outstanding SIP
requirements. Specifically, Illinois was required to submit a complete
SIP addressing the deficiencies that were the basis for each finding
within 18 months of the effective dates of the findings (i.e.,
September 6, 2018 and July 10, 2019, respectively) so as to avoid
triggering, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31,
the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) in the affected
nonattainment area. Additionally, these rules triggered the requirement
for EPA to promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment area if EPA
does not take final action to approve the state's submittal within 2
years of the effective date of the findings (i.e., March 6, 2019, and
January 10, 2020, respectively).
    On March 1, 2018, EPA redesignated the Metro-East area to
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because EPA found this area
to have met the statutory requirements for redesignation to attainment
under the CAA. See 83 FR 8756 (March 1, 2018). In that action, EPA also
approved, as a revision to the Illinois SIP, Illinois' plan for
maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS through calendar year 2030 in the
Metro-East area. NNSR SIP revisions are no longer required if an area
is redesignated to attainment; the CAA's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program requirements apply in lieu of NNSR. See 82
FR 9160. Therefore, the finding of failure to submit no longer applies
to areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Because the Metro-
East area is now designated attainment, a NNSR SIP is not required for
this area.
    On May 23, 2018, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted a SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements of the
CAA for areas designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On
July 12, 2018, EPA found that Illinois' NNSR SIP submission fulfilled
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\7\ Through the
completeness finding, EPA determined that the deficiencies which formed
the basis for the February 3, 2017 and December 11, 2017 findings had
been corrected and, as a result, the sanctions clock was permanently
stopped. Final approval of Illinois' May 23, 2018 NNSR SIP revision
would permanently stop the FIP clocks triggered by the February 3, 2017
and December 11, 2017 findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter from Edward Nam, Director, Air & Radiation Division,
EPA Region 5 to Julie Armitage, Chief, Bureau of Air, IEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the State's Submittal

    On May 23, 2018, IEPA submitted a SIP revision requesting EPA's
approval of Illinois' certification that its existing SIP-approved NNSR
regulations fully satisfy the NNSR requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.165 for both marginal and moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. IEPA indicates that its NNSR SIP submission is
intended to respond to the February 3 and December 11, 2017 findings
for the Chicago and Metro-East areas. Specifically, Illinois is
certifying that its existing NNSR program covering its ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the
Chicago Nonattainment Area, contains the NNSR elements required by 40
CFR 51.165, as amended by the SIP Requirements Rule, for ozone and its
precursors.
    Illinois' submittal includes a document titled, ``Illinois'
Compliance

With Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements For The 2008 Ozone
Standard'' (NNSR checklist), which contains Illinois' detailed
assessment of how its SIP-approved NNSR regulations address each of the
NNSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as codified at 40 CFR
51.165. Illinois certifies that it already complies with CAA sections
172(c)(5) and 182(a)(2)(C), which require states that have been
designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS to submit plans or plan
revisions containing certain required elements, including permit
programs for the construction and operation of new or modified
stationary sources in the nonattainment area. Specifically, Illinois
has certified that its existing State regulations in Title 35 of
Illinois Administrative Code Part 203 (35 IAC Part 203) fully satisfy
the NNSR requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.165 for both marginal and
moderate ozone nonattainment areas because they contain all NNSR SIP
elements required by 40 CFR 51.165 for its ozone nonattainment areas.
EPA proposes to find that Illinois' submittal addresses the State's
obligations as described in the February 3 and December 11, 2017
findings.

