[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48062-48071]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

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

I. What is the background for this rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion of Comment Review and Response

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

III. What actions is EPA taking?

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Sec.  52.726  Control strategy: Ozone.

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

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Sec.  81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                            Illinois--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Designation \a\                   Classification
               Designated area               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date \1\           Type           Date \1\           Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN:
    Cook County.............................       8/13/2012
    DuPage County...........................  ...............     Attainment.
    Grundy County (part)....................
        Aux Sable Township..................
        Goose Lake Township.................
    Kane County.............................
    Kendall County (part)...................
        Oswego Township.....................
    Lake County.............................
    McHenry County..........................
    Will County.............................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

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


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40926-40927]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67355; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ's Fee Schedule Governing Order Routing

July 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 28, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes to modify NASDAQ's fee schedule governing order
routing. NASDAQ will implement the proposed change on July 2, 2012. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at NASDAQ's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item III [sic] below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is making a minor modification to the schedule governing

fees for use of its routing services. Effective July 2, 2012, the
NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') facility of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') has
reduced the fees that it charges for accessing liquidity.\3\
Accordingly, NASDAQ is making a conforming change to the fee that it
charges for routing directed orders to PSX, reducing the charge from
$0.0029 per share executed to $0.0005 per share executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-Phlx-2012-87 (June 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers. All similarly situated members are subject to the
same fee structure, and access to NASDAQ is offered on fair and non-
discriminatory terms. The change is reasonable because the proposed fee
for routing directed orders to PSX reflects the reduction in the fee
that will be charged by PSX to NASDAQ with respect to such orders.\6\
The change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because
it will bring the economic attributes of routing directed orders to PSX
more in line with the cost of executing orders there. Finally, the
change is not unfairly discriminatory because it solely applies to
members that opt to route directed orders to PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \6\ Depending on volume of routed orders in a month, NASDAQ will
be charged either $0.0005 or $0 per share executed. In a
circumstance where the charge was $0, NASDAQ believes that it is
nevertheless appropriate to charge a markup above this cost to
reflect the additional costs of offering routing services and the
value of such services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such
an environment, NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because it is designed to ensure
that the charges for use of the NASDAQ routing facility to route to PSX
reflect a reduction in the cost of such routing.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order execution is extremely competitive, members may readily opt
to disfavor NASDAQ's routing services if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. The proposed change is designed to ensure that
the charges for use of the NASDAQ routing facility to route to PSX
reflect a reduction in the cost of such routing, thereby allowing it to
remain competitive.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-079 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-079. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2012-079, and should be submitted on or before August 1, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16879 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10447-10448]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0008]

Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation
Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general
function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to
the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 23, 2020, from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. and on April 24, 2020, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31,
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Entrance for public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is
through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be
performed. For security information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. Answers to commonly asked
questions including information regarding special accommodations due to
a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricio Garcia, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5216, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-6875, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On April 23, 2020, during session I, the committee will
discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of facet
screws systems, which are currently unclassified pre-amendment devices
to class II (general and special controls). During session II, the
committee will discuss and make recommendations regarding the
reclassification of noninvasive bone growth stimulators, which are
currently post-amendment devices from class III (general controls and
premarket approval) to class II (general and special controls).
    On April 24, 2020, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations regarding the classification of three devices, which
are currently unclassified pre-amendment devices to class II (general
and special controls). The committee, during session I, will discuss
semiconstrained toe (metatarsophalangeal) joint prostheses; during
session II, will discuss intracompartmental pressure monitors; and
during session III, will discuss intra-abdominal pressure monitoring
devices.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 1, 2020. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled on
April 23, 2020, between approximately 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and
between approximately 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.; on April 24, 2020, between
approximately 8:15 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
indicate during which session they would like to present (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The notification should include a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments

they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants,
and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before March 24, 2020. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing sessions.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by March 25, 2020.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Artair Mallet at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 19, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-03565 Filed 2-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P