# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 68 Fed. Reg. 25414 2003

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 16 17:45:53 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [MO 181-1181; FRL-7494-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing approval ofa revision tothe state implementation plan (SIP) for the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)program operating in the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis, Missouri, ozone nonattainment area. Missouri made several amendments to the state-adopted I/Mrule to improve performance ofthe program and requested thatthe SIP be revised. The effect ofthis action ensures Federal enforceability ofthe state air program rules and maintains consistency between the state-adopted rules and the approved SIP. EPA proposed approval ofthis rule in the Federal Register on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4842). This final action isbeing published to meet

our statutory obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAAor the Act). DATES: This final rule is effective May 12, 2003. ADDRESSES: Acopy ofthe state submittal is available at the following address for inspection during normal business hours: EPA, Region 7, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leland Daniels at (913) 551-7651.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever "we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean EPA. This sectionprovides additional information by addressing the following questions:
What isa SIP? What isthe Federal approval processfor a

SIP? What does Federal approval ofa state

regulation mean tome? What isbeing addressed in this document? What comments were received onthe

proposed approval ofthe I/MSIPrevision and what isour response? What action isEPA taking? What isthe effective date for this

rulemaking?

WhatIs a SIP?

Section 110 ofthe CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards that we established. These ambient standards are established under section 109 ofthe CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submitthese regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP. Each Federallyapproved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing airpollution at its point oforigin. These SIPs canbe extensive, containing state regulations

or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, andmodeling demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public commentperiod, and aformal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding our proposed action onthe
state submission. If adverse comments

are received, we must address them prior to taking any final action.

All state regulations and supporting information that we approve under section 110 ofthe CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. The record ofeach SIP approval is maintained in the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) atTitle 40, Part 52, entitled "Approval andPromulgation of Implementation Plans." The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are "incorporated byreference," which means thatEPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

WhatDoes FederalApproval of a State Regulation Mean?

Enforcement ofthe state regulation before and afterit is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the regulation isFederally approved, we are authorized to take an enforcement action to return a violator to compliance. Citizens are also offered legalrecourse to address violations as described in section 304 ofthe CAA.

What IsBeing Addressed in This Document?

This rulemaking addresses anumber ofsubmissions from Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) concerning revisionsto the I/M SIP for St. Louis. The content ofthose submissions is described below.

State statutory amendments in 1999 required an interagency agreement between MDNR and the Missouri Highway Patrol for the administration and enforcement ofsection 307.366, Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo); established criteria andprocedures for the I/M contract; and provided the residents ofFranklin County the option ofbiennial motor vehicle registration. Forvehicles soldby a licensed motor vehicle dealer, any inspection and approval within 120 days preceding the date ofthe sale is considered timely for the purpose ofvehicle registration. Costs for repair workperformed by a recognized repair technician only may be included toward reaching the waiver
amount. The $5.00 fee reduction for any person required to wait for up to 15 minutesbefore the inspection begins

was deleted. Penalties for longer wait times were retained. The I/M amendments contained in the October 25, 2000, submittal reflected these statutory changes.

The October 25, 2000, submission included revisions made to the I/Mrule (10 CSR 10-5.380). These changes removed a fee reduction (otherwise known as a wait time penalty) of$5.00 whenever someone had to wait up to 15 minutes for atest; incorporated a transition program from January 1 through April 4, 2000; and provided anothertest option for residents of Franklin County.

The June 19, 2002, submittal contained a plan for incorporating the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) test into the I/Mprogram and a commitment to do

so. Thiswas in response to our amendment ofthe Federal I/M rule that changed the implementation date for

use ofthe OBD test from January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2002, and provided options for other implementation dates. Wetook no action on this plan as Missouri was involved in amending the I/Mrule to incorporate the provisions of the plan. This revision is described below.

The December 13, 2002, submittal contained additional amendments made
to the I/Mrule. In addition to restructuring therule, anumber of amendments were made to: clarify the meaning ofvehicles primarily operated 

### 25414

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25414 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

in the area (section 1); clarify existing definitions and include new definitions (section 2); clarify fleetvehicle testing requirements and requirements for Federal facilities, setfee payment methods, station and clean screening testing procedures, emission test standards and waiver requirements (section 3); clarify the vehicle test report requirement for vehicles that fail the OBD test, the clean screening test report requirements and the fleetvehicle reporting requirements (section 4); clarify the test methods for the OBD and the visual test methods; exempt hybrid electric vehicles from tailpipe test methods; include clean screening test methods asvalid test methods (section 5), and delete the transition period.

As discussed in the proposed rulemaking (68 FR 4842; January 30, 2003), the state's requirement thatthe I/M240 test be the deciding test for the
retest duringthe phase-in period for the OBD test is inconsistent with our April 5, 2001, rule which requires only the OBD test be used for the retest. Although the Missouri regulation is not consistent with our requirements for the OBD test during the 2003-2004 phasein period, the Federal I/M rule (see 40 CFR 51.372) provides additional flexibility with regard to as-of-yet unimplemented I/Mprogram elements for basic I/M areas that qualify for redesignation to attainment. Under this additional flexibility, an as-of-yet unimplemented I/Mprogram element
may be converted into a contingency

measure aspart ofthe area's approved maintenance plan (which, in turn, forms

apart ofthe area's approved redesignation request). Webelieve that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is eligible for redesignation and, in a separate rulemaking today, we are taking final action to find thatthe area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard andto redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment for that standard. Thus, the Missouri I/M regulation meets the requirements of40 CFR 51.372, and we are taking final action to approve the program pursuant to that section.

MDNR's letter ofJanuary 17, 2003, informed us that a printing error occurred when therevised rule was first published onNovember 30, 2002, in the state's official administrative rules publication, the Missouri Code ofState Regulations (CSR). Inadvertently, the table containing the final transient emission test standards for Light Duty Vehicles was omitted in subparagraph (3)(G)4.A ofthe Missouri rule. The table

was part ofthe rule revision which had been adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) after notice andpublic comment. The postadoption publication ofthe rule omitted the table, and the December 31, 2002, publication ofthe Missouri CSR corrected the printing error by reinserting the table. The December 31, 2002, publication was an administrative correction only and did not change the rule as adopted by the MACC nor the effective date ofthe rule.

Even though MDNR's initial submission did contain an error, which

was corrected between our signature of the proposed rule and this final action,

we viewit as inadvertent and nonsubstantive. In addition,the corrected version ofthe state rule is the version which was available tothe public for comment atthe state level andhas been included in EPA's docket for this rule since the January 30 publication ofthe proposal. Therefore,

we do not believe that any additional public comment onthe corrected rule is necessary and, in this Federal Register document, we are taking final action to approve the revisions to the I/M SIP as described in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule.

Elsewhere in today's Federal Register publication, we are alsotaking final action to find that the St. Louis area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard, redesignate the area to attainment, and
approve the state's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard. This final rulemaking on this I/M SIP revision is being done in conjunction with the above rulemaking to fulfill the applicable CAA requirements.

What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval oftheI/NI SIP Revision andWhatIs OurResponse?

Comments were submittedby the Great Rivers Environmental Law Center

onbehalf ofthe Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. Its conclusion was that EPA should disapprove the proposed SIP revision. A summary ofthe comments and our responses to the comments are provided below. Comment 1:St. Louis isnow a "serious" ozone nonattainment area and, as a result, its I/Mprogram must meet therequirements ofsection 182(c)(3). EPA acknowledges thatthe I/M program does not meet these requirements. It should, accordingly, be disapproved, or at mostpartially approved.

Response 1:On November 25, 2002, the Seventh Circuit Court ofAppeals vacated aJune 26, 2001, rule extending the St. Louis area's attainment date, and remanded to EPAfor "entry ofa final rule that reclassifies St. Louis as a serious nonattainment area effective immediately * * *"(SierraClub and MissouriCoalition fortheEnvironment

v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)). In response to the Court's order, and in accordance with section 181(b)(2) ofthe Act, EPAreinstated the nonattainment determination and reclassification contained in the March 19, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 15585) in the January 30, 2003, final rule at 68 FR 4838. In addition,the January 30, 2003, final rule established a deadline ofJanuary 30, 2004, for submission of SIP revisions to meet the serious nonattainment area requirements. The final rule also explained that EPAwas concurrently proposing toredesignate the area to attainment, and that such a redesignation, ifdone prior to the deadline for submission ofthe serious

area requirements, would eliminate the need for Missouri and Illinois to submit SIP revisions to meet the serious area requirements (68 FR 4836). The final rule, including the serious area submittal deadline, was not challenged within the 60-day period provided in section 307(d) ofthe CAA. This subsequent rulemaking does notreopen the issue ofthe submittal deadline or the determination that SIP submissions would notbe due shouldthe area be redesignated prior to the due date.

Section 110(k)(3) ofthe CAA requires EPAto approve a plan submission in full ifitmeets "all ofthe applicable requirements" ofthe Act. Under that section apartial approval is appropriate where only a portion ofthe plan submission meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe Act. The commenter asserts thatthe I/M revision cannot be fully approved because it does not meet the I/Mprogram requirements for serious areas under section 182(c)(3). However, under our interpretation of the statute, these requirements are not applicable, because they are not yet due. (See alsothe response to comment 2 concerning the due date for the serious

area requirements.) In addition,because the area is today being redesignated to attainment, itis no longer obligated to meet the I/Mrequirements of section 182(c)(3). (Seethe September 4, 1992, memorandum from John Calcagni, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," p. 4,

n. 3.) Therefore, the fact thatthe submittal does not include all ofthe requirements for an I/Mprogram for a serious area does notrequire EPA to disapprove or partially approve it. Since, as discussed elsewhere in this notice, the submittal meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe Act, EPA is fully approving the revisions tothe Missouri I/M program. 

### 25415

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25415 2003

### Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Comment2:EPA suggests that because Missouri's SIP revisions to conform to the serious requirement are not yet due, the applicable criteria for approval are those pertaining to "moderate" ozone nonattainment areas. This determination is erroneous because the "serious" SIP submissions have, "as

amatter oflaw",become due. EPA's later rulemakings withdrawing these rules was vacated by the Seventh Circuit, effectively reinstating the withdrawn rules, including the May 18, 2002, SIP submission deadline. In addition,ifEPA "had obeyed the law", the revisions would havebeen due by June 14, 1998.

Response2:As explained in response to comment 1, on January 30, 2003, EPA reinstated a rule reclassifying the St. Louis area to "serious" nonattainment and established a deadline ofJanuary 30, 2004, for the state to submit the serious area requirements. The rationale for the deadline is stated in the January 30, 2003, final rule (68 FR 4838). This redesignation rulemaking does not reopen the January 30 rulemaking, and
comments on the appropriate deadline for the serious area requirements are thus beyond the scope ofthis rule.

With respect to the commenter's assertion thatthe serious area requirements should have been due by June 14, 1998, this isbased on an argument made bythe commenter in the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia that the reclassification ofthe St. Louis area to serious should havebeen made retroactive to 1997, with the serious area

measures due in 1998. This argument pertaining to the timing of reclassification is not only outside the
scope ofthis rulemaking as explained previously, but it was rejected byboth Courts (See, SierraClubv. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C. Cir.2002)). A detailed discussion ofthe inapplicability ofthe serious area requirements to the St. Louis area is also included in the response to comments

onthe final rule determining the area has attained the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and redesignating the area to attainment, published in today's Federal Register. Comment3:The proposed revisions,

as EPA itselfconcedes, do not even meet therequirement for a basic I/M program that moderate ozone nonattainment areas must promulgate and implement. Nonetheless, EPA says that "additional flexibility" maybe extended tothe state under 40 CFR 51.372. This is an arbitrary conclusion. First, the cited regulation does not provide for approval ofI/M programs that do not meet federal requirements; it merely permits states to treat otherwise approval programs as contingency

measures intheir maintenance plans. Second, the regulation's flexibility is contingent upon the following: "A contingency commitment that includes

an enforceable schedule for adoption and implementation ofthe (I/M)
program, and appropriate milestones. The schedule shall include the date for submission ofa SIP meeting all ofthe requirements ofthis subpart. Schedule milestones shall be listed in months from the date EPAnotifies the state that it isin violation ofthe ozone or CO standard or any earlier date specified in the state plan. Unless the state, in accordance with theprovisions ofthe maintenance plan, chooses not to implement I/M, itmust submit a SIP revision containing an I/M program no

more than 18 months after notification by EPA." Missouri's maintenance plan does not include a contingency commitment that meets these requirements.

Response3:The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that40 CFR 51.372 does not authorize EPA to approve I/M SIPs that do not meet all EPA requirements. Section 51.372(c)
states as follows: "Any nonattainment

area thatEPA determines would otherwise qualify for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment shall receive full approvalofa SIPsubmittal under sections 182(a)(2)(B) or 182(b)(4)" ifthe submittal meets the requirements ofsection 51.372(c)(1) through (4). (Emphasis added.) As explained in detail in the proposal (68 FR 4842, 4844 January 30, 2003), the revision to the I/M program submitted byMissouri
meets all ofthe applicable Federal I/M requirements, with the exception that Missouri does not require the exclusive

use of an OBD test for theretest of vehicles which fail the initial OBD emissions test (during the 2003-2004 phase-in ofthe Missouri OBD rule). (After the 2003-2004 phase-in period, the Missouri rule requires the appropriate OBD test for both the initial
test andthe retest, which is consistent with EPA's rule.) Because, as explained below, Missouri has included a commitment to consider adoption ofthe OBD test for the retest as a contingency

measure andhas met all other requirements of§51.372(c), that section authorizes EPAto fully approve the Missouri I/M SIP submittal under section 182(b)(4) ofthe CAA. This conclusion is consistent with the language ofthe regulation and withthe application ofthe regulation to other I/M program approvals in conjunction with redesignations (see60 FR 12459; March 7, 1995).

The commenter is also incorrect in its assertion thatMissouri's submission does not meet the requirements of40 CFR 51.372(c)(4), which the commenter quotes in its comment. Section 51.372(c)(4) provides thatthe state must make the following commitments: (1) An enforceable schedule for adoption, submission to EPA, andimplementation ofthe I/Mprogram element; (2) appropriate milestones in months from EPAnotification ofthe violation (or any earlier trigger date provided in the plan); and (3) a commitment to submit the program toEPA within 18 months ofthe notification ofthe violation, unless the state elects notto implement the I/M element ofits contingency

measures. The commenter does not identify any specific elements ofthis requirement which itbelieves arenot met,but Missouri's maintenance plan contains provisions meeting all ofthese elements. The plan commits thatthe
state will adhere to the following schedule (pp. 40-43 ofthe maintenance plan), ifthe state selects this contingency measure:

1. Three months fromnotification by EPA ofaviolation-the state will
propose necessary regulatory changes for adoption by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission.

2. Five months fromnotification-the
state will present proposed revisions for public hearing.

3. Sixmonths from notification-the
state will request adoption bythe Commission.

4. Ten to eighteen months after notification-the state will submitthe adopted regulations to EPA as a SIP revision.

5. Eighteen months after notification-the state will implement the contingency measure.

The commenter has not provided any information indicating thatthese commitments inMissouri's maintenance plan do not meet the requirements of40 CFR 51.372(c)(4), and EPAfinds thatthe state has met these requirements.

In the January 30, 2003, proposal on the I/Mrevisions, EPA discussed how Missouri had met the requirements of section 51.372(c)(1)-(3) (68 FR4842, 4844-4845). EPA did notreceive any comments onits proposal with respect to these other requirements. For the

reasons stated in theproposal, EPA finds that the requirements of section 51.372(c)(1)-(3) are met.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA's review ofthe material submitted indicates thatthe state has 

### 25416

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25416 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

revised the I/M program in accordance with therequirements ofthe CAA and the Federal rule except for one. The state's requirement that the I/M240 test be the deciding test for the retest during the phase-in period for the OBD test is inconsistent with our April 5, 2001, rule which requires only the OBD test be used for the retest (seeTest Procedures and Standards in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule, page 4844 for further discussion). However, since the St. Louis area isbeing redesignated to attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and as provided for in the Federal I/Mrule at 40 CFR 51.372, we

are fully approving the Missouri SIP revision for the St. Louis I/Mprogram pursuant tothat section and incorporate by reference the state I/M rule, 10 CSR 10-5.380, which was submitted on December 13, 2002.

As noted in the January 30, 2003, proposal, Missouri has revised its regulations to require Federal facilities operating vehicles in the I/Mprogram
area to report certification of compliance tothe state. These requirements appear tobe different from those for other non-Federal groups of Missouri registered vehicles. However,
atthis time we are not requiring states to implement 40 CFR 51.356(a)(4) dealing with Federal installations within I/M areas. The Department of Justice has recommended to us thatthis Federal regulation be revised since it
appears to grant states authority to regulate Federal installations in circumstances where the Federal government has not waived sovereign immunity. It would notbe appropriate
to require compliance with this regulation ifit is not authorized. We will be revising this provision in the future and will review state I/MSIPs with respect tothis issue when this new rule is final.

Therefore, for these reasons, we are neither proposing approval nor disapproval ofthe specific requirements which apply to Federal facilities at this time.