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165. See 40 CFR
51.1114. These NNSR program requirements include those promulgated in
the ``Phase 2 Rule'' implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR
71018, November 29, 2005) and the SIP Requirements Rule implementing
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the Phase 2 Rule, the SIP for each
ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: Set major
source thresholds for NOX and VOC pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-(iv) and (2); classify physical changes as a
major source if the change would constitute a major source by itself
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); consider any significant net
emissions increase of NOX as a significant net emissions
increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); consider
certain increases of VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas
as a significant net emissions increase and a major modification for
ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); set significant emissions
rates for VOC and NOx as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E); contain provisions for emissions
reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)-(2);
provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to
NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); and set offset ratios
for VOC and NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i)-(iii)
(renumbered as (a)(9)(ii)-(iv) under the SIP Requirements Rule for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area
designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015, must also
contain NNSR provisions that include the anti-backsliding requirements
at 40 CFR 51.1105. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(12).
    Illinois' NNSR rules, as set forth in 35 IAC Part 203, Major
Stationary Sources Construction And Modification, are designed to
ensure that the construction of a major new source of air pollution or
a large increase of emissions at an existing source does not interfere
with the attainment demonstration and does not delay timely achievement
of the ambient air quality standards. The rules require owners or
operators of major projects to: (1) Apply the Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) or, for certain existing sources, the Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) on emissions of the nonattainment
pollutant from the major project; (2) offset the emissions of the
nonattainment pollutant from a major project by emission reductions
from other sources in the nonattainment area; (3) demonstrate that
other sources in the State which are under common ownership or control
with the person proposing the project are in compliance with the CAA;
and (4) analyze alternatives to the particular project to determine
whether the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental and
social costs.
    EPA last approved revisions to Illinois' NNSR SIP on May 13, 2003.
See 68 FR 25504 (May 13, 2003).\8\ In that action, EPA approved
amendments to 35 IAC 203 to better track the language of CAA sections
182(c)(6), (7), and (8). See 68 FR 25505. The changes dealt with how
one determines whether a proposed change at a source is a major
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For other relevant approvals, see 45 FR 11470 (February 21,
1980); 46 FR 44172 (September 3, 1981); 50 FR 38803 (September 25,
1985); 51 FR 10837 (March 31, 1986); 57 FR 59928 (December 17,1992);
and 60 FR 49778 (September 27, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the NNSR checklist that Illinois
incorporated into the SIP submittal, and the version of 35 IAC 203
approved into the Illinois SIP, we propose to find that Illinois' SIP-
approved NNSR program at 35 IAC 203 contains the minimum required NNSR
elements as specified in 40 CFR 51.165 for Illinois' ozone
nonattainment areas. We are proposing to approve Illinois'
certification that 35 IAC 203 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.165 and
meets the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173, 110(a)(2),
182(a)(4) and 182(b)(5) under the 2008 ozone standard for the Illinois
portion of the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area. Final approval of
Illinois' NNSR certification would address the deficiencies that were
the basis for the February 3 and December 11, 2017 findings, and would
turn off the FIP clock for the Illinois portion of the Chicago
Nonattainment Area. While some of Illinois' regulations are worded or
organized differently than the Federal counterparts, EPA proposes to
find that these differences do not affect the relative stringency of
such provisions.
    The following table lists the specific provisions of Illinois' NNSR
rules that address the required elements of the Federal NNSR rules:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Federal rule                        Illinois rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-(iv),   35 IAC 203.206(b).
 (2).
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3)..........  35 IAC 203.206(c).
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E)..............  35 IAC 203.207(b).
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F)..............  35 IAC 203.207(f).
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C); (E).....  35 IAC 203.207(d), (e) and (f),
                                          and 203.209(a) and (b).
40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii) (C)(1)-(2).....  35 IAC 203.302(a), 203.303(b)
                                          and (f), 203.602, and 203.701.
40 CFR 51.165(a)(8)....................  35 IAC 203.206(b), 203.207(b),
                                          (d), (e) and (f), 203.209(a)
                                          and (b), 203.301(e) and (f),
                                          and 203.302.
40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii), (iv)..........  35 IAC 203.302(a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Major Source Thresholds for Ozone--40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-
(iv) and (2)

    The major source thresholds for both VOC and NOX (i.e.,
ozone precursors) are defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-(iv)
and (2). The applicable thresholds vary depending on the classification
of the ozone nonattainment area. For marginal and moderate ozone
nonattainment areas, a major stationary source of ozone is a source
that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of
VOC or NOX. Different emissions thresholds apply for
Serious, Severe, and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas and for areas
located in an OTR.
    Illinois has certified that the Federal requirements for major
source thresholds for VOC and NOX are addressed by 35 IAC
203.206(b). Under 35 IAC 203.206(b), for an area designated as
nonattainment for ozone, a major stationary source is a stationary
source which emits or has the potential to emit VOC \9\ or
NOX in an amount equal to or greater than (1) 100 tons per
year in an area classified as marginal or moderate nonattainment for
ozone; (2) 50 tons per year in an area classified as serious
nonattainment for ozone; (3) 25 tons per year in an area classified as
severe nonattainment for ozone; and (4) 10 tons per year in an area
classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone. Illinois' thresholds are
consistent with the Federal thresholds; therefore, we propose to find
that Illinois' NNSR provisions at 35 IAC 203.206(b) satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-(iv) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Illinois SIP also refers to VOC as volatile organic
material (VOM). See 35 IAC 211.7150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Change Constitutes Major Source by Itself--40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3), any physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not qualifying as a major stationary
source becomes a major stationary source, if the change would
constitute a major stationary source by itself. Illinois has certified
that this requirement is addressed by 35 IAC 203.206(c), which provides
that any physical change that occurs at a stationary source which does
not qualify as a major stationary source will be considered a major
stationary source, if the change would constitute a major stationary
source by itself. Illinois' provisions at 35 IAC 203.206(c) for what
constitutes a major source are consistent with the Federal provisions
at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); therefore, we propose to find that
the Illinois SIP at 35 IAC 203.206(c) satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3).

C. Significant Net Emissions Increase of NOX is Significant
for Ozone--40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E), any significant net emissions
increase of NOX is considered significant for ozone.
Illinois has certified that this requirement is addressed by 35 IAC
203.207(b), which provides that any net emissions increase that is
significant for VOC or NOX shall be considered significant
for ozone. Illinois' provisions at 35 IAC 203.207(b) are consistent
with the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); therefore,
we propose to find that 35 IAC 203.207(b) satisfies the requirements of
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E).

D. Any Emissions Change of VOC in an Extreme Area Triggers NNSR--40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(v)(F)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F), any physical change in, or change
in the method of operation of, a major stationary source of VOC that
results in any increase in emissions of VOC from any discrete
operation, emissions unit, or other pollutant emitting activity at the
source shall be considered a significant net emissions increase and a
major modification for ozone, if the major stationary source is located
in an extreme ozone nonattainment area that is subject to CAA title 1,
part D subpart 2. Illinois has certified that this requirement is
addressed by 35 IAC 203.207(f). That provision states that in areas
classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone, beginning on the date
that EPA classifies an area as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone,
any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major
stationary source which results in any increase in emissions of VOC or
NOX from a discrete operation, unit, or other pollutant
emitting activity shall be considered a major modification. Illinois'
provisions at 35 IAC 203.207(f) are consistent with the Federal
requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); therefore, we propose to
find that 35 IAC 203.207(f) satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(v)(F).

E. Significant Emissions Rates for VOC and NOX as Ozone
Precursors--40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A), (B) and (C), the significant
emission rate for ozone is defined as 40 tons per year of VOC or
NOX, except that the significant emission rate in serious or
extreme nonattainment areas shall be 25 tons per year. Under 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(E), any increase in actual emissions of VOC from any
emissions unit at a major stationary source of VOC located in an
extreme ozone nonattainment area shall be considered a significant net
emissions increase. Illinois has certified that it satisfies these
requirements pursuant to 35 IAC 203.207(d), (e) and (f), and 35 IAC
203.209(a) and (b). Specifically, 35 IAC 203.207(d) and (e), and 35 IAC
203.209(a) and (b) establish the significant emission rate for ozone as
40 tons per year of VOC or NOX and 25 tons per year in
serious or extreme nonattainment areas. Additionally, 35 IAC 203.207(f)
specifies that in areas classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone,
any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major
stationary source which results in any increase in emissions of VOC or
NOX from a discrete operation, unit, or other pollutant
emitting activity shall be considered a major modification. Because the
Illinois SIP's provisions at 35 IAC 203.207(d), (e) and (f), and 35 IAC
203.209(a) and (b) are consistent with the Federal requirements at 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E), we propose to find that the above
Illinois SIP provisions satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E).