WhatIs the Effective Date For This Rulemaking?

To fulfill the requirements ofthe CAA, this rulemaking isbeing done in conjunction with another rulemaking published today which finds thatthe St. Louis area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard, redesignates the area to attainment, and approves the state's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard. Because these rulemakings are linked, in thatthe redesignation cannot be completed until this I/Mrulemaking is completed, EPA finds that there is good cause for this final rule tobecome effective immediately upon publication

asthe redesignation will alsobecome effective immediately for good cause shown. See also the discussion in the referenced rulemaking for additional information. The immediate effective date is authorized under 5U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication iftherule "grants or recognizes an exemption orrelieves a restriction." In the January 30, 2003, final rule (68 FR 4836), we reclassified the St. Louis area to a "serious" nonattainment area and established a schedule for submission ofSIP revisions fulfilling the requirements for serious

ozone nonattainment areas. Upon the effective date ofthe rule that finds the

area has attained, redesignates the area, and approves the maintenance plan (alsopublished today), the state of Missouri will be relieved ofthe obligation to develop and submit these SIP revisions. Thus, Missouri will not be required to develop a SIP for the implementation of an enhanced I/M program. EPAfinds thatgood cause exists for this final rule being immediately effective since, in conjunction with the redesignation, it relieves the state ofMissouri ofcertain requirements established as aresult of the January 30, 2003, reclassification to

a serious nonattainment area. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This actionmerely approves state law asmeeting Federal requirements andimposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alterthe relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe CAA. Thisrule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden underthe provisions ofthe PaperworkReduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United StatesHouse ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the 

### 25417

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25417 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby July 11, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule

oraction. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: April 29, 2003. William W.Rice, ActingRegional Administrator, Region 7. * ChapterI, Title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows: PART 52-[AMENDED]

m1. The authoritycitation forPart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart AA-Missouri

* 2.In §52.1320 the table inparagraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 10-5.380, under Chapter 5,to read as follows:
§52.1320 Identificationof plan.

* * * * *



### (c)* * *

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval Explanation date

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Chapter 5-Air Quality Standards and Air PollutionControl Regulations forthe St. Louis Metropolitan Area

10-5.380

................................................................................ M otorvehicle emissions in- 12/30/02 5/12/03 spection.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03-11186 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [MO 182-1182; FRL-7494-5]

Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard, St. LouisArea; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, and Redesignation of Areas forAir Quality Planning Purposes, State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is determining thatthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (St. Louis area) has attained the 1-hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area includes the counties ofFranklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. Louis Cityin Missouri and the counties ofMadison, Monroe, and St. Clair in Illinois. This determination isbased on three years ofcomplete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2000 through 2002 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. EPA is also determining that certain

ozone attainment demonstration requirements, along with certain other related requirements ofpart D oftitle I ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), are not applicable tothe St. Louis area.

EPA is also approving a request from the state ofMissouri, submitted on December 6, 2002, to redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment ofthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. In approving this request EPAis also approving the state's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014, as arevision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is also finding adequate and approving the state's 2014 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx)in the submitted maintenance plan for transportation conformity purposes. Refer alsoto a separate rule published today regarding similar approvals for the state ofIllinois. DATES: This rule is effective May 12, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Relevant documents for this rule are available for inspection at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office
atleast 24 hoursin advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Petruska, (913) 551-7637, (petruska.anthony@epa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever "we, "us," or "our" is used, we mean EPA.
Table ofContents
I.Whatis thebackground forthis action? II.What actions are we taking andwhen are

they effective? III. Why are we taking these actions to

redesignate thearea? IV.What are the effects ofredesignation to

attainment ofthe 1 -hourNAAQS? 25418

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25418 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

V. What comments did wereceive and what

are our responses? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

On January 30, 2003, EPA published

afinal rule and two proposed rules related to the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (68 FR 4836, 68 FR 4842 and 68 FR 4847). The final rule found at 68 FR 4836 reinstated and made effective a prior EPA finding that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area did not attain the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 1996 (basedon 1994- 1996 ozone data) and reinstated a reclassification of the area to a serious nonattainment area. In addition, in the January 30, 2003, final rule, EPA established a schedule for submission of

state implementation plan revisions and established November 15, 2004, as the date by which the St. Louis area must attain the ozone standard. A correction

to this final rule was published on February 13, 2003, which corrected a table entry (68 FR 7410). In the proposed rule found at 68 FR 4847, EPA proposed to determine that the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on complete, quality-assured monitoring data for 2000 through 2002. In addition, the proposed rule proposed to approve requests from the states ofMissouri and Illinois to redesignate the St. Louis area
to attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, proposed to determine that certain requirements of the CAA are not applicable, proposed to approve the states' maintenance plans as revisions to the SIP, and proposed to find adequate and approve the 2014 motor vehicle emissionbudgets for volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide compounds for transportation conformity purposes. In the proposed rule found at 68 FR 4842, EPA proposed

to approve a revision to the state implementation plan for the inspection and maintenance (I/M)program operating in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

This rule is EPA's final action finding that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard, as well as EPA's final action

on the January 30, 2003, proposal found

at 68 FR 4847 as it relates to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area. As noted in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule onpage 4848, EPA received separate requests from Missouri and Illinois to redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment. In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule, EPA proposed actions related to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe nonattainment area. However, EPA stated thatit was considering issuance oftwo separate rules when ittook final action on the redesignation requests. We received no comments onthis aspect ofthe proposal. Withthe exception ofthe determination ofattainment, EPA is taking final action related tothe Missouri portion ofthe nonattainment

area and is taking final action on the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area in separate rulemaking actions. Section 107(d)(3)(v) provides, as aprerequisite to redesignation, that: "the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D." This sectionplainly shows that Congress
meant for EPA to evaluate whether each
state requesting redesignation of an area has met the applicable requirements. In addition, each state has authority only
to adopt and submit for approval a maintenance plan and a revision ofits SIP that are applicable to its territory. Since each state has the authority only
to request redesignation for the portion ofthe area within itsboundaries, and EPA evaluated each states' request for redesignation separately, the final rules redesignating each states' portion ofthe nonattainment area are being published separately. However, EPA has concluded that in determining whether

ornot amultistate area has attained the standard based upon complete, qualityassured ambient air quality monitoring data, EPAwill consider the attainment
status ofthe area as awhole. Therefore, EPA's finding thatthe area has attained the NAAQS applies to the entire nonattainment area, and we are publishing that finding in this rule. In another rule published today, EPA references this finding andtakes separate action on a similar redesignation request and SIP submission byIllinois. See 67 FR 49600, July 31, 2002 (Reinstatement of Redesignation ofKentucky Portion of Cincinnati-Hamilton area) for additional discussion ofthese issues.

The history for this action has been
setforth in detail in theproposed rulemaking published January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847, 4848-4849), and is summarized below.

The Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area includes Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties and St. Louis City. The Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment

area includes Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties (collectively referred to

asthe Metro-East area).

The St. Louis area was designated as

an ozone nonattainment area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 15, 1990, the CAAAmendments of 1990

were enacted. Under section 107(d)(4)(A) ofthe CAA, onNovember 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the St. Louis area

was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area as a result of monitored violations ofthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS during the 1987-1989 period. On January 30, 2003, EPA reclassified the area to a serious nonattainment area, effective January 30, 2003.

The states adopted and implemented emission control programs required under the CAA to reduce emissions of VOC and NOx. These emission control
programs include stationary source reasonably available control technology (RACT), vehicle I/M programs, transportation control measures (TCMs), and other measures (seethe analysis and discussion of specific emission control measures at 68 FR 4847). As a result ofthe emission control programs,

ozone monitors in the St. Louis area have recorded three years of ozone monitoring data for the 2000-2002 period showing that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

On December 6, 2002, the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) submitted a Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Missouri Portion ofthe St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area along with a request to redesignate the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment

area to attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Included in the Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Missouri Portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area is aplan to maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for at least the

next 10 years, and the 2014 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

II.What Actions Are We Taking and When Are They Effective?

After consideration of the comments received in response to the January 30, 2003, proposal, as described in section Vbelow, we are taking the following actions:

A. Determinationof Attainment

EPA is determining that the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area, consisting of both the Missouri and the Illinois portions ofthe area, has attained the 1- hour ozone standard.

EPA is also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1) ofthe CAA), along with certain other related requirements, ofpart D oftitle I ofthe CAA, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement (measures needed to mitigate a state's 

### 25419

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25419 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

failure to achieve reasonable further progress toward, and attainment of,a NAAQS), the section 182 attainment demonstration and rate ofprogress (ROP)requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement, are not applicable tothe St. Louis area.

On January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847), EPA proposed thatthe St. Louis area had attained the standard based on 2000-2002 monitoring data. With this finding, EPA also proposed that certain requirements, including an attainment demonstration, were no longer applicable as the area had attained the standard. EPA has explained at length in other actions its rationale for the reasonableness ofthis interpretation of the CAA and incorporates those explanations byreference. See (67 FR 49600) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Kentucky, July 31, 2002); (66 FR 53095) (Pittsburgh-BeaverValley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 37879) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio and Kentucky, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 36723) (July 18, 1995) Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 31832- 31833) (June 21, 1996) (GrandRapids, MI). The United States Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld EPA's interpretation. SierraClubv. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 

### (lothCir. 1996).

EPA reiterates the position setforth in its prior rulemaking actions and in the January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847) proposed rulemaking for the St. Louis area. Subpart 2ofpart D of title Iofthe CAA contains various air quality planning and SIP submission requirements for

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the provisions regarding Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment demonstrations, along with other certain otherrelated provisions, not torequire SIP submissions ifan ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment ofthe ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three consecutive years ofcomplete, qualityassured, air quality monitoring data). EPA interprets the general provisions of subpart 1ofpart D oftitle I (sections 171 and 172) not to require the submission ofSIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations or section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. As explained in amemorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Area Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard," dated May 10, 1995, EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the more specific attainment demonstration and related provisions ofsubpart 2in the

same manner. See SierraClubv. EPA, 99 F. 3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).

The attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) require that the plan provide for "such specific annual reductions in emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA." If an area has, in fact, monitored attainment oftherelevant NAAQS, EPA believes there isno need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation ofcertain section 172(c) requirements provided by EPAin the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA statedin the General Preamble, no other

measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since "attainment will have been reached" (57 FR 13564). Upon attainment ofthe NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts tothe maintenance ofthe NAAQS andthe development of a maintenance plan under section 175A. Similarreasoning applies to other related provisions ofsubpart 2.The first ofthese are the contingency measure requirements ofsection 172(c)(9) ofthe CAA. EPA has previously interpreted the contingency measure requirements ofsection 172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those "contingency

measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date" (57 FR 13564).

The state must continue to operate an appropriate network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status ofthe area. The air quality data relied upon to determine that the area is attaining the ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).

EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone (consistent with therequirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's AIRS) for the St Louis ozone nonattainment area from the 2000 to 2002 ozone seasons. EPA has also reviewed thepreliminary data collected
to date for the 2003 ozone season (for St. Louis, the ozone season isApril 1 through October 31 ofeachyear). Onthe basis ofthis review, EPAhas determined that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard duringthe 2000-2002 period and continues to attain the standard, and therefore is not required to submit an attainment demonstration and a section 172(c)(9) contingency measure plan, nor does it need any othermeasures to attain the 1- hour ozone standard.

B.Redesignationof MissouriPortionof theSt.LouisArea toAttainment

Although EPA is determining that the entire St. Louis nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA has determined that itis appropriate to take final actionrelated to Missouri's request to redesignate the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment

area and take final action related to Illinois' request to redesignate the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area in separate rulemaking actions being published today.In the January 30, 2003, proposal, EPA stated that it was considering publishing separate rulemakings for Missouri andIllinois (68 FR 4848). We received one comment in support of publishing separate rulemakings andno adverse comments. In this rulemaking, EPAis takingthe following actions with respect tothe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area:

EPA is approving a request from the
state ofMissouri to redesignate the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area to attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition, EPAis taking the following actions:

1. Approving Missouri's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014, as arevision to the Missouri SIP;

2. Finding adequate and approving the 2014 MVEBs of47.14 tons per ozone

season weekday for VOC and 68.59 tons per ozone season weekday for NOx in the submitted maintenance plans for transportation conformity purposes; and,

3. Determining thatthe attainment demonstration (and related contingency

measure requirements) and reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements ofthe CAA are not applicable.

C.Effective DateofTheseActions

EPA finds that there is good cause for this determination ofattainment, redesignation to attainment and SIP revision to become effective immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature ofa redesignation to attainment which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate 

### 25420

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25420 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

effective date for this action is authorized under both 5U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions maybecome effective less than 30 days after publication iftherule "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."

In addition, as indicated above, the January 30, 2003, final rule reclassified the St. Louis area to a "serious" nonattainment area and established a schedule for submission ofSIP revisions fulfilling the requirements for serious

ozone nonattainment areas. Upon the effective date ofthis rule, the state of Missouri will be relieved ofthe obligation to develop and submit these SIP revisions. In addition, the Missouri rules adopted to meet the requirements oftitle V ofthe CAA, provide that in a "serious" area, stationary sources with potential emissions ofVOCs and NOx greater than 50 tons per year are major

sources. As such, these major sources

are subject tothe title V permit program and are required to submit title V permit applications within twelve months of January 30, 2003. Upon the effective date ofthis rule, stationary sources which are newly subject to the title V permitting program as a result ofthe January 30, 2003, reclassification to a serious nonattainment area will be relieved oftherequirement to submit title V permit applications. In a separate rulemaking, EPA is redesignating the Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area to attainment. Additional requirements specific tothe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area are described in that separate rulemaking and are alsobeing lifted as

aresult ofthatportion's redesignation to attainment. EPAfinds that good cause exists for this final rulebeing immediately effective since it relieves the state ofMissouri as well as stationary sources ofcertain restrictions which would otherwise apply.

III.Why Are We Taking These Actions To Redesignate theArea?

EPA has determined that the St. Louis

area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. In addition, EPA has determined that the state ofMissouri has demonstrated thatthe criteria for redesignation ofthe Missouri portion of the area from nonattainment to attainment have been met.

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule
at68 FR 4847, EPA described the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1)The Administrator determines thatthe area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the

area under section 110(k); (3)the Administrator determines thatthe improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal airpollutant control regulations and otherpermanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area asmeeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5)the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.

EPA has determined that the St. Louis

area has attained the applicable NAAQS. EPAhas fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area under section 110(k). EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is dueto permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the Missouri portion ofthe area as meeting the requirements of section 175A. Missouri has met all requirements applicable tothe Missouri portion ofthe

area under section 110 and part D.

By finding that the maintenance plan provides for maintenance ofthe NAAQS through 2014, EPA is hereby finding adequate and approving the 2014 MVEBs contained within the maintenance plan. The MVEB for NOx in the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis

area is 68.59 tons per ozone season weekday. The MVEB for VOCs in the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area is 47.14 tons per ozone seasonweekday.

The rationale for these findings is as statedin this rulemaking and the January 30, 2003, proposed rule found
at 68 FR 4847.

IV. WhatAre the Effects of Redesignation to Attainment ofthe 1- HourNAAQS?

These actions determine thatthe area attained the 1-hour ozone standard and that certain other related requirements ofpart D oftitle I ofthe CAA, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement (measuresneeded to mitigate a state's failure to achieve reasonable further
progress toward, and attainment of, a NAAQS), the section 182 attainment demonstration and rate ofprogress requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement are not applicable to the St. Louis area. EPA's determination thatthe St. Louis area has met the 1-hour ozone standard relieves the states from the obligation to meet certain additional requirements, which apply to areas not attaining that standard.

EPA notes thatthe area islikely to be designated nonattainment forthe 8-hour

ozone standard and would be subject to any additional requirements as a result ofsuch designation. EPA also notes that itis notrevoking the 1-hour standard for the St. Louis area.

Approval ofthe Missouri redesignation request changes the official designation for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area, including the City of StLouis, andthe Counties ofFranklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis from nonattainment to attainment. It also incorporates into the Missouri SIP a planfor maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014. The plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations ofthe 1- hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC and NOxMVEBs for 2014 forthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.
V. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are OurResponses?

We received five letters regarding the January 30, 2003, proposed rule found
at 68 FR 4847. Four ofthe letters generally supported the rulemaking action. Two ofthe fourletters in support ofthe rulemaking action raised issues to which EPA is responding in this section. One ofthe five letters contained adverse comments. A summary ofthe
comments andEPA's responses to them

are provided below. This discussion addresses comments relating to the St. Louis area as awhole, and comments specifically relating to the Missouri portion ofthe area. Comments relating specifically tothe Illinois portion ofthe

area are addressed in the final rule for Illinois published elsewhere inthis FederalRegister.

A. CommentRelatedtoMeetingthe Criteria forRedesignationtoAttainment
Comment 1:The St. Louis area has failed to meet any ofthe five criteria specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA for redesignation to attainment.