F. Provisions for Emissions Reduction Credits--40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) and (2)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) and (2), to be considered
creditable, emission reductions achieved by shutting down an existing
emission unit or curtailing production or operating hours must be
surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable. Shutdowns
or curtailments must have occurred after the last day of the base year
for the SIP planning process. Reviewing authorities may choose to
consider a prior shutdown or curtailment to have occurred after the
last day of the base year if the projected emissions inventory used to
develop the attainment demonstration explicitly includes emissions from
the previously shut down or curtailed emissions units, but in no event
may credit be granted for shutdowns that occurred prior to August 7,
1977. Shutdown or curtailment reductions occurring before the last day
of the base year for the SIP planning process may also be generally
credited if the shutdown or curtailment occurred on or after the date
the construction permit application is filed or if the applicant can
establish that the proposed new emissions unit is a replacement for the
shutdown or curtailed emission unit and the emission reductions that
result are

surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable.
    Illinois certifies that these requirements are satisfied by 35 IAC
203.302(a), 35 IAC 203.303(b) and (f), 35 IAC 203.602 and 35 IAC
203.701. In particular, 35 IAC 203.302(a) establishes a general
obligation that ``the owner or operator of a new major source or major
modification shall provide emission offsets equal to or greater than
the allowable emissions from the source or the net increase in
emissions from the modification sufficient to allow [IEPA] to determine
that the source or modification will not interfere with reasonable
further progress [RFP] . . . '' With respect to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i), the Illinois SIP at 35 IAC 203.303(b) and 35
IAC 203.701 requires that all emission offsets must: (1) Be of the same
pollutant and of a type with approximately the same qualitative
significance for public health and welfare as that attributed to the
increase from a particular change; (2) be federally enforceable by
permit; (3) not have been previously relied on in issuing any permit
pursuant to the Illinois SIP for demonstrating attainment or RFP; and
(4) be maintained permanently. Further, 35 IAC 203.303(b)(3) restricts
the use of emission reductions from past shutdowns or curtailments, and
requires the proposed new or modified source to be a replacement for
the shutdown or curtailment. Additionally, under 35 IAC 203.602, no
person shall cause or allow the operation of a new major stationary
source or major modification where the owner or operator has
demonstrated that it would not interfere with RFP by providing emission
offsets pursuant to 35 IAC 203.302 without maintaining those emission
offsets or other equivalent offsets.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Illinois has explained that the phrase ``other equivalent
offsets'' as used in 35 IAC 203.602, coupled with the language in 35
IAC 203.701, establishes that emission offsets must be permanent,
and that if emission reductions relied upon by a source cease to be
viable as offsets for some reason, the source would need to obtain
equivalent offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(2), we note that
Illinois' language in 35 IAC 203.303(b)(3) does not explicitly require
that shutdowns or curtailments occur on or after the date a permit
application was filed, as specified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(2).
However, Illinois satisfies the Federal requirements by limiting in 35
IAC 203.303(b)(3) the circumstances under which prior shutdowns or
curtailments can be credited as offsets. For example, given an
applicant for a NNSR permit must provide emission offsets under 35 IAC
203.302, the meaning of the phrase ``past shutdown'' as used in 35 IAC
203.303(b)(3) is consistent with the wording of 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(2)(i) as it establishes additional requirements for
offsets that occurred prior to the filing of the application. Because
35 IAC 203.302(a), 35 IAC 203.303(b) and (f), 35 IAC 203.602 and 35 IAC
203.701 address all of the elements required by 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) and (2), we propose to find that the Illinois
SIP satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) and
(2).