Response 1:EPA's determination that the St. Louis area has attained the ozone standard is set forth in section II.A above. EPA has further foundthat the

area has met all ofthe five criteria 

### 25421

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25421 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA for redesignation to attainment. Below are specific comments and
responses raised by the commenter regarding each criterion.

B. CommentsRelatedto Criterion1: The AreaMustBeAttainingthe 1-Hour OzoneNAAQS

Comment2:Monitoring data are not representative ofair quality conditions. Monitoring data collected onLabor Day weekend in 2002 are "hopelessly contaminated" due to voluntary emission reductions undertaken by industry and others.

Response2:Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that one criterion for redesignation to attainment is thatEPA
must determine thatthe NAAQS has been attained. The regulations at 40 CFR part 58 specify data collection and quality assurance procedures. For
ozone, an area is attaining the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS ifthere are no violations,

as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H. The regulation at 40 CFR 50.9 states "the standard is attained when the expected number ofdays per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 part per million is equal to or less than 1as determined by appendix H." Appendix H states, "The basic principle in making this determination is relatively straightforward.

. . .In its simplest form, the number ofexceedances at a monitoring site wouldbe recorded for each calendar year and then averaged

over the past 3calendar years to determine ifthis average is less than or equal to 1." The monitoring data for the St. Louis nonattainment area demonstrate thatthe estimated number ofexceedances per year averaged over three years (2000 through 2002) is 1.0 or less at all monitoring sites in the area. In the case ofSt. Louis, all ofthe data collected are reviewed, quality assured and submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. EPA conducts a number ofactivities to determine that the data meet the data collection and quality assurance procedures of40 CFR part 58 including the following:

-EPA ensures thatthe state (andlocal

agencies) is performing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) checks properly through systems audits asrequired per 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. During these systems audits EPA ensures that states are properly calibrating instruments, properly performing precision and span checks on instruments, and properly conducting audits ofthe instruments asrequired in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. -EPA chooses several hourly ozone

values andtracks those data points from their collection at the monitor through their datahandling procedures, including QA/QC procedures, to its final destination in the AQS database. -To ensure quality data, as required by

40 CFR part 58, appendix A, prior to the start ofozone season each year, EPA certifies atleast one primary standard ozone photometer for each of the state andlocal agencies. These primary ozone photometers stay in the state/local laboratories. Transfer standard photometers are verified against theprimary photometer and

areused to calibrate the ozone analyzers in the field. Thus, all ofthe data collected is traceable back to EPA's primary photometer. -EPA, aswell as the quality assurance

groups ofthe state and local agencies, conduct audits onthe ozone instruments collecting the data. These audits are required tobe performed quarterly asper 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. EPA audits each ozone instrument atleast once per ozone

season. This ensures thatthe instrument is operating properly and collecting accurate data, and it also
acts as a check on the state and local quality assurance groups to make sure that the audits they have conducted

are accurate. -As required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, Precision and Span checks are performed every two weeks by the agency operating the instrument.
EPA believes that any voluntary

measures which may have been taken by industry and others over a two- or three-day period in this three-year time period do not render the air quality monitoring data unrepresentative ofthe air quality. The data would only be "contaminated" ifthere had been an

error withrespect to collection and quality assurance ofthe data, which there was not. The commenter offers no information indicating data collection

was improper. In addition, evenifthese activities by the community were relevant to whether the area had attained, there is no evidence that emissions were actually reduced to an extentwhich would have a significant effect on ozone levels. Seeresponse to comment 18 belowregarding further discussion on the "voluntary reductions" during the Labor Day weekend in 2002. In fact, as explained in the January 30, 2003, proposal at 68 FR 4856-4858, andin sectionV.D. below, the monitored improvements in air quality were due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. For example, as explained further in response to comment 19, the Missouri centralized motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program began in April 2000, the first year ofthe 2000- 2002 time period. The use of reformulated gasoline began in 1999 and achieved additional reductions during the 2000-2002 time period. The monitoring data accurately reflected actual air quality conditions. See response to comment 19below regarding EPA's conclusion that improvements in air quality are attributable topermanent and enforceable reductions in ozone precursor emissions.

Comment3:EPA's proposal ignores the second component discussed in a September 4, 1992, redesignation guidance document fromJohn Calcagni entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" (Calcagnimemo) to EPA regional offices, thatthe determination ofattainment should rely not only on monitored values, but on supplemental EPA-approved modeling. For St. Louis, monitored data runs directly counter to air quality modeling. The modeling supported the contention that the NAAQS couldbe attained onlyin 2004 after all control measures are adopted. Thus, the monitored attainment is a "fluke" explainable by factors other thanthe success ofthe pollution control

measures. In addition, based on the Calcagni memo the commenter believes that supplemental ozone modeling may be necessary to determine the representativeness ofthe monitored data. Without such supplemental modeling, the commenter asserts that the January 30, 2003, proposed rule's implicit conclusion that the St. Louis

area ozone data are "representative" is baseless.

Response3:The commenter cites a policy memorandum entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo), which states thatthere aretwo components in determining that an area has met the section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement. This policy states the following:

The state must showthat the area is attaining the applicable NAAQS. There are two components involvedin making this demonstration which shouldbe considered interdependently. Thefirst component relies upon ambient airquality data. * * * The second component reliesupon supplemental EPA-approved airquality modeling. No such supplemental modeling isrequired for 03 

### 25422

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25422 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

(ozone) nonattainment areas seeking redesignation * * * (pages 2 and 3).

This document explains that supplemental modeling may be needed, for example, in sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide areas, where emissions are localized and a small number ofmonitors may notbe representative ofair quality (page 3). In contrast, ozone is not a localized pollutant, andthe St. Louis area has an extensive monitoring network consisting ofnineteen monitors operating each year from 2000 through 2002 as described in EPA's proposal at 68 FR 4850. Therefore, consistent with the language in thepolicy and the rationale in calling for modeling in

some cases for somepollutants and not in other cases, modeling is not required

aspart ofthis redesignation. Neither section 107(d)(3)(E) northe policy referenced by the commenter requires modeling as a prerequisite to redesignation ofan ozone nonattainment area. In addition, no modeling was conducted as part ofthe redesignation requests submitted by Missouri or Illinois. Therefore, EPA does not believe thatthe monitored data

runs counter to air quality modeling. See Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), and the redesignations for Pittsburgh (66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001), and Cincinnati (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000). See response to comments 10, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 37 below regarding further discussion of modeling issues.

Commenter's contention that attainment cannot be reached until at least 2004 is addressed below in
response to comments 21 and 24.

In addition,the correlation between air quality improvements and permanent and enforceable emission reductions, demonstrating that monitored attainment is not a "fluke" is described in detail in theproposal and sectionV.D below.

The ozone modeling approaches used donot support any direct comparisons between ozone modeling results and monitored ozone concentrations for years otherthan a monitored and modeled base period. Although statistical comparisons are made between monitored ozone data and modeled base period ozone concentrations to validate ozone modeling results, ozone models are not designed to explicitly model ozone concentrations at specific locations or to exactly predict future ozone concentrations that can be compared to monitored ozone concentrations on a site-by-site basis. Ozone models are designed toprimarily predict the relative impacts ofemission changes on future peak ozone levels assuming the

same meteorological conditions that are modeled for thebase period. Such modeling techniques produce results with considerable uncertainty (relative
to time- and location-specific monitored

ozone concentrations) when one actually compares future modeled results with monitored ozone concentrations for the same years. The
commenter errs in trying to force comparisons not supported bythe existing science.

What the modeling results do imply is that, asregional NOx emission controls

are implemented through statewide rules in Illinois, Missouri, and other states,peak ozone levels in the St. Louis

area are expected to decrease. This increases the likelihood ofmaintaining the ozone standard in the St. Louis area, thus supporting the approval ofthe state's ozone redesignation request. Illinois andMissouri are committed to implement statewide NOx emission controls regardless ofthe attainment
status ofthe St. Louis area. Both states

are currently implementing statewide NOx control rules. Comment4:The monitored data do
not support a conclusion ofcontinued attainment since the trend is toward increases in exceedances because the number ofexceedances tripled from 2000 to 2001 and more than doubled from 2001 to 2002 showing an upward trend in peak ozone concentrations. The
commenter notes that, ifthe same number ofexceedances that occurred in 2002 occur in 2003 or 2004, the area will again violate the one-hour ozone standard.

Response4:See response to comment 20 belowfor our detailed response to the comment relating to air quality trends. The determination of attainment,

as explained in the January 30, 2003, proposal, in section II.A. above, and in
response to comment 2, isbased onthe requirements ofsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) andEPA's regulation which defines attainment ofthe ozone standard. The regulatory definition is based on design values over a 3-year period, not onyearto-year trends within the three-year period. It would be inconsistent with the regulation to adopt an additional criterion for determining attainment.

It should be noted that a "worsening"

ozone trend for the St. Louis area can onlybe discerned for the 2000-2002 period by combining the annual number ofexceedances for all monitoring sites in the area (bytotaling the number of exceedances for each year for all monitoring sites combined). This approach is technically flawed. The

ozone standard isbased onassessing the peak ozone data for each monitoring site individually notby cumulating the data for all sites. Review ofthe yearly exceedance data for each monitoring site, as given in Table 1in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule (68 FR 4850) and inresponse to comment 20 below, shows thatno consistent ozone exceedance rate trend can be established for the individual monitoring sitesfor this period. Forexample, the West Alton site experienced one ozone exceedance peryear with no up or down trend.The Wood River monitor in Illinois increased from zero exceedances in 2000 to one exceedance in 2001 and back down to zero exceedances in 2002. Many monitors continued to record zero exceedances throughout the 2000-2002 period as noted above. Some monitors, which recorded zero exceedances in 2000 and 2001, recorded one or two exceedances in 2002, hardly a consistent, robust trend. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, on a monitor-bymonitor basis, which isthe basis for assessing compliance with the 1-hour

ozone standard, there is no consistent "worsening" trend in peak ozone concentrations.

Comment5: EPA asserts that the data is "quality assured" but provided no explanation. EPAmust demonstrate that the data is quality assured. EPA must document the adequacy ofthe states' quality assurance plan. Also, the
commenter questions whether the data relied on for the attainment determination was quality-assured since itwas entered in AIRS earlier than usual.

Response 5: As indicated in the
response to comment 2 above, the regulations at 40 CFR part 58 specify data collection and quality assurance procedures. The Calcagni memo on page 2 specifies that the data shouldbe collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS in order for itto be available to the public for review. The monitoring data for the St. Louis area

was quality assured and entered into AIRS in accordance with these requirements.

Appendix Ato 40 CFR part 58 specifies the quality assurance requirements for state and local air monitoring stations. The regulation at 40 CFR 58.35(c) requires thatthe monitoring data be entered into AIRS within 90 days after the end ofthe calendar quarterin which itis collected. Thus, monitoring data collected through September 2002 must be quality assured and entered into AIRS byDecember 31, 2002. Monitoring data for October 2002
mustbe quality assured and entered into AIRSby March 31, 2003. 25423

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25423 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Monitoring data collected in a calendar quarter canbe quality assured and entered into AIRS at any time prior to 90 days after the end ofthat quarter.

The monitoring data is quality assured and entered into AIRS bythe
state and local agencies in the St. Louis

area. The regulation at40 CFR 58.20 requires states to adopt and submit to EPA revisions to the SIP which provide for meeting the requirements of appendix A. On September 27, 1984 (49 FR 38103), EPA approved Missouri's Air Quality Monitoring Plan. EPA stated in this September 27, 1984, rulemaking that "the Missouri Air Quality Monitoring Plan satisfies the requirements of40 CFR 58.20." On March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15136), EPA approved Illinois' Air Quality Surveillance Plan. EPA stated in this March 4, 1981, rulemaking thatEPA has reviewed theplan and "it meets the requirements of * * * EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 58." As part ofthe September 27, 1984, and March 4, 1981, rulemakings the public was provided the opportunity to review and comment

onMissouri's and Illinois' quality

assurance procedures. Pursuant to the Calcagni memo, page 3,and upheld in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d.426, 437), an EPA action on a redesignation request does not mean that earlier issues with regard tothe SIP will be reopened. Thus, there is no requirement to present quality assurance procedures in this rulemaking.

In addition toMissouri's Air Quality Monitoring Plan and Illinois' Air Quality Surveillance Plan, EPA reviewed and approved the States' Quality Management Plans (QMP). Under the states' QMP, the state and local agencies conducting the ambient monitoring develop Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP). It is through the QMP and QAPP that EPAreviewed and approved the states' and local agencies' quality assurance procedures. In order
to verify that the state and local agencies followed these procedures and thatthe datameets the data collection and quality assurance procedures of40 CFR part 58, EPA conducted the actions listed in theresponse to comment 2 above.

C. CommentsRelatedto Criterion 2: The AreaMustHaveaFullyApprovedSIP UnderSection 11

### 0(k)

Comment6:The serious area SIP requirements ofthe CAA are applicable
to the St. Louis area. These requirements have not been promulgated by the states and there is

no "claim" thatthey could not have been submitted with the redesignation request. Thus, the SIPs are not "fully approved." In addition,the Calcagni

memo includes procedures suggested by EPA for reducing the stringency ofthe control measures to become part ofthe contingency measure. The states have
not done these procedures.

Response6:The SIP which is required to be "fully approved" under criterion 2isthe "applicable" implementation plan (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). This sectionrequires that the SIP mustbe "fully approved" under section 110(k) rather than partial, conditional, or limited approval (Calcagni memo, page 3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires the SIP to include "all requirements applicable to the area under Section 110 andPart D." This commentrelates to the issue of which requirements are "applicable," rather than whether the SIP is fully approved. The commenter asserts, without explanation, that the statute requires EPA to determine thatthe "serious" area requirements are applicable to its consideration ofthe redesignation request for the area. However, the CAA is not as prescriptive

asthe commenter assumes. (See, Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d 426,438 (6th Cir. 2001) which states: "The statute, however, does not describe howthe EPAis to decide which Part D requirements are "applicable" in evaluating a redesignation request.")

EPA has established apolicy to provide guidance in determining how to apply the statutory criterion with respect to which requirements are applicable in reviewing aredesignation request. As stated in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule (page 4851), the September 4, 1992, Calcagni memo (see "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation ofthe section 107(d)(3)(E) requirement. Under this interpretation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet the relevant CAA requirements that

come due prior tothe submittal of a complete redesignation request. Areas may be redesignated eventhough they have not adopted measures that come due after the submission ofa complete redesignation request. A detailed discussion ofEPA's rationale for this interpretation is contained in the rule redesignating Detroit-Ann Arbor, 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995). Pursuant tothe January 30, 2003, final rule reclassifying the St. Louis area to "serious" (68 FR 4836), the serious nonattainment area requirements are due onJanuary 30, 2004. The final rule has not been timely challenged under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA. Thus, the serious nonattainment area requirements due date is January 30, 2004. Since the serious area requirements are notyet due, the SIP is
not deficientbecause the serious area requirements have notbeen included. EPApolicy and a reasonable application ofsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)allow for an area to be redesignated even though the area has not adopted

measures which are not yet due. EPA has consistently applied this policy and interpretation in other redesignations including the Detroit-Ann Arbor redesignation cited above.

In addition, there isno requirement in section 107(d)(3)(E) that states must "claim" (ordemonstrate) that they could not have submitted the serious

area SIP revisions or any additional revisions at the time ofthe redesignation requests, ifthose requirements are not applicable to the

area when the request is made. EPA's action to reclassify the area to a serious nonattainment area waspublished in the Federal Register after both states had submitted their redesignation requests to attainment, and it established a deadline for submission of the serious area requirements which had
notyet passed, and still remains in the future. Thus, Missouri was not required
to include in its request a "claim" that the state cannot complete the serious

area requirements.

Finally, the Calcagni memo discusses the statutory requirement that the state must implement all measures included in the SIP priorto redesignation (pages 12-13). (In response to comment 32, EPA discusses howthis requirement has been met.) This requirement does not expand the universe ofrequirements which are "applicable" for purposes of redesignation. Unless the serious area requirements are applicable to an area, and already contained in a SIP prior to redesignation, the discussion in the Calcagni memo does not relate to the issue raised by the commenter.

Because the serious area requirements

are not applicable requirements for St. Louis, for the reasons discussed above, and are not included in the SIP for St. Louis, the guidance in the Calcagni

memo andin amemorandum entitled "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992" dated September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memo), relating to mechanisms for converting part D

measures into contingency measures is 25424

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25424 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

not relevant for purposes ofthis redesignation. Comment7: The proposed rulemaking suggests that a SIP meeting the serious

area requirements need not be fully approved because such a plan isnot yet due. The CAA does not make an exception for SIP revisions thathave or have not become due. In fact, the serious area requirements have, as a matter oflaw,become due. The plans

were dueby June 14, 1998, and no later than May 18, 2002, pursuant to previous EPA and Court actions. The commenter statedthat the May 18, 2002, date was setby EPAin a March 19, 2001, rulemaking, and that the effect of a decision bythe Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit was to reinstate this submission date.

Response7: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires that the applicable SIP for the

area must be fully approved under section 110(k). As discussed in the
response to comments 6 and 8, the applicable SIPs for the St. Louis area are fully approved, andthe serious area requirements have not yetbecome due. In making this determination, EPAis
not creating an "exception" to the statutory requirements for approved SIPs, but is determining that SIP revisions which are notyet due are not "applicable" for purposes ofsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). As stated in the January 30, 2003, final rule at 68 FR 4838, onNovember 25, 2002, the Seventh Circuit Court ofAppeals vacated a June 26, 2001, rule extending the St. Louis area's attainment date, and remanded to EPA for "entry ofa final rule that reclassifies St Louis as a serious nonattainment area effective immediately * * *" (SierraClub and MissouriCoalition fortheEnvironment

v. EPA,311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)). In response to the Court's order, and in accordance with section 181(b)(2) ofthe CAA, EPA reinstated the nonattainment determination andreclassification contained in the March 19, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 15585). In the January 30 rule, EPA also established a deadline of 12 months after January 30, 2003, for the states to submit the serious

area requirements. The rationale for the deadline is stated in the January 30, 2003, final rule (68 FR 4838). The January 30, 2003, final rule was not challenged and this redesignation rulemaking does not reopen the January 30 rulemaking. Comments on the appropriate deadline for the serious area requirements are beyond the scope of this rule.

With respect to the commenter's assertion thatthe serious area requirements should have been due by June 14, 1998, this isbased on an argument made bythe commenter in the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia that the reclassification ofthe St. Louis area to serious should have been made retrocative to 1997, with the serious area

measures due in 1998. This argument is
not only outside the scope ofthis rulemaking as explained previously, but it was rejected by both Courts (See, SierraClubv. Whitman, 285 F.3d, 63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). The Courts rejected the notion that retroactive SIP submission dates should be imposed because they would have passed before the area had notice and opportunity to meet the deadlines. See also, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia Determination of Nonattainment (68 FR 3410, January 24, 2003). As explained above, EPA's determination that the serious area requirements arenot "applicable" with respect to this redesignation because they are not yet due is consistent with the CAA, withthe January 30, 2003, final rule, with applicable EPA policy, with relevant judicial decisions, and with a longhistory ofprior redesignation actions. Comment8:There is no "fully approved" or even a partially approved SIP because the June 26, 2001, rule was vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Response8:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule
at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA described the actionstaken by EPA in the June 26, 2001, rule which were vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit. Also, in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA reproposed to approve somerequirements, and explained that certain additional actions vacated by the Court were no longer applicable requirements since the area has attained the NAAQS. As discussed in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule, the additional actions vacatedby the Court which are no longer applicable include the contingency measure requirements ofsection 172(c), additional RACM requirements of section 172(c)(1) and section 182(b), and the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(b)(1). That discussion isincorporated herein. See alsothe discussion in section II.A concerning the inapplicability ofcertain requirements. In the June 26, 2001, rule, EPAtook the following relevant actions: approved Missouri's andIllinois' 1-hour

ozone attainment demonstration; found thatthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area met the RACM requirements ofthe CAA; foundthat the contingency

measures identified by the states of Illinois and Missouri are adequate; approved the Illinois andMissouri MVEBs; approved an exemption from the oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) emission control requirements for RACT and disapproved an exemption from the NOx new source review (NSR)and NOx conformity requirements for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. EPAhas determined, for the reasons stated in this rule and inthe proposed rule, that the attainment demonstration, and RACM requirements, are no longer applicable requirements since the area has attained the NAAQS. In this rulemaking, EPA is approving contingency measures aspart of Missouri's maintenance plan, and approving MVEBs for 2014, for the Missouri portion ofthe area. In a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register, EPA is approving revisions to Missouri's I/Mrule.

To be considered fully approved pursuant to section 110(k), the SIP must nothave partial approval, disapproval,

or conditional approval ofsubmittals. EPAis notpartially approving, disapproving, nor conditionally approving any ofthe SIP actions contained in the June 26, 2001, rule vacated by the Court.EPA is fully approving the measures submittedby Missouri which are applicable for
purposes ofsection 107(d)(3)(E)(v), and is determining thatthe other submissions are not applicable.

Therefore, the SIP is "fully approved" for all applicable requirements.

Comment9:EPA attempted to assert thatthe Missouri and Illinois SIPs "can be considered to be approved." This is

a "pseudo-approval" and an attempt by EPAto escape the simple straightforward statutory requirement to have afully approved SIP. This effort by EPAfails because ofthe clear language ofthe CAA, andbecause EPAmust do

a rulemaking to approve the SIP. EPAis also avoiding the requirement for judicialreview ofits actions.

Response9:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe 

### 25425

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25425 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

The use ofthephrase "can be considered to be approved" (seethe January 30, 2003, proposed rule at68 FR 4851, 4852) was merely a statement the SIPs will meet the section 110 requirements and as such "can be considered to be approved" ifEPAwere to approve certain plan elements, described in theproposed rulemakings. OnJanuary 30, 2003, EPA published
two proposed rules found at 68 FR 4842 and 68 FR 4847. As part ofthese proposals, EPA proposed to approve revisions to Missouri's I/M rule. In today's Federal Register, EPAis taking final action approving Missouri's I/M rule. Bytaking these actions, EPAnow concludes thatMissouri's SIP is approved. The use ofthe quoted phrase

was not intended to escape a statutory requirement. In fact, itrecognized EPA's obligation to complete rulemakings in order to approve SIPs, and it recognized that EPA could not determine thatthe SIP was fully approved until it took final action to approve the remaining SIP elements. All ofthe SIP elements which are applicable to the St. Louis

area for purposes ofredesignation have either been approved in previous rulemakings (seeresponse to comments 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 for a discussion ofthese prior rulemakings)

orare approved in rulemakings published today.

The proposed rule at 68 FR 4851
states that onNovember 25, 2002, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit (Court)issued a decision in SierraClub andMissouriCoalition for theEnvironmentv. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7thCir. 2002). In this decision, the Court vacated the June 26, 2001, rule andremanded to EPAfor entry ofa final rule that reclassifies St Louis as a serious nonattainment area for ozone. Although the Court's opinion addressed onlyEPA's action extending the attainment date for St. Louis, the Court's order vacated the otherEPA actions in the rulemaking as well. EPA has approved all SIP elements that are applicable tothe St. Louis area and is determining that certain others are not applicable. This is not a "pseudoapproval" ofthe SIP elements, but a determination that because certain requirements (e.g., the attainment demonstration and RACM) are not applicable, they need not be approved. (Seeresponse to comment 8 for more discussion ofthe requirement for a fully approved SIP.) The applicable requirements which were approved prior to the June 26, 2001, action (e.g., VOC RACT, NOx RACT, the ROP Plan)

were subject to notice and comment rulemaking andjudicial review. The

measures approved today (the maintenance plan and contingency
measures, MVEBs, I/M program revisions) have been subject to notice and commentrulemaking and EPA's action is subject to judicial review. EPA's determination that certain requirements arenot applicable has been subject to notice and comment rulemaking and is subject tojudicial review. The public has had full opportunity to comment on all ofEPA's actions, as evidenced bythe numerous comments submittedby the commenter. Therefore, EPA has not avoided any requirement forpublic comment or judicial review.

In acting upon a redesignation request, EPA may rely on any prior SIP approvals plus any additional approvals it may perform in conjunction with acting on theredesignation. EPA has already taken final action to approve all required SIP elements or is approving them in conjunction with this final action onthe redesignation. Therefore, the St. Louis area has a fully approved SIP. See "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992, page 3 (Calcagni memo). The Calcagni memo allows for approval ofSIP elements and redesignation to occur simultaneously, andEPA has frequently taken this approach inits redesignation actions. See (66 FR 53096) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 37879) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 31832-31833) (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI). Comment 10:The SIPs fail to meet the section 110 requirements because the "inapplicable "moderate" area" requirements contained in the SIPs do
not provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe NAAQS because modeling shows that the plan does not provide for attainment until 2004. Furthermore, Missouri has failed to meet the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements related to the NOx SIP call.

Response 10:EPA finds thatthe Missouri SIP meets the section 110 requirements. See the January 30, 2003, proposal and the responses to comments 8 and 9 for further discussion.

Submissions under the NOx SIP call

are not applicable requirements for purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request. At this time, Missouri is not subject
to the NOx SIP call. As explained in the proposal, EPA's determination that Missouri significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment was vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit. EPAis not relying

on a SIP to predict attainment but is relying on air quality monitoring data to show that the area has attained. With respect tothe assertion that the area must have an approved attainment demonstration SIP in order to meet the requirements ofsection 110, EPA has addressed this issue in itsresponse to comments onthe lack ofan approved attainment demonstration for the area. Section 110(a)(1) does not add any additional requirements for compliance with the NAAQS other thanthose included in section 172(c) and 182, and the commenter does notidentify any specific additional requirements. See the responses to comments 3, 21, and 24 with respect to the assertion that the modeling for the area shows that it
cannot attain until 2004.

The SIP call budget forMissouri was proposed on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8396), but has not yetbeen finalized. Forthis reason alone, itis not an applicable requirement. In addition, the NOx SIP call requirements for a state are notlinked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPAbelieves thatthe requirements linkedwith a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The NOx SIP call submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to

a state regardless ofthe designation of
any one particular area in the state.

Thus, we do not agree thatthe NOx SIP call submission should be construed
to be an applicable requirement for
purposes ofredesignation. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); andTampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion onthis issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), andin the 

### 25426

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25426 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

Comment11:The state SIPs fail to meet thepart D requirements of the CAA. EPA asserts that certain requirements ofpart D are not applicable because monitoring data shows the area has attained. EPArelies

onthe case ofSierraClubv. EPA for this conclusion. However, this case has no application here because it was not a "redesignation case." Given the attainment demonstration modeling, it would be impossible to conclude that any ofthe "part D requirements are not necessary." All part D requirements are applicable unless, prior to redesignation, EPA formally exempts the St. Louis area from the part D requirements.

Response11: Section II.A ofthis document, discussing the rationale for EPA's determination of attainment and suspension ofcertain requirements, addresses the applicability ofthe part D requirements. The part D requirements specifically include the requirements of sections 172(c) and 176 as well as the applicable requirements ofsubpart 2. The section 172(c) requirements include General Plan Requirements which tothe
extent applicable, must provide for the implementation of allRACM as expeditiously as practicable (ata minimum this requires RACT for stationary source), RFP, emissions inventory, identification and quantification ofallowable emissions for major new or modified stationary
sources, permits for new and modified major stationary sources, other emission control measures needed to assure attainment ofthe NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) requirements, and contingency

measures. Section 110(a)(2) requirements include submittal ofa SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation ofappropriate apparatus, methods, systems, andprocedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation ofa source permit program; provisions for the implementation ofpart C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); provisions for the implementation ofpart D requirements (nonattainment area NSR permit programs); provisions for stationary

source emission control measures,

source monitoring, and source reporting; provisions for air pollution modeling; andprovisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Subpart 2requirements include attainment demonstration, 1990 base
year inventory and periodic emissions inventories updates, emission statements, rate-of-progress plans, VOC RACT, RACM, stage II vapor recovery, I/ M, and NOx emission controls.

As stated in theresponse to comment 8 above, the Missouri SIP meets all applicable requirements including section 110 and part D requirements. As statedin the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4852 and 4853, EPA has approved each state's RFP, permitting programs, and VOC RACTrules as meeting the requirements ofpart D. Missouri's SIP has regulations requiring annual emission statements from major

sources. Missouri has submitted complete emission inventories. Missouri has approved general conformity rules pursuant to section 176. In addition, Missouri has approved transportation conformity rules. EPAis approving in this action Missouri's maintenance plan which includes adequate contingency

measures. Thus, Missouri has met the applicable part D requirements ofthe CAA. Note that also as stated in the
response to comment 8, byfinding that the St. Louis area has attained the standard, the attainment demonstration and RACM requirements are no longer applicable requirements. See alsothe final rule for Illinois describing how the Metro-East St. Louis area has met the applicable requirements.

As indicated in comment 3 above, neither section 107(d)(3)(E) norEPA policy referenced bythe commenter requires modeling as a prerequisite to redesignation of an ozone nonattainment area. In addition, no modeling was conducted aspart ofthe redesignation requests submittedby Missouri orIllinois. Thus, there is no modeling basis for EPA to make any conclusions regarding the necessity for the part D requirements. (Modelingis
not arequired element of a redesignation request. See, 65 FR 37879-Cincinnati redesignation for additional discussion ofthis issue. See, Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d. 426 upholding this interpretation.) However, as explained in detail in comment 3, the monitoring data collected over the 2000 through 2002 period show thatthe area has in fact attainedthe ozone standard. EPA finds no need for further controls
to bring about attainment.

With respect to the commenter's assertion thatthe Tenth Circuit Sierra Club case is not applicable because itis
not a "redesignation" case, the
commenter misses the point ofthe case

asit relates to St. Louis. The Tenth Circuit's endorsement ofthe interpretation ofthe CAA in the Seitz

memo (thatcertain "statutory" requirements relating to attainment are not applicable to an area which has attained the standard) was not dependent on the fact thatthe area was notbeing redesignated. The case involved a determination by EPA that Salt Lake and Davies Counties, Utah, had attained the standard, and that, therefore, certain additional requirements relating to attainment (such as an attainment demonstration) would not apply so long asthe area continued to attain. The Court expressly recognized that the area couldbe redesignated without having met those requirements, even though the action at issue there was an attainment determination and not aredesignation. The Court stated: "Recall thatthe Environmental Protection Agency's determination to exempt the Counties fromlimited ozone requirements is really nomore than a suspension of those requirements for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard or until the area isformally redesignated to attainment." (SierraClubv. EPA,99 F.3d 1551, 1558 (10th Cir. 1996)). (See also,66 FR 53095 for EPA's redesignation ofthe Pittsburgh area.) The Court did not say, asthe commenter would have it, thatthe area would have
to adopt those measures which had been determined tobe unnecessary in order
to be redesignated. As it did for the Utah counties, in which EPAredesignated those counties without requiring that they meet the suspended requirements, EPAis here determining that the St. Louis area is attaining the standard and that certain requirements are suspended and do not applybecause the area is being redesignated. The basis for this determination and the suspension of certain requirements for the area was explained in detail in the proposal found at 68 FR 4850-4858 andfurther explained in this response to various
comments onthe issue. The determination isbased on monitored data, not modeling, for reasons explained in this document. Nothing in the Tenth Circuit case prohibits EPA from simultaneously suspending the requirements andredesignating an area, which is what thisrulemaking accomplishes. EPAhas takenthis dual action in anumber of areas including Louisville (66 FR 53665), Cincinnati (65 FR 37879), Grand Rapids (61 FR 31831), and Pittsburgh (66 FR 53094). Upon redesignation to attainment, the suspended nonattainment area requirements will no longer apply at all since the area is no long a designated nonattainment area.

Comment 12:EPA asserts that the RACM requirements ofsection 172(c)(1) need not be adopted because the area has attained the NAAQS, thus, these 

### 25427

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25427 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

measures would not accelerate attainment. This is confoundingly circular reasoning which erases the "fully approved" requirements ofthe CAA. EPA's assertion is not relevant here.

Response12:The April 16, 1992, General Preamble (57 FR 13560) states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) suchthat the RACM requirements are a "component" ofan area's attainment demonstration. Thus, since the attainment demonstration is not an applicable requirement, RACM is also

no longer an applicable requirement. See response to comment 8 for further discussion. Also, EPA hasbeen consistent in this interpretation. See the final rulemaking for Pittsburgh, 66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) for additional discussion ofthis interpretation.

EPA believes thatits policy is not "confoundingly circular reasoning" but rather straightforward reasoning. It is reasonable to conclude that states need
not develop an attainment demonstration showing how they will attain aNAAQS that they have already attained. Similarly, states need not adopt additional reasonably available control measures as necessary to accelerate attainment when attainment has already been achieved.

As stated in theresponse to comments 8 and 9, SIPs must be "fully approved"

asrequired by section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), onlywith respect to the "applicable" requirements of section 110 and part D,

as addressed in section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Ifrequirements are not "applicable" with respect tothose sections, they need
not be fully approved. Comment13:The RACM and RACT requirements ofthe CAA are not tiedto reasonable further progress but are required bythe CAAto be implemented

as expeditiously as practicable. This is supported byH.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 223; SierraClubv. EPA,99 F.3d 1551, 1557 (10th Cir. 1996); Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 441 (6th Cir. 2001); and, EPA's Seitz memo, page 4. EPA's contention that any additional RACM and RACT

measures need not be adopted directly repudiates the plain language ofthe CAA.

Response13:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. EPA has previously addressed the rationale for its determination that additional RACM is not required for an

area attaining the standard. (See,e.g., sectionII and response to comment 12.) The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress that
must be made toward attainment. Section 182(b)(1)(A) setsforth the specific requirements for RFP for a moderate nonattainment area which includes areduction in VOC emissions ofat least 15 percent from baseline emissions. As stated in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4854, 4855, EPA approved Missouri's 15 percent ROP plan.

RACM is a general requirement of section 172(c)(1) which calls for SIPs to contain "all reasonably available control

measures as expeditiously aspracticable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology and shall provide for attainment ofthe national primary ambient air quality standards." EPA has consistently interpreted this provision
to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to reasonable progress or attainment. (See General Preamble 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.) Thus, where

an area has already met all applicable requirements for progress andhas attained the relevant standard, no additional RACM measures are required. Section 182(b)(2) specifies the SIP requirements for RACT in moderate nonattainment areas. These requirements include implementation of RACT at each source ofVOCs covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs) and all othermajor sources of VOCs. EPAhas never indicated thatthe

area could avoid implementing VOC RACT requirements because the area has attained the standard.

As stated in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4855, Missouri has adopted and implemented all required VOC RACT rules. In addition, section 182(f)establishes NOx RACT requirements for major stationary

sources. EPA approved Missouri's NOx RACT rule into the SIP on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31482).

The commenter states that H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. atp. 223 does not tie RACM and RACT measures to RFP. This document is a recitation ofthe statute, but does not address tying RACM and RACT to RFP.

With respect to the commenter's contention thatEPA's position regarding additional RACM andRACT measures

was rejected in the Tenth Circuit Sierra Club case andin Wall,the commenter is incorrect. The Wallcase involved VOCRACT, which isnot an issue here, because, as discussed previously, and in response to comment 14below, Missouri has adopted all applicable VOCRACT measures. Missouri has also adopted NOx RACT measures. The TenthCircuit SierraClub case upheld EPA's determination that RACT was not tiedto reasonable further progress, and that case did not address EPA's interpretation ofRACM at all. The commenter's Seventh Circuit brief, which it relies onto support its position that RACM requirements must be met for an area to be redesignated, argued thatEPA's interpretation ofthe RACM requirement (thatsection 172(c)(1) requires onlyimplementation of all RACM which would expedite attainment) is an improper reading of the CAA. That issue was not addressed

or decided bythe Seventh Circuit. However, the issue ofEPA's interpretation ofthe RACM requirement

was raised andupheld in the 5th Circuit (SierraClubv. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743- 745 (5thCir. 2002)) and the District of Columbia Circuit (SierraClubv. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Both circuits found thatEPA's interpretation that the statute only required implementation ofRACM

measures that would advance attainment was reasonable.

Comment 14:The rulemaking should identify each VOC RACT rule implemented bythe states andidentify whether the states have met the VOC RACT requirements.

Response 14:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

The January 30, 2003, proposed rule
states at 68 FR 4855 thatboth states have adopted andimplemented all required VOC RACT rules. In addition, the proposed rule provided the following web sites which contain the
content ofthese rules, and references to EPA'srulemakings approving these rules. The Web sitefor Missouri is: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/ artd/air/rules/missouri/chap5.htm.

The VOC RACT rules listed on this Web site and EPA'srulemakings approving these rules include the following: 10 CSR 10-5.070 Open Burning

Restrictions, 37 FR 10842 (5/31/72) 

### 25428

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25428 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

10 CSR 10-5.220 Control ofPetroleum

Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer, 37 FR 10842 (5/31/72) 10 CSR 10-5.295 Control ofEmissions

From Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/ 2000) 10 CSR 10-5.300 Control ofEmissions

from SolventMetal Cleaning, 45 FR 24140 (4/9/80) and45 FR 56806 (7/ 11/80) (correction) 10 CSR 10-5.310 Liquefied Cutback

Asphalt Paving Restricted, 45 FR 24140 (4/9/80) and45 FR 46806 (7/ 11/80) (correction) 10 CSR 10-5.320 Control ofEmissions

from Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Installations, 46 FR 20172 (4/3/81) 10 CSR 10-5.330 Control ofEmissions

from Industrial Surface Coating Operations, 45 FR 24140 (4/9/80)and 45 FR 46806 (7/11/80) (correction) 10 CSR 10-5.340 Control ofEmissions

from Rotogravure and Flexographic Printing Facilities, 46 FR 20172 (4/3/ 81) 10 CSR 10-5.350 Control ofEmissions

from Manufacture ofSynthesized Pharmaceutical Products, 46 FR 20172 (4/3/81) 10 CSR 10-5.360 Control ofEmissions

from Polyethylene Bag Sealing Operations, 49 FR 40164 (10/15/84) 10 CSR 10-5.370 Control ofEmissions

from the Application ofDeadeners and Adhesives, 55 FR 7712 (3/5/90) 10 CSR 10-5.390 Control ofEmissions

from Manufacture ofPaints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels and Other Allied Surface Coating Products, 50 FR 14925 (4/16/85) 10 CSR 10-5.410 Control ofEmissions

from the Manufacture ofPolystyrene Resin, 55 FR 7712 (3/5/90) 10 CSR 10-5.420 Control ofEquipment

Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Plants, 53 FR 12417 (4/14/88) 10 CSR 10-5.440 Control ofEmissions

from Bakery Ovens, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/ 2000) 10 CSR 10-5.442 Control ofEmissions

From Offset Lithographic Printing Operations, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/00) 10 CSR 10-5.450 Control ofVOC

Emissions from Traffic Coatings, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/00) 10 CSR 10-5.451 Control ofEmissions

from Aluminum Foil Rolling, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/00) 10 CSR 10-5.455 Control ofEmissions

from SolventCleanup Operations, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/00) 10 CSR 10-5.490 Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills, 63 FR 20320 (4/24/98) 10 CSR 10-5.500 Control ofEmissions

From Volatile Organic Liquid Storage, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/00) 10 CSR 10-5.520 Control ofVolatile

Organic Compound Emissions From Existing Major Sources, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/2000) 10 CSR 10-5.530 Control ofVolatile

Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/00) 10 CSR 10-5.540 Control ofEmissions

From Batch Process Operations, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/00) 10 CSR 10-5.550 Control ofVolatile

Organic Compound Emissions From Reactor Processes and Distillations Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/00) The rationale for approval ofeach of these rules is described in the respective Federal Register document approving each rule. As stated previously, in the
response to comment 5, this redesignation rulemaking does not reopen rulemakings regarding prior SIP approvals.

Comment 15:Missouri has not adopted all appropriate NOx andNOx RACT rules. Thus, the SIP is not approvable.

Response 15:Missouri has adopted andEPA has approved into Missouri's SIP a NOxRACT rule meeting the requirements ofsection 182(f). The Missouri NOx RACT rule canbe found
at 10 CSR 10-5.510. Seecomment 13 for further discussion on Missouri's NOx RACT rule. As described in response to previous comments, pursuant tothe Calcagni Memo page 3, andupheld in the Wallcase citedpreviously, an EPA action on aredesignation request does
not mean that earlier issues with regard
to the SIP willbe reopened. Seealso, SouthwesternPennsylvaniaGrowth Alliancev. Browner,144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998). Thus, EPAis not reopening Missouri's NOxRACT rule as part of this redesignation.

Missouri has adopted and EPAhas approved into the SIP a state-wide NOx rule (10 CSR 10-6.350 Emissions Limitations andEmissions Trading of Oxides ofNitrogen, 65 FR 82285 (12/28/ 00)).

As stated in comment 10 above, EPA believes that submissions under the NOx SIP call are not applicable requirements for purposes ofevaluating Missouri's redesignation request.

EPA has determined that Missouri has adopted all applicable NOx andNOx RACT rules. Comment 16:The Missouri I/M rule being approved in a separate rulemaking does not meet the requirements for an I/M program. EPA needs to explain how it can approve an I/M rule since it does
not meet the I/M requirements for a serious area.

Response 16:EPA is responding to comments regarding Missouri's I/M program in a separate rulemaking published in today's Federal Register. EPA'sresponse to comments included in thatrulemaking are incorporated here.

The Federal rule at40 CFR 51.372(c)
states that "Any nonattainment area that EPA determines would otherwise qualify for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment shall receive full approval ofa SIP submittal under Sections 182(a)(2)(B) or 182(b)(4) ifthe submittal contains the following elements: (1)Legal authority to implement a basic I/Mprogram (or enhanced ifthe State chooses to optup)

as required by this subpart. The legislative authority for an I/Mprogram shall allow the adoption of implementing regulations without requiring further legislation. (2)A request to place the I/M plan (ifno I/M program is currently in place or ifan I/ M program has been terminated) orthe I/M upgrade (if the existing I/Mprogram is to continue without being upgraded) into the contingency measures portion ofthe maintenance plan upon redesignation. (3)A contingency

measure consisting ofa commitment by the Governor or the Governor's designee
to adopt or consider adopting regulations to implement the required I/ M program to correct a violation ofthe

ozone or CO standard or other air quality problem, in accordance with the provisions ofthe maintenance plan. (4) Acontingency commitment that includes an enforceable schedule for adoption and implementation ofthe I/ M program, and appropriate milestones. The schedule shall include the date for submission ofa SIP meeting all ofthe requirements ofthis subpart. Schedule milestones shall be listed in months fromthe date EPAnotifies the State that itis inviolation ofthe ozone or CO standard or any earlier date specified in the State plan. Unless the State, in accordance with the provisions ofthe maintenance plan, chooses notto implement I/M, itmust submit a SIP revision containing an I/M program no

more than 18 months after notification by EPA."

Regarding item (1) above, as indicated in the response to comment 35, Missouri has the authority to implement

an I/M program. Regarding item (2) above, the maintenance plan contains "High Enhanced I/M" as a contingency

measure. The plan was accompanied by

a request from an authorized Missouri official for EPAto approve the maintenance plan. Regarding item (3) above, section 7.1 ofthe maintenance plan contains a commitment to adopt or consider adopting the I/M program listed as a contingency measure. 

### 25429

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25429 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Regarding item (4) above, the SIP contains an enforceable schedule for adoption and implementation oftheI/ M program. Section 7.1 ofthe maintenance plan sets for a schedule with milestones for promulgation and implementation ofaprogram meeting the requirements.

This meets the condition imposed by the Federal rule at40 CFR 51.372(c). Thus, EPA is approving the I/M program in a separate rulemaking. This satisfies the basic I/M requirements for moderate

ozone areas. Since EPAis taking final action to approve the redesignation of the St. Louis area prior to the date that the serious area requirement for enhanced I/M would be due, EPA can approve the I/Mprogram as meeting the moderate rather than the serious area I/ M requirement, as fully explained in this final rule and in the separate I/M approval action taken elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

D. CommentsRelatedto Criterion3:The Improvement inAirQuality Must Be Due toPermanent andEnforceable ReductionsinEmissions
Comment 17: The area cannot meet this requirement since there is not an approved SIP meeting the "serious" area requirements, and there is no applicable implementation plan.

Response17:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As described in the response to comments for Criterion 2 above, the SIPs meet the applicable CAA requirements. The applicable SIP requirements are described in the January 30, 2003, proposed rulemaking (68 FR 4850-4856). EPA's approval of previous SIP submittals, this rulemaking and today's rulemaking approving Missouri's I/Mrule render Missouri's SIP "fully approved" for all applicable SIP requirements. As stated in response to comments relating to Criterion 2, above, since the serious area requirements are not yet due, the SIP is
not deficient because the serious area requirements have not been included.

In any event, this criterion is not dependent on which requirements are applicable or havebeen approved or implemented. The requirement isthat air quality improvements be attributable
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions which is a separate inquiry from the question of the requirements applicable to the area. Missouri's submission contains a detailed analysis ofthe air quality improvements in St. Louis andtheir relation tothe permanent and enforceable controlmeasures which are in place in the area. (Seeresponse to comment 19 for further discussion.) These measures are listed in the proposal at 68 FR 4856-4858. These

measures are allpart ofthe applicable SIP. Thus, the commenter is incorrect in its assertion that there is no applicable SIP.

Comment 18:Itis impossible to demonstrate that monitored concentrations on the 2002 Labor Day weekend resulted from permanent and enforceable reductions. The reductions

were due to voluntary curtailment of operations by large industrial operations.

Response 18:The monitoring data for the St. Louis nonattainment area demonstrate thatthe estimated number ofexceedances per year averaged over three years is 1.0 or less atall monitoring sites in the area. EPA believes that any voluntary measures taken by industry and others over a twoorthree-day period in this three-year time period does not render the air quality monitoring data unrepresentative ofthe air quality. As explained in more detail in response to comment 19 below, ozone levels monitored during 2000-2002 are due to permanent and enforceable measures which are in place (e.g., I/M programs, RACT on VOC and NOx stationary sources).

In the event that some sources did voluntarily reduce emissions over this
two- orthree-day period, EPAhas no basis to conclude that these voluntary reductions had an effect on the monitored air quality. As the
commenter points out, ozone formation

occurs through "complex chemistry and meteorology." Voluntary reductions

over a short time period may or may not have had an impact on the monitored air quality. (We note that "voluntary" reductions are always a factor, since total emissions at a given point in time depend, for example, onhow many people decide to drive ona given day

orweekend.) However, the state's demonstration that air quality improvements are dueto permanent and enforceable emission reductions is based onits analysis ofemission reductions over aten-year period (see
response to comment 19), consistent with the CAA requirements and EPA policy including the Calcagni memo at page 4. Also, see the response to comment 2 above for further discussion on this issue. Note that in general, EPA encourages voluntary reductions to reduce emissions. EPA supports programs such as the Air Quality Index which encourages people to voluntarily reduce ozone forming activities such as filling gas tanks,painting, mowing, etc. attimes when ozone formation is expected tobe high. Although these

measures are not enforceable nor measurable, they are encouraged.

Comment 19:EPA cannot demonstrate that permanent and enforceable reductions are responsible for any alleged improvement of air quality. The only way to demonstrate this point is through photochemical grid modeling. No such modeling hasbeen presented. Without modeling, EPA's claim is pure speculation. Emission reductions attributable to the emission controls "could just as easily leadto increases in ozone concentrations." The attainment demonstration modeling shows that attainment was "impossible" in 2003.

Response 19:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA's response to this and other
comments onthe attainment demonstration modeling isincluded in the response to comments 21 and 24. In addition, see the response to comment 23 for further discussion regarding the

use ofmodeling in demonstrating maintenance ofthe NAAQS.

Neither Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) nor the Calcagni memo referenced by the
commenter require modeling as a prerequisite to redesignation ofan
ozone nonattainment area. Thus, modeling is not required to demonstrate thatthe improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions. See General Preamble for the Interpretation ofTitle I ofthe CAA Amendments of1990 at 57 FR 13496 (April 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992); "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992," Michael H. 25430

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25430 2003

### Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; and "Use ofActual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas," D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993. Our guidance provides that an

area may meet this requirement by showing howits ozone precursor emissions changed due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions from when the area was not monitoring attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS
to when it reached attainment. See the rationale set forth in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886- 37889, June 19, 2000) and the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001). The Sixth Circuit has recently upheld EPA's interpretation in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435).

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule
at68 FR 4856-4858, EPA explained the basis for concluding that the observed air quality improvements are dueto the implementation ofpermanent and enforceable emission reductions. The

reasons include, analysis ofthe emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions, an analysis of meteorological conditions showing a trend toward the reduction ofozone concentrations while the number of days conducive to forming ozone showed no significant trend, and an assessment ofemissions in 1990 and 2000 which have shown a substantial decrease in emissions ofVOCs and
NOx.

Annual days conducive to ozone formation (those days with relatively clear skies, low wind speeds and southerly wind directions, high peak temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, andlittle or no precipitation) have shown no noticeable trend up ordown, only yearly variations. The number ofconducive days have stayed between approximately 20 and 50 days per year with no increasing or decreasing trend. Meanwhile, exceedances have decreased from over 120 in 1978, over 100 in 1983, over 60 in 1988, to a total of11 in the three-year period of 2000 to 2002. In addition, year-to-year fluctuation ofconducive days cannot be correlated with higher or lower exceedance levels over the last few
years. Since 1989, as the number of conducive days fluctuated from year to year, the number ofexceedances demonstrated no similar trend. This indicates a disassociation between monitored exceedances and meteorological effects.

During the 1990-2000 period, as the area-wide ozone design values in the St. Louis area were decreasing, the VOC andNOx emissions inthe St. Louis area

were also significantly decreasing (see
response to comment 20 for further discussion on the area's design values). The following tables list VOC and NOx emissions in 1990 and 2000 for the Missouri andIllinois portions ofthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. These tables show that the entire nonattainment area experienced a downward trend in VOC and NOx emissions. This downward trend in emissions and ozone design values, along with no significant trend in the number ofdays conducive to ozone formation shows thatthe observed improvements in air quality are due to the implementation ofpermanent and enforceable emission control measures.

1990 AND 2000 MISSOURI PORTION

OF THE ST. Louis NONATTAINMENT AREA VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS

[Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]

Source category VOC NOx

1990

Point Sources 81.97 347.61 Area Sources 87.74 29.47 On-Road Mobile Sources 135.42 135.00 Off-Road Mobile Sources 64.30 114.32

1990 Totals 369.43 626.40

2000

Point Sources 46.59 165.96 Area Sources 57.38 32.27 On-Road Mobile Sources 103.79 181.75 Off-Road Mobile Sources 40.59 73.16

2000 Totals 248.35 453.14

1990 AND 2000 METRO-EAST AREA VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]

Source category VOC NOx

1990

Point Sources 74.05 95.85 Area Sources 33.84 1.66 On-Road Mobile Sources 43.27 45.13 Off-Road Mobile Sources 23.49 23.99

1990 Totals 174.65 166.63

2000

Point Sources 17.91 61.91 Area Sources 28.32 1.18 On-Road Mobile Sources 26.57 54.71 Off-Road Mobile Sources 21.31 23.85

2000 Totals 94.11 141.64 Reductions in ozone precursor (VOC and NOx) emissions havebrought many

areas across the country into attainment. EPAhas approved many ozone redesignations showing decreases in

ozone precursor emissions resulting in attainment ofthe ozone standard. See redesignations for Pittsburgh (66FR 53094, October 19, 2001), Cincinnati (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000), Charleston (59 FR 30326, June 13, 1994; 59 FR 45985, September 6, 1994), Greenbrier County (60 FR 39857, August 4, 1995), Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994); (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994), Jacksonville/Duval County (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995), Miami/Southeast Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 1995), Tampa (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995), Lexington (60 FR 47089, September 11, 1995), Owensboro (58 FR 47391, September 9, 1993), Indianapolis (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), SouthBend-Elkhart (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), Evansville (62 FR 12137, March 14, 1997; 62 FR 64725, December 9, 1997), Canton (61FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Youngstown-Warren (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (60 FR 31433, June 15, 1995; 61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996), Clinton County (60 FR 22337, May 5, 1995; 61 FR 11560, March 21, 1996), Columbus (61FR 3591, February 1, 1996), Kewaunee County (61 FR 29508, June 11, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Walworth County (61 FR 28541, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Point Coupee Parish (61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996; 62 FR 648, January 6, 1997), and Monterey Bay (62 FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most ofthe

areas that havebeen redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard have continued to attain it. Areas that are not maintaining the 1- hour ozone standard have a maintenance plan tobring them back into attainment.

Between 1990 and 2000, area-wide VOC andNOx emissions in the St. Louis

area decreased by 37 percent and 25 percent, respectively. In Missouri, the VOC andNOx emissions duringthis timeperiod decreased by 33 percent and 28 percent, respectively. (Seethe rulemaking redesignating the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area published in today's Federal Register for NOx and VOCreductions for the Metro-East area.) These emissions reductions were due to the implementation ofMissouri's 15 percent rate-of-progress plan, including its implementation ofa centralized
motorvehicle inspection and maintenance program and stationary

source controls. Additional reductions 

### 25431

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25431 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

were due totighter Federal standards for

new vehicles, and some were due to requirements for reformulated and low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline for
motor vehicles. In addition, Title IV of the CAA resulted in reduced NOx emissions from utility sources.

The commenter claims that the combination ofNOx and VOC emissions reductions could just as easily have led
to increases in ozone. However, the actual monitoring data collected in the

area shows that ambient ozone concentrations have dropped when this combination ofozone precursor reductions occurred. In other metropolitan areas, other levels ofVOC andNOx reductions have also resulted in attainment. See the areas listed above in first part ofthis response. The St Louis area's decrease in ozone levels is consistent with what other areas have experienced. The commenter has not provided data showing that decreases in

ozone precursor emissions have led to higher levels ofozone.

EPA's conclusion that improvements in air quality are attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in precursors is not "speculation" but is based on a careful review ofthe various technical analyses conducted by the
states and described above. EPA believes it is reasonable not to require photochemical grid modeling. Threeyear averaging addresses variations in meteorological conditions, an analysis ofmeteorological conditions showed no significant trend in the number ofdays conducive to ozone formation, and the
commenter has presented no evidence that the three-year attainment period

was unusually favorable. Itis important
to note that redesignation is not intended as an absolute guarantee that the area will never monitor future violations. This is what maintenance plan contingency measures are designed
to address and correct. Seethe Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886-37889, June 19, 2000) and the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001) for additional discussion ofthis issue.

Comment20:Ifimprovements in St. Louis air quality were dueto permanent and enforceable reductions, the trend in monitored concentrations wouldbe to go down. However, exceedances tripled from 2000 to 2001 and more than doubled from 2001 to 2002.

Response20:As statedin response to
comment 2 above, a violation ofthe 1- hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the estimated number ofexceedances per year averaged over three years is greater than 1.0 at any monitoring sitein the

area or its downwind environs, using conventional rounding techniques. Although there was an increase in the number of exceedances between 2000 and 2001 as well asbetween 2001 and 2002, year-to-year trends in exceedances

are not used to determine attainment, but rather an average over three years is used. Forreasons stated previously, EPAhas determined that the St. Louis

area is in attainment with the NAAQS.

As indicated in the January 30, 2003, proposal at 68 FR4850, Table 1 Summarizes the number ofexpected exceedances at each monitor in the area.

TABLE 

### 1.- 1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE ST. Louis, ILLINOIS-MISSOURI AREA FROM 

### 2000 TO 

### 2002

Estimated exceedances Average num- ber of estiSite name County or cityand state mated 2000 2001 2002 exceedances 2000-2002

Jerseyville

........................................................... Jersey, IL

........ ............................. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 Alton

.................................................................... M adison,IL

................ . ....................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M

aryville

.............................................................. M adison

,IL

.................. ......... .................. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 Edwardsville

........................................................ M adison, IL

..................... .................. ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wood River

......................................................... M adison, IL

....................... ............................. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 H

ouston

............................................................... Randolph, IL

.................... ................. ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 East S t. Louis

..................................................... St. Clair, IL

....................... .................... ......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arnold

.................................................................. Jefferson, M O

................... ................ ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WestAlton

.......................................................... St. Charles, M O

............................ . .................. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Orchard Farm

..................................................... St. Charles, M O

............................ . .................. 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 Bonne Terre

........................................................ St. Genevieve

,MO

............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Lindbergh

................................................. St. Louis, M O

............................ .. .................... 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 Queeny

............................................................... St. Louis

, M O

..................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hunter

................................................................. St. Louis, M O

..................... ........................... . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flo Valley

............................................................ St. Louis, M O

...................... ........................... . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St. Ann (old)

........................................................ St. Louis, M O

...................... ........................... . 0.0 n/a n/a 10.0 St. Ann (new)

...................................................... St. Louis, M O

......................... ........................... n/a 0.0 0.0 1n/a Broadway

............................................................ St. Louis City, M O

........................ .................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clark

.................................................................... St. Louis City, M O

........................ ..................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M

argaretta

........................................................... St. Louis City, M O

.............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 The owner of the property on which the old St. Ann monitor was located terminated the lease agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The new site is 0.7 miles east of the old site. In general, ambient monitors should remain at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. However, when three complete, consecutive calendar years of data is not available for a monitoring site, adjustments are made consistent with EPA monitoring criteria, in determining the average number of estimated exceedances per year. The average number of estimated exceedances for 2000-2002 for the old St. Ann monitor is the estimated exceedances for 2000, or 0.0. Inaddition, where a monitor has been in operation less than three years, the average estimated number of exceedances cannot be determined. Since the new St. Ann monitor has been in operation less than three years, the average number of estimated exceedances for 2000-2002 was not determined.

The area has monitored attainment for levels ofozone. In addition, the CAA the three-year period from 2000-2002. does not presume thatthe area will This demonstrates thatthe current level always be in attainment. The CAA ofemissions is adequate to keep the area provides that ifthe area were to violate in attainment during weather conditions the 1-hour ozone standard, then the

as in past years associated withhigher contingency measures in the maintenance plan would be triggered. Thiswould reduce the ozone precursor emissions and bring the area backinto attainment.

One exceedance in the area was monitored in 2000, three in 2001, and 25432

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25432 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

seven in 2002. EPA notes that when dealing with numbers as small as one exceedance in 2000, any subsequent increase in the number ofexceedances will result in the number ofexceedances being atleast doubled. In other words, when dealing with anumber as small as one, any increase will be at least double that value. Thus, citing adoubling or tripling ofexceedances is not necessarily an indicator of significant changes in air quality.

The one-hour ozone NAAQS isbased
upon athree-year average. For a violation, the estimated number of exceedances per year must exceed 1.0 at any monitoring site. Under this standard, a monitor may record up to three exceedances over athree-year period without causing aviolation of the standard. The fourth highest monitored level ata monitor over a three-year period canbe used as an indicator ofpotential violations ofthe NAAQS. (Note that since other factors, such as missing data, can affect the calculation ofthe estimated number of exceedances, the fourth highest monitored value isnot solely used to determine aviolation. See the discussion in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4849 and 4850 for an example ofhow the number of estimated exceedances is determined.) The term "design value" is used to refer
to the fourth highest monitored value in

athree-year period. For an individual monitor, the design value is the fourth highest monitored value in a three-year period. For an area such as the St. Louis
area, the highest ofthe individual monitor design values over a three-year period isreferred to as the "area's designvalue." The lower an area's designvalue the more likely the area will meet the standard. Also, an area's designvalue which decreases over time indicates that the monitored ozone concentrations are generally lowering andthe air quality isimproving.

The St. Louis area's design value reduced as follows: 0.156 parts per million (ppm)in 1987-1989 (see 52 FR 13385-13386 dated March 18, 1999); 0.136 ppm in 1994-1996 (see53 FR 15581 dated March 19, 2001); 0.131
ppm in 1996-1998 (see53 FR 15583 dated March 19, 2001); 0.127 ppm in 1998-2000 (see53 FR 15584 dated March 19, 2001); and, 0.123 ppm in 2000-2002.

This indicates that the monitored air quality improved over this time period.

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule
at68 FR 4856-4858, and in theresponse to comment 19, EPA explains the basis for concluding that the observed air quality improvements are due tothe implementation ofpermanent and enforceable emission reductions. The

reasons cited include emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions, an analysis of meteorological conditions which has shown atrend in thereduction ofozone from 1989 tothe present while the number ofdays conducive to forming

ozone showed no significant trend, and

an assessment ofemissions in 1990 and 2000 which have shown substantial decreases in emissions ofVOCs and
NOx.

Finally, itis noted thatthe commenter

errs in combining the exceedance data from many monitors and concluding, on the basis ofthe exceedance totals thata worsening ozone trend has occurred. Referring to Table 1in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule (68 FR 4850) (repeated above), one can see that many monitors, including the worst-case monitor at West Alton, show no consistent trend in exceedance numbers in the 2000-2002 period. The "sudden" increase in exceedances from zero to two atthe Orchard Farm and South Lindbergh monitoring sites, although implying aworsening ozone trend, simplypoint to the instability of considering year-to-year changes within

a small time period.

Comment21:The onlymodeling which the commenter is aware ofwas relied upon in the June 26, 2001, rulemaking. This modeling shows that it is impossible to attain the NAAQS in St. Louis in 2002. The significant factor is long-range transport. This suggests that variations in out-of-state transport may account forthe monitored improvements in air quality.

Response21:Previous modeling referred to bythe commenter was conducted aspart ofthe attainment demonstration approved by EPAin the June 26, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 33995). (This approval was vacated by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit, as explained previously.) This modeling demonstrated thatutilizing planned controls and measures the area will attain the standard by no later than November 15, 2004. EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion thatthe modeling demonstrated itwas impossible to attain the standard in 2002. The purpose ofthe modeling was to determine the likelihood of attainment. EPA's approval ofthe states' attainment demonstrations did not include a determination that attainment

ormaintenance ofthe standard prior to 2004 was impossible.

The assumptions used in the modeling for the attainment demonstration approved in the June 26, 2001, rulemaking are described in an April 3,2001, proposal (66 FR 17649- 17652). In this discussion, EPA noted thatthe states incorporated corrections
to the 1996 base year emissions inventory, an assessment ofthe model's performance by applying statistical tests, and assumptions regarding which
states are affected bythe NOx SIP call including NOx limits on facilities.

As discussed in the April 2001 document, the states had taken

measures to revise the emissions inventory to reflect the most current data inputs available. In addition, an evaluation ofthe model was performed

as a measure ofthe "likelihood" that the standard will be achieved. The June 26, 2001, rulemaking at 66 FR 17652 states:

The states conclude, and EPAconcurs, that therevised modeling system performs at an acceptable level because itsatisfactorily reproduces peakozone concentrations relative to themonitored peak ozone concentrations. The modeling system adequately simulates the observed magnitude and spatial and temporal patterns of monitored ozone concentrations. Furthermore, the modeling results accurately differentiate between dayswith marginal

ozone levels and days with elevated ozone concentrations. Therefore, based onthe revised modeling and WOE results presented by the states which confirm theadequacy of theadopted emission control strategy,EPA is approving the states' attainment demonstrations.

The conclusions made regarding the likelihood ofattainment based upon the attainment demonstration modeling

were thebest that could be drawn from the available information. And, itis likely that different conclusions regarding attainment would be drawn if the states were required to conduct modeling as part ofthe maintenance demonstration. For example, ifa prospective maintenance demonstration

were performed with an ozone photochemical model following EPA guidance, the modeling would be allowed to use episode days from the 2000-2002 period, not 1991 and 1995 as

was used in the attainment demonstration modeling. In addition, the modeling would use a more current base-year inventory (1999 or 2000) ratherthan the 1996 base-year inventory usedin the attainment demonstration modeling. Itis highly likely, ifnot certain, thatthe outcome would be a conclusion that attainment will be preserved through the required 10-year period.

Ozone models are designed to primarily predict the relative impacts of emission changes onfuture ozone levels. Thus, itisnot uncommon to observe that actual monitored ozone concentrations are different from 

### 25433

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25433 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

modeled values at certain locations. The commenter's assertion that attaining the standard in 2002 is impossible is not supported bythe existing science.

The commenter does not provide data
to support its hypothesis that variations in out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in air quality. The
commenter only speculates that out-ofstate transport may account for the improvement in air quality. As described in theresponse to comments 19 and 20 above, the states demonstrated that improvements in air quality are due topermanent and enforceable emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions, an analysis ofmeteorological conditions which has shown no significant decrease in the annual number ofdays conducive to ozone formation, while there hasbeen asignificant reduction in monitored ozone concentrations, and an assessment ofemissions in 1990 and 2000 which has shown decreased emissions ofVOCs andNOx. Thus, the
states have demonstrated the improvements in the St. Louis area are dueto permanent enforceable reductions in the St. Louis area.
E.CommentsRelated to Criterion4:The AreaMustHaveaFullyApproved MaintenancePlanMeetingthe RequirementsofSection 175A
Comment22:Section 175A(a) ofthe CAA requires that state maintenance plans must be SIP revisions. Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAA requires a SIP
to contain enforceable emission limitations. The maintenance plans for each state do not include any enforceable emission limitations. For example, Missouri NOx controls have
not yetbeen promulgated.

Response22:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

In this rulemaking, EPA is approving Missouri's maintenance plan as a SIP revision.

The CAA requires the area to have a fully approved SIP andto have met all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe CAA. The area's SIP satisfies these requirements as described in this final rule and in EPA's proposed rulemaking published onJanuary 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847). The measures thatthe states are relying on to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard have been approved into the SIPs and are state andFederally enforceable. This includes Missouri's NOx RACTrule found at 10 CSR 10- 5.510 andthe statewide NOxrule found
at 10 CSR 10-6.350. (Seeresponse to comment 10 above regarding the NOx SIP Call.) The states must continue to implement these measures as provided for in the Federally-approved SIPs.

The CAA does not require a separate level ofenforcement for amaintenance plan as aprerequisite to redesignation. The enforcement program approved for and applicable tothe SIPs as a whole also applies tothe maintenance plan. See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37881- 37882), andthe Sixth Circuit decision in Wallv. EPA, 265 F. 3d at 438, upholding EPA's interpretation ofthe requirement. As explained belowin the
response to comment 26, Missouri has committed to continue to implement the

measures included in the approved SIP andrelied on for maintenance ofthe standard.

All ofthe control measures which the
states relied upon are SIP-approved

measures. EPA cannot withhold its approval ofthe maintenance plan submittedby the states because of

concerns thatthe states may, at some future time, either submit a SIP revision
to amend orremove aprogram, or that the states may fail to implement these programs inthe St. Louis area. The Federally-approved SIP requirements remain in place and enforceable until suchtime as EPA takes action to approve SIP revisions to amend or
remove them. This can onlybe done via Federal rulemaking, which includes procedures for public comment and review. Comment23:Section 182(j), 40 CFR 51.112(b), the Calcagni memo, and the General Preamble require the use of photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance. EPA is overruling Congress, EPA regulations and common

senseby proposing topredict maintenance for ten years without any modeling. Monitoring is more accurate to show past concentrations, but modeling is required topredict future concentrations. The commenter cites Oberv. U.S.E.P.A., 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) in support ofits assertion.

Response23:EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the use of photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance is required bythe CAA, EPA policy orEPA regulations. The EPA is not overruling Congress, orEPA regulations. Section 175A requires states to develop and submit, as a SIP revision,

aplan for maintaining the NAAQS for
atleast 10 years afterredesignation. The plan shall contain such additional
measures, ifany, as the Administrator deems necessary to ensure such maintenance. Section 175A does not require modeling.

Section 182(j) contains no reference to maintenance plans. Section 182(j)(1) requires that each state in a multi-state

ozone nonattainment area shall "* * * (A)take allreasonable steps to coordinate, substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of State implementation plans applicable tothe nonattainment

area concerned; and (B) use photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in his discretion, to be atleast as effective." The language in this section clearly refers to "nonattainment" areas. Thus, EPA believes that Section 182(j) is applicable
to attainment demonstrations, not maintenance plans.

Even ifthe commenter is correct in its assertion that section 182(j) applies to maintenance plans, this section does not necessarily require modeling. EPA has the discretion to use other analytical methods determined to be at least as effective. In the Calcagni memo on page 9 EPA stated "A State may generally demonstrate maintenance ofthe NAAQS by either showing that future emissions ofa pollutant or its
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show thatthe future mix of

sources and emission rates will not

cause a violation ofthe NAAQS." By this policy, EPAhas, in effect, expressed howits discretion will be utilized regarding the use ofemissions in lieu of modeling in demonstrating maintenance. In addition, the Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that "EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be demonstrated by showing thatthe future emissions ofa pollutant's precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place." See alsoEPA's discussion in itsbriefin the Wallcase. The Ober

case citedby the commenter deals with modeling requirements for approval of a SIP revision in a nonattainment area for particulate matter, and has no relevance
to the ozone maintenance plan at issue here.

The regulation at40 CFR 51.112(a) requires the SIP to demonstrate that the
measures, rules and regulations contained in the plan are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. The regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(b) specify 25434

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25434 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

what the demonstration required in 40 CFR 51.112(a) must include. The Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined thatEPA's position that the regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(a) applies only to attainment demonstrations and not maintenance plans is "neither impermissible nor in conflict with a statutory mandate * * * Moreover, EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be demonstrated by showing that the future emissions ofa pollutant's precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place."

Lastly, the proposed rule at 68 FR 4858 states that projected emissions of NOx in Illinois willbe reduced from 141.64 to 96.67 tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014 and in Missouri, theywill be reduced from 453.14 to 317.58 tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014. Projected emissions ofVOCs in Illinois will be reduced from 94.11 to 75.98 tons per

ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014 and in Missouri, they willbe reduced from 248.35 to 182.57 tons per

ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014. A "common sense" conclusion is that further emission reductions are projected to occur through 2014. Based

onpast trends ofemissions decreases, reduced peak ozone levels will continue from 2000 to 2014. Further modeling would continue to demonstrate attainment. The commenter has not provided any data to indicate that these reductions in ozone precursors would lead to modeled increases in ozone concentrations.

Comment24:EPA and the states have statedin testimony provided to courts andthe public that maintenance ofthe NAAQS in 2003 isnot possible. EPA andthe states have stated that, due to upwind emissions, attainment ofthe NAAQS cannot be achieved until 2004. EPA's modeling demonstrates that itis
not possible to assure thatthe NAAQS would be maintained in 2003.

Response24:The Commenter uses the

same arguments in this comment to state thatthe attainment ofthe NAAQS
cannot be maintained as were used in
comment 21 above to claim that the area cannot attain the NAAQS. See the
response to comment 21 for further discussion.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion thatthe modeling demonstrated it was impossible to maintain the standard in 2003. The
purpose ofthe modeling is to predict the likelihood ofattainment. EPA's approval ofthe states' attainment demonstrations did not include a determination that attainment or maintenance ofthe standard prior to 2004 was impossible.

The commenter refers to documents submittedby EPA andthe states, as well

asto language used in various rulemakings stating, in effect, that reductions in upwind emissions are necessary for attainment ofthe standard and that the earliest attainment date is projected to be November 15, 2004. At the time these documents were developed, EPA and the states were basing their conclusions onthe attainment demonstration and the accompanying modeling. The
statements made were the best conclusions that could be drawn from the available information.

The conclusion thatthe maintenance plan will provide for maintenance ofthe NAAQS for the nextten years as required by section 175A isbased, in part, on more recent information than what was relied upon in the attainment demonstration which included the modeling referred toby the commenter. The maintenance plan includes an emission inventory which is more recent than the inventory used in the attainment demonstration. See the
response to comment 36 for further discussion.

EPA has no datato support the commenter's hypothesis that variations in out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in air quality. The
commenter only speculates that out-ofstate transport solely account for the improvement in air quality. EPA concludes thatthe plan demonstrates maintenance through 2014. Comment25:The SIP must provide

assurance that the states have adequate personnel, funding and authority to carry out the SIP. The record for this action must provide real evidence of this assurance.

Response25:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees with the commenter that this action must include in the record further evidence ofresource commitments. The analysis has already been performed in prior rulemakings and need not be reopened here. See the redesignation ofCincinnati (65 FR 37881-37882), Pittsburgh (66 FR 53102), and Cleveland (65 FR 77308, 77315) for additional examples in which EPA has taken this position. See also, SouthwesternPennsylvaniaGrowth Alliancev. Browner,144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998).

In afinal rulemaking action published

on April 9, 1980 (45 FR 24146), EPA
approve Missouri's SIP as meeting the financial andmanpower resource commitments ofthe CAA.

The Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d426, 437) determined regarding

resource and authority commitments for enforcement that "there is no language in the CAA orin the EPA's regulations that specifically requires that a separate commitment be made within the maintenance plans themselves * * * Morever, this decision is in accord with the interpretation given to the CAA underthe Calcagni Memorandum, advising that 'an EPA action on a redesignation request does not mean that earlier issues with regard to the SIP willbe reopened,' an interpretation that hasbeen upheld bythis court."

EPA also notes that more recent

resource commitment reviews have been performed. For example, in the February 17, 2000, proposed rule at 65 FR 8099 EPAnoted that in proposing to approve Missouri's I/Mprogram, the "the SIP includes a detailedbudget plan that describes the source offunds for personnel, program administration,
program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. * * * The SIP meets the Federal requirements for evidence of adequate tools and resources under 40 CFR.51.372 and 51.354."

Comment26:EPApolicy states that a state may not relax existing controls
upon redesignation. However, the states

are moving LAER, offsets and NOx RACT to the contingency plan without

a modeling demonstration showing that these control measures are not needed for attainment, contrary toEPA policy.

Response26:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

Missouri has a commitment on page 29 ofthe maintenance plan which states "The department provides assurance that all ofthe control measures adopted by state rules andlisted in the ROP plan

or this document willbe enforced to

ensure maintenance ofthe one-hour

ozone NAAQS."

The commenter refers to the Calcagni

memo at page 10 which states that "the 

### 25435

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25435 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

State will be expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such

measures are shownto be unnecessary for maintenance or are replaced with

measures that achieve equivalent reductions."

Section 175A requires that maintenance plans shall contain contingency provisions deemed
necessary to assure thatthe states will promptly correct anyviolation ofthe standard which occurs after redesignation ofthe area as an attainment area. These provisions shall include a requirement that the state will implement "all measures with respect to the control ofthe airpollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area." Onpage 6 ofan October 14, 1994, memorandum entitled, "Part D New Source Review (partD NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment" from Mary D. Nichols, assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA stated its interpretation

onthe term "measures" used in section 175A does not include part D NSR permitting programs. In accordance with this interpretation, EPAbelieves that lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and offsets, which are components ofMissouri's part D NSR permitting program, are not required to be retained following redesignation of the St. Louis area as an attainment area.

LAER and offsets are specified in part D and subpart 2 ofthe CAA applicable
to nonattainment areas. Upon redesignation to attainment, these requirements are no longer applicable. Removing the LAER and offsets provision in the states' permitting
programs is not contrary to the abovementioned policy. Upon redesignation
to attainment, the LAERrequirements included in stationary source permits andthe offsets which were obtained by stationary sources at the time when the LAER and offset provisions were in effect, will remain in effect for those facilities. Thus, the LAER and offset

measures which were relied upon to attain the NAAQS will remain in effect following redesignation.

Following redesignation, any new facilities subject to the state's permitting requirements will be subject, as a minimum, to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements ofPart C ofTitle Iofthe CAA. (InMissouri, the LAER and offset requirements remain in effect, unless the NSR rules are revised by the state andthe revision is approved by EPA.) Under the PSD requirements, the states must ensure that such new facility will not cause a significant deterioration of air quality to the extentthat itcauses or contributes air pollution in excess ofthe NAAQS (Section 165). Aspart ofthe PSD program sources are required to perform a source-specific air quality demonstration to show no adverse impact onthe NAAQS. Thus, maintenance ofthe NAAQS is an inherent feature ofthe PSD program, shouldMissouri choose not to retain its
current program for new source permitting in the future.

As for NOx RACT, Missouri has an approved NOx RACT rule which will remain in effect following redesignation. Thus, there will be no relaxation ofNOx RACT in Missouri following redesignation.

Regarding modeling, the Shapiro Memo at page 6 states that "States may be able to move SIP measures to the contingency planupon redesignation if the State can adequately demonstrate that such action will not interfere with maintenance ofthe standard." As stated above, forMissouri, all control measures established prior to redesignation as a result ofthe LAER and offset requirements arebeing retained following redesignation and NOx RACT is being retained. Comment27:The contingency provision ofthe maintenance plan fall short ofthose required. All serious area requirements ofSection 182(c) ofthe CAA must be included in the contingency plan andimplemented promptly in case ofa violation. Virtually none ofthese provisions are included in the contingency plan and thus cannot be approved.

Response27:EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that all the serious area requirements of section 182(c) arerequired to be included in the contingency plan andimplemented in

case ofa violation.

The requirements for maintenance plans and contingency measures are set forth in section 175A(d). Section 175A(d) states:

Eachplan revision submitted under this section shall contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator EPA deems necessary to assure thatthe State will promptly correct any violation ofthe standardwhich occurs after theredesignation ofthe area as an attainment area. Such provisions shallinclude arequirement that the State will implement allmeasures with respect tothe control oftheairpollutant concerned whichwere contained in the State implementation plan forthe areabefore redesignation ofthe area as an attainment

area.

None ofthe serious area requirements

was an applicable requirement that was contained in the SIP prior to redesignation. The plan must contain contingency measures that the Administrator deems appropriate to

assure thatthe states "will promptly
correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area." As described in response to comment 28 below, EPAbelieves thatthis requirement has been met. The statute does not require that all serious area requirements be included in the maintenance plan as contingency

measuresbut rather that all measures included in the SIP prior to redesignation be included in the maintenance plan as contingency

measures. As explained previously, certain serious area requirements need
notbe met in the case of St. Louis since they are not yet due. Since these provisions are not applicable in St. Louis, they do not need to be included in the maintenance plan as contingency

measures.

The commenter's assertion that "there is no implementation plan applicable to this 'serious area'" is addressed in other
responses in thisrulemaking. See, e.g., response to comment 17.

Comment28:42 U.S.C. 7505a(d) requires thatthe states will promptly
correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs after redesignation. However, there is nothing in either contingency plan which assures prompt correction offuture violations. The plans contain no adopted measures, and

no schedule to adopt specific measures. The plans offer to adopt an unspecified

measure within eighteen months of notification ofaviolation. Thisis an unreasonably longperiod. The plans should require adoption in much less than eighteen months and immediate implementation.

Response28:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees that Missouri's maintenance plan lacks adequate contingency provisions shouldthe area violate the standard. As stated in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4859, the contingency plan portion of the maintenance plans delineated Missouri's planned actions inthe event offuture 1-hour ozone standard violations, increasing ozone levels threatening a subsequent violation of the ozone standard, and unanticipated 25436

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25436 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

increases in ozone precursor emissions threatening a subsequent violation of the ozone standard. Missouri has developed a contingency plan with several levels oftriggered actions depending on whether the ozone standard has actuallybeen violated after the redesignation ofthe area to attainment or whether a subsequent violation ofthe ozone standard is threatened on thebasis ofincreased

ozone concentrations approaching the standard or unanticipated significant increases in ozone precursor emissions. Missouri has also committed to continue to implement all control

measures included in the SIP prior to redesignation consistent with section 175A(d) ofthe CAA.

The action trigger levels and planned corrective actions in the contingency plan are the following:

A Level ITrigger will be exceeded if: (1)The monitored ambient ozone levels exceed 124 parts perbillion, one-hour averaged, more than once per year at any monitoring site in the St. Louis maintenance area (the current St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area), ormore than
two exceedances in any two- or threeyear period; or (2)the St. Louis maintenance area's VOC or NOx emissions for 2005 or 2008 increase

more than 5percent above the 2000 attainment levels. In the event one of these action trigger levels are exceeded, Illinois andMissouri will work together
to evaluate the situation and determine ifadverse emissions trends are likely to continue. If so, the states will determine what and where emission controls may be required to avoid a violation ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be completed within nine months ofthe determination ofthe action trigger exceedance.

A Level II Trigger will be exceeded if

aviolation ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS
atany monitoring site in the St. Louis

ozone maintenance area is recorded after the area is redesignated to attainment ofthe standard. Ifthis trigger is exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will work together to conduct a thorough analysis to determine appropriate
measures, from those listed below, to address the cause ofthe ozone standard violation.

The contingency plan for Missouri lists a number ofpossible contingency

measures. The plan calls for the appropriate contingency measures to be adopted and implemented within 18 months ofaLevel I or LevelII trigger being exceeded. The list ofpossible contingency measures in Missouri's contingency plan include the following: Point Source Measures
* NOx SIP Call Phase II (non-utility) * Apply RACT to smaller existing

sources

* Tighten RACT for existing sources covered by EPA Control Techniques Guidelines * Expanded geographic coverage of
current point source measures

* MACT for industrial sources * New source offsets andLowest Achievable Emission Rates * Other measures to be identified

Mobile Source Measures

* Transportation Control Measures, including, but not limited to, area-wide rideshare programs, telecommuting, transit improvements, and traffic flow improvements. * High Enhanced I/M (OBDII) * California Engine Standards * Other measures to be identified

Area Source Measures

* California Architectural/Industrial Maintenance (AIM) * California Commercial and Consumer Products * Broader geographic applicability of existing measures

* California Off-road Engine Standards

* Other measures to be identified As stated in the September 4, 1992, Calcagni memo, page 12, "For purposes ofsection 175A, a State is not required
to have fully adopted contingency

measures that will take effect without further actionby the State in order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently once they aretriggered." Thus, EPA has long interpreted section 175A not torequire that contingency

measures have already been adopted. OnJuly 21, 1983 (48 FR 33265), EPA approved Missouri rule 10 CSR 10- 1.010, General Organization which set forth the organization, powers and duties ofthe Missouri Air Conservation Commission. The rule contained a new section (3)which described procedures
to be followed bythe Air Pollution Control Program for providing public notice andpublic participation in the rulemaking process.

In order to comply with 10 CSR 10- 1.010, and the underlying statute by which Missouri is authorized by the legislature to adoptregulations, Missouri requires time to evaluate potential controls and provide public notice andpublic participation in the rulemaking process when adopting contingency measures. In addition, selected controls wouldrequire a period oftime for sources to install the controls (e.g., RACT on smaller sources) orfor an implementing agency to fund and establish the new program (e.g., transportation control measures). The
commenter provided no rationale for its assertion that an outside date of 18 months for adoption ofmeasures is unreasonable. The statute affords EPA discretion to determine whether the timeframe for implementation of contingency measures is reasonable. EPAfinds that 18 months as described in the maintenance plan to adopt and implement contingency measures is a reasonable time period forMissouri to meet itsregulatory obligations while meeting the requirement under section 175A to promptly correct any violation ofthe standard. In addition,this 18- month period to adopt and implement contingency measures is consistent with other redesignations such as Pittsburgh (66 FR 53102) inwhich a 12- to 24- month time period was specified to adopt and implement contingency

measures. See also the Louisville redesignation (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001) approving an 18-month schedule for implementation ofcontingency
measures, and Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati-Hamilton) (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000) and (67FR 49600, July 31, 2002).

Comment29:Neither maintenance planprovides any procedure for quantifying thereductions needed to correct violations.

Response29:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

As indicated in the response to comment 28 above, the maintenance planrefers to aviolation ofthe NAAQS

as a level II trigger. In the event ofa violation, Illinois and Missouri have committed to worktogether to conduct

a thorough analysis to determine appropriate measures to address the

cause ofthe ozone standard violation. It is impossible for a state to determine, before aviolation, what reductions are necessary to correct aviolation. For example, ifMissouri would select tightening RACT for existing sources as

a contingency measure, the amount of reductions by implementing this

measure is dependent upon the number ofsources subject to RACT rules in the 

### 25437

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25437 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

area at the time ofthe violation. Since the state has no control over when a

source ceases operating, it is impossible
to determine, at this time, how many
sources willbe affected by a tightening ofRACT which may be implemented at

someunspecified time in the future. Thus itis impossible to determine beforehand how much ofa reduction will be achieved by implementing this

measure. See the discussion in the Cuyohoga and Jefferson Counties, Ohio, redesignation for particulate matter (65 FR 77308, December 11, 2000).

The approach taken in the maintenance plan isto conduct a thorough analysis to determine the magnitude ofthe reductions needed to correct the violation, the types of

sources from which reductions mustbe made (e.g., point, area, or mobile sources), and the mechanisms for achieving the reductions. The listof contingency measures includes a reasonable mix ofmeasures from which
to select the measures most suited to address a future violation (alevel II trigger), ifone occurs, or to alleviate an unanticipated decline in air quality (a level Itrigger). EPAfinds thatthis is a reasonable approach which will assure prompt correction ofthe violation. In addition, consistent with the Calcagni
memo, the maintenance plan includes a Level I trigger in which Missouri will evaluate and determine ifadverse emissions trends are likely to continue. If so, Missouri will determine what and where emission controls maybe required to avoid a violation ofthe 1- hour ozone NAAQS. Comment30:The contingency

measures in the maintenance plans are vague and open ended. Neither plan identifies any measures to be adopted. No firm schedule for adoption and implementation isincluded.

Response30:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion thatthe contingency measures

are vague and open ended. In response to comments 28 and 29 above, EPA addressed the procedures contained in the maintenance plan for evaluating which measures are necessary to promptly correct aviolation.

In addition,in response to comment 28 above, EPAidentified the listof potential contingency measures contained in Missouri's maintenance plan along with a schedule of 18 months
to adopt and implement selected contingency measures in the event ofa violation (a level II trigger) or a decline in air quality (alevel Itrigger). EPAhas concluded that the maintenance plan satisfies statutory requirements and EPA guidance regarding adoption and implementation ofcontingency

measures consistent with EPA guidance andthe CAA. The commenter acknowledges this 18-month time period to adoptand implement contingency measures in the comments.

Comment31:Each maintenance plan contains inadequate provisions to respond to anticipated violations ofthe NAAQS. Anticipated violations are based upon inventories exceeding the 2000 inventory ortwo exceedances at any monitoring site. There is no commitment to adopt any additional controls to address anticipated violations.

Response31:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. Seethe rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As indicated above, aLevel I Trigger will be exceeded if: (1)The monitored ambient ozone levels exceed 124 parts per billion, one-hour average, more than

once per year at any monitoring site in the St. Louis maintenance area (the
current St. Louis ozone nonattainment area), ormore than two exceedances in any two-or three-year period; or (2)the St. Louis maintenance area's VOC or NOx emissions for 2005 or 2008 increase more than 5percent above the 2000 attainment levels. In the event one ofthese action trigger levels is exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will work together to evaluate the situation and determine ifadverse emissions trends are likely to continue. Ifso, the
states will determine what andwhere emission controls may be required to avoid a violation ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The emission controls will be selected from alist ofmeasures included in the contingency plan. A study shall be completed within nine months ofthe determination ofthe action trigger exceedance, and Missouri's maintenance plan contains a commitment to adopt and implement the necessary contingency measures within 18 months ofa Level Itrigger consistent with the discretion afforded EPA bythe statute. The contingency planmeets the requirement ofsection 175A(d) and the applicable guidance in the Calcagni memo.

Comment32:The maintenance plans contain no commitment to implement

measures inthe SIP. EPA cannot approve the maintenance plan without this commitment.

Response32:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

The commenter is incorrect in its
statement that the maintenance plan does not contain a commitment to implement measures in the SIP. Such a commitment was included in Missouri's maintenance plan. Section 5.4 of Missouri's maintenance plan states the following: "The department provides

assurance that all ofthe control

measures adopted by state rules and listed in the ROP plan orthis document willbe enforced to ensure maintenance ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS. Any revisionsto the control measures included as part ofthe maintenance planwill be submitted as a SIP revision
to EPA for approval." As described in
response to comment 28, Missouri is retaining all ofthe measures contained in its SIP prior to redesignation.

Comment33:The maintenance plans do not address expected growth in areas adjacent to the nonattainment area such

as Ste. Genevieve County. An
assessment ofthis growth should be included. Also, the plan isbased onthe "irrational assumption" that "ifthere is

no increase in emissions, and no decrease in controls, the standard will be maintained."

Response33:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Illinoisportion ofthe St. Louis area.

The commenter's characterization of the "basic premise" ofthe maintenance planis incorrect. The plan does not simplistically assume thatthere willbe

no increase in emissions. The plan carefully projects the growth in emissions which will occur in various

source sectors, andthe reductions which will occur based on emission 25438

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25438 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

control programs which are in place, in order to determine the net change in emissions from 2000-2014. The states

are required to and have applied the appropriate techniques to estimate and
account for potential emissions changes in the area. These techniques are necessarily based on sector-based growth indicators (positive and negative), i.e., sector-specific economic factors, because the states have no way ofpredicting specific changes which take place within the emissions inventory.

Specific projects, such as those cited by the commenter, are addressed through mechanisms other than maintenance plans. Missouri implements Prevention of Significant Deterioration and NSR permitting regulations. These regulations address the air quality impacts ofnew sources and modifications ofexisting sources both inside and outside the boundaries ofthe nonattainment area. They are designed toprevent new source construction or existing source expansion which would adversely affect

an area's ability to attain or maintain a national standard. The anticipated plant referenced by the commenter is a potential source in Missouri and the
state is currently in the process of reviewing construction permit applications under state permitting requirements. This plant has not received the preconstruction permit necessary for construction and operation. Before any suchproject can be permitted, a permit applicant would be required, among other requirements,
to identify specific emission increases and decreases associated with a particular project and demonstrate that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on an ambient air quality standard. Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.060, Missouri's construction permitting rule, is part ofthe Federallyapproved SIP.

EPAbelieves thatit is the function of the state's air permitting rules, rather than the maintenance plan, to ensure that specific potential new sources do
not create emissions which would interfere with the maintenance ofthe

ozone standard.

Comment34:The emission estimates

are unreliable. A recent study offlares throws doubt into the St. Louis emission inventory. EPA must consider the significant underestimation offlare emissions in the emission inventory.

Response34:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA believes thatthe states used the appropriate emission estimates in developing the emission inventory. The
commenter cites a study ofemissions from flares reported bythe Bay Area Management District which the
commenter alleges shows that the states greatly underestimated emissions from flares. EPA does not agree thatthe study citedby the commenter renders the emission estimates unreliable.

The Bay Area Management Study referenced by the commenter is a draft document and specifically states on the first page "Do not cite orquote." This document is currently undergoing scientific review. Therefore, no conclusions or comparisons shouldbe drawn from this study until it becomes final. This study specifically addresses refinery flare emissions. However, no refineries are located in the Missouri side ofthe non-attainment area. Further review ofthe document has shown that methane was included in the emission factor that was used to derive emissions for this study.Methane is not an ozone precursor, and the inclusion ofthis pollutant could significantly alter the preliminary findings. The study targets the control efficiencies ofthe flares and
states that "efficiency drops approximately bythe cube ofthe speed (wind)". This would suggest that on high wind event days the control efficiencies would be at their lowest. However, in the St. Louis area, high

ozone days have been characterized by low wind conditions, which would produce minimal impact onflare control efficiencies during the periods ofconcern. Lastly, NOx andVOC emissions from all flares constitute less than one-tenth ofone percent ofthe total inventory for the Missouri side of the St. Louis area. Therefore, any potential changes in calculation methodology from this source category,

even ifchanges were warranted based

onthis draft study,would still likely produce an insignificant change to the total inventory. Comment35:Missouri states that it operates an enhanced I/M program but this has neverbeen authorized by the Missouri legislature.

Response35:The Missouri Legislature authorized MDNR to develop an I/M program, including a centralized test only program, as necessary to provide for attainment and maintenance ofthe national ambient air quality standard. That authority is codified in the Missouri Revised Statutes, Sections 643.300-643.355. Missouri's I/Mprogram has incorporated most ofthe features ofan enhanced program, described in our 2000 rulemakings (65 FR 8097, February 17, 2000 and 65 FR 31480, May 18, 2000).

The I/Mprogram operated in the St. Louis, Missouri, area is known as the Gateway CleanAir Program. The Gateway CleanAir Program utilizes transient emission testing, the IM240 test, at centralized testing stations. These features are commonly thought of

asbeing associated with an "enhanced" I/Mprogram, as compared with decentralized, idle test programs. The IM240 testmeasures the vehicle under various operating conditions, measures NOx, and makes these measurements in
terms ofgramsper mile, all ofwhich the idle test cannot. Additionally, the Gateway CleanAir Program includes gas cap testing, which addresses evaporative hydrocarbon emissions that

a tailpipe test cannot. Thus, Missouri often refers to the Gateway Clean Air Program as an Enhanced I/Mprogram. As seen in Missouri's December 2002 program evaluation, this program is achieving emission reductions beyond those which would be achieved through

a decentralized, idle test program. The descriptive terminology is irrelevant in any event. Missouri has assumed emissions reductions for the program it has in place (whatever label is used to describe the program), andthe
commenter does not provide any information indicating thatthe assumed reductions are not appropriate.

Comment36:The emission inventory submittedby Missouri isnot an inventory ofemissions during the attainment period but is projected emissions drawn from Missouri's old attainment demonstration. EPA cannot conclude thatkeeping emissions no higher than these projected inventory
amounts will ensure maintenance ofthe NAAQS.

Response36:Missouri did notuse the

same inventories in the attainment demonstration as was usedin the maintenance plan. Missouri used a 1995/1996 inventory for the attainment demonstration and a 1999 inventory for the maintenance plan.

In the maintenance plan, Missouri selected 2000 as "the attainment year" for purposes ofdemonstrating attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Bothpoint and area source inventories

were grown from 1999 emission inventories. To demonstrate maintenance ofthe ozone standard through a ten-year maintenance period, Missouri projected VOC andNOx emissions for the St. Louis area to 2007 

### 25439

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25439 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

and 2014 and compared these projected emissions to the 2000 attainment year emissions. The 2007 emission estimates

were generated to test a midpoint in the ten-year maintenance period.

In the April 17, 2000, proposed rule
at65 FR 20411 for the attainment demonstration, EPA noted that "The
state submittals describe in detail the procedures used to develop, and then project, thebase year emission inventories to the 1995/1996 period and
to project emission to account for growth and control through 2003." The maintenance plan does not rely on these inventories.

As stated in response to comment 23 above, keeping emissions no higher than those projected in the inventory will

ensure maintenance ofthe NAAQS. The Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that "EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance
to be demonstrated by showing thatthe future emissions ofa pollutant's
precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place." Comment37:Neither maintenance plan provides a technical analysis demonstrating that maintenance ofthe 2000 emission levels will assure maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Such a demonstration requires photochemical grid modeling.

Response37:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees that modeling is required to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA reiterates its response to other comments including comments 23 and 36 in that the Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA(265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that "EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance
to be demonstrated by showing thatthe future emissions ofa pollutant's
precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place."

Missouri's maintenance plan includes

atechnical analysis as described in the response to comment 28 above that demonstrates maintenance ofthe NAAQS, based on a comparison ofbase
year (attainmentyear) and projected VOC andNOx emissions. This analysis
meets the requirements ofthe CAA, is consistent with EPA guidance, and demonstrates maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Comment38:The maintenance plan
must include RACM andRACT, for the

reasons stated in comment 13 above.

Response38:EPA incorporates its
response to comment 13 in response to this comment.

F. CommentsRelatedto Criterion5: The AreaMustHaveMetAllApplicable Requirements UnderSection 110and PartD
Comment39:Neither state has met all the requirements applicable to the area. The serious area requirements ofsection 182(c) are applicable but none ofthese requirements have been met. Some of the requirements are applicable and enforceable now, such asthe 50 ton per year threshold for permitting and enforcement andparagraphs 7, 8, and 10 ofsection 182(c).

Response39:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As stated in theresponse to comments 6 through 11 above, the SIPs meet the applicable requirements and the serious

area requirements are not applicable for purposes ofthis redesignation. States requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet therelevant CAA requirements that come dueprior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. Areas may be redesignated even though they have not adopted measures that come due after the submission ofa complete redesignation request. Upon completion oftoday's actions, the SIP is fully approved for all applicable regulations. SIP revisions addressing the serious area requirements were required
to be submitted byJanuary 30, 2004. Section 182(c) paragraphs 7and 8 refer to special rules for modifications of major sources while paragraph 10 refers
to 1.2 to 1offset requirements for serious nonattainment areas. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 defines the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area as

amoderate ozone nonattainment area. A SIP revision would be required to redefine the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area to a serious nonattainment

area. As stated in response to comment 7,EPA established a future date for submission ofthe serious area requirements, including section 182(c)(7),(8), and (10), andthe requirements are notnow applicable for
purposes ofthis redesignation.

G. CommentsRelatedto ImplementationofContingency Measures
Comment40:One commenter requested that inthe final rule, EPA expressly state that in the event ofa future violation ofthe NAAQS, Illinois and Missouri will not necessarily be required to evaluate any particular contingency measure norbe required to submit further attainment demonstrations.

Response40:As stated above, the contingency plan portion ofeach state's maintenance plans delineate the states' planned actions in the event offuture 1- hour ozone standard violations, increasing ozone levels threatening a subsequent violation ofthe ozone standard, andunanticipated increases in

ozone precursor emissions threatening a subsequent violation ofthe ozone standard. Inthe event ofalevel Itrigger, Illinois and Missouri will work together
to evaluate the situation and determine ifadverse emissions trends are likely to continue. If so, the states will determine what and where emission controls may be required to avoid a violation ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be completed within nine months ofthe determination ofthe action trigger exceedance. In the event ofa Level II trigger, Illinois and Missouri will work together to conduct a thorough analysis
to determine appropriate contingency

measures. EPA expects that through this
process, the states will identify the appropriate measures to implement to maintain the NAAQS. Redesignated

areas are not subject to an obligation to meet additional nonattainment area requirements such as attainment demonstrations since they are no longer designated nonattainment areas. Instead, they must implement the contingency measures, which is what Congress provided for in the CAA.

H. CommentsRelatedtoRedesignation ofa Portionofthe St.LouisArea

Comment41: One commenter requested that inthe event the EPA is unable to finalize Missouri's I/M program, as proposed in a separate rulemaking on January 30, 2003, EPA should proceed with the redesignation for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis

area.

Response41:In today's Federal Register, EPA is approving Missouri's revised I/M rule. In addition, as explained above, EPAis finalizing its actions onthe Missouri and Illinois 25440

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25440 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

redesignation requests in separate rulemakings.

L CommentsRelatedtoInterstate Transport

Comment42:EPAmust ensure that the CAA requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D) pertaining to interstate transport impacts are actively and adequately met through the states' SIPs and through federal control programs such as the NOx SIP call.

Response42:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing aresponse regarding the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. Seethe rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As stated above, EPAbelieves that submissions under the NOx SIP call shouldnot be considered applicable requirements for purposes ofevaluating

aredesignation request. The NOx SIP call requirements are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the requirements that are therelevant

measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The NOx SIP call submittal requirements continue to apply to a state regardless ofthe designation of any one particular area in the state.

Thus, we do notbelieve thatthe NOx SIP call submission shouldbe construed
to be an applicable requirement for
purposes ofredesignation. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). Seealso the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000).

Missouri has adopted and EPAhas approved into the SIP a state-wide NOx rule (10 CSR 10-6.350 Emissions Limitations andEmissions Trading of Oxides ofNitrogen (65 FR 82285, December 28, 2000). This rule will remain as a SIP requirement following redesignation ofthe area to attainment. EPA is also determining in aseparate rulemaking (proposed at 67 FR 8396) whether or not the eastern part of Missouri is to be subject tothe NOx SIP call in response to a court remand.

Comment43:The expected NOx emission control programs and emission reductions for the St. Louis area should
not bejeopardized dueto the absence of continued federal enforceability ofthe SIPs.

Response43:The SIPSs will remain Federally enforceable following redesignation ofthe St. Louis area to attainment. In addition, all ofthe NOx emission controls measures which are currently in place will remain as SIP requirements following redesignation to attainment. These emission control

measures include NOx RACT, and the state-wide NOx rule in Missouri. Any revisions to SIP requirements would have to meet the applicable provisions ofthe CAA andbe approved by EPA.

Comment44:The redesignation ofthe St. Louis area to attainment should not weaken the impetus to rapidly address NOx transport to downwind areas. These efforts are critical to addressing the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the St. Louis and downwind areas.

Response44:The St. Louis redesignation to attainment will not delay EPA's decision as to whether or not the eastern portion ofMissouri is to be included in the NOx SIP call. EPA will closely review any proposed changes to the NOx emission control programs which are currently in place in the St. Louis area to ensure thatthe proposed changes will not adversely affect the maintenance ofthe NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This actionmerely approves state law asmeeting Federal requirements andimposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired by state law, itdoes not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alterthe relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe CAA. Thisrule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)donot apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden underthe provisions ofthe PaperworkReduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a 

### 25441

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25441 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe 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 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby July 11, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule

or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects

40CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas. Dated: April 29, 2003. William W.Rice, ActingRegional Administrator,Region 7.
* ChapterI, title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]



### m1.The authoritycitation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart AA-Missouri

* 2.In §52.1320(e)the table is amended by adding