G. Requirements for VOC Apply to NOX as Ozone Precursors--40
CFR 51.165(a)(8)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8), all requirements applicable to major
stationary sources and major modifications of VOC shall apply to
NOX except where the Administrator has granted a
NOX waiver applying the standards set forth under CAA
section 182(f) and the waiver continues to apply. Illinois certifies
that these Federal requirements are satisfied by 35 IAC 203.206(b)
(major stationary source); 35 IAC 203.207(b), (d), (e) and (f) (major
modification of a source); 35 IAC 203.209(a) and (b) (significant
emissions determination); 35 IAC 203.301(e) and (f) (LAER); and 35 IAC
203.302 (maintenance of RFP and emission offsets). As already
discussed, we have reviewed 35 IAC 203.206(b); 35 IAC 203.207(b), (d),
(e) and (f); 35 IAC 203.209(a) and (b); and 35 IAC 203.302 and find
that these provisions contain language that is consistent with the
corresponding Federal NNSR requirements with respect to the treatment
of VOC and NOX in ozone nonattainment areas. The Federal
requirements for LAER are also addressed by 35 IAC 203.301(e) and (f),
which establish specific LAER and BACT requirements for existing
sources located in serious or severe ozone nonattainment areas. Because
35 IAC 203.206(b), 35 IAC 203.207(b), (d), (e) and (f), 35 IAC
203.209(a) and (b), 35 IAC 203.301(e) and (f), and 35 IAC 203.302
contain language that is consistent with the Federal requirements, we
propose to find that the Illinois SIP satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.165(a)(8).

H. Offset Ratios for VOC and NOX for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas--40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii), (iv)

    Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii)(A)-(E), the VOC offset ratios shall
be 1.1:1 in marginal ozone nonattainment areas, 1.15:1 in moderate
ozone nonattainment areas, 1.2:1 in serious ozone nonattainment areas,
1.3:1 in severe ozone nonattainment areas, and 1.3:1 in severe ozone
nonattainment areas. Illinois certifies that these requirements are
satisfied by 35 IAC 203.302(a). Specifically, 35 IAC 203.302(a)(1)
requires offset ratios for both VOC and NOX that are
consistent with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii)(A)-(E). Therefore, we propose
to find that the Illinois SIP at 35 IAC 203.302(a) satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii)(A)-(E).
    For ozone nonattainment areas subject to CAA title 1, part D,
subpart 1 but not subpart 2, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(iv) requires an offset
ratio of at least 1:1. Because all of the current ozone nonattainment
areas in Illinois were designated under CAA title 1, part D, subpart 2,
40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(iv) does not apply to Illinois at this time.

I. OTR Requirements

    Illinois' approved SIP does not contain the OTR provisions set
forth in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(ii), 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(2)(ii), 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E), 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(C), 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8), and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(iii)
because Illinois is not located in an OTR. Illinois is not required to
include these requirements in its SIP until such time as EPA publishes
rules that establish Illinois as a part of the OTR.

J. Anti-backsliding Provisions for the Revoked 1997 NAAQS--40 CFR
51.165(a)(12)

    ``Anti-backsliding'' provisions are designed to ensure that for
existing ozone nonattainment areas that are designated nonattainment
for a revised and more stringent ozone NAAQS, (1) there is protection
against degradation of air quality (i.e., the areas do not
``backslide''), (2) the areas continue to make progress toward
attainment of the new, more stringent NAAQS, and (3) there is
consistency with the ozone NAAQS implementation framework outlined in
CAA title 1, part D, subpart 2. See 78 FR 34211. As part of the SIP
Requirements Rule, EPA revoked the 1997 NAAQS for all purposes and
established anti-backsliding requirements for areas that remained
designated nonattainment for the revoked NAAQS. See 80 FR 12265 and 40
CFR 51.165(a)(12). Under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(12), the anti-backsliding
requirements at 40 CFR 51.1105 apply in any area designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015. Illinois has certified that
there were no areas

designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 6,
2015.
    Attainment status designations for Illinois are found at 40 CFR
81.314. With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, all areas in
Illinois attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to April 6, 2015.
See 77 FR 25363 (April 30, 2012) and 77 FR 48062 (August 13, 2012).
Since all areas in Illinois were designated as attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment on April 6, 2015 for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the anti-backsliding requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(12) do not
apply for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, Illinois' approved
SIP does not contain the anti-backsliding provisions set forth in 40
CFR 51.165(a)(12).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Illinois' May 23, 2018 SIP revision
addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
Chicago Nonattainment Area. EPA has concluded that Illinois' submission
fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement, meets the
requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172 and the minimum SIP
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165, as well as its obligations under EPA's
February 3 and December 11, 2017 findings.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is 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.);
     Does 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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is 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
     Does 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).
    The proposed rule approving Illinois' 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS NNSR
SIP revision is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2018.
James Payne,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-21877 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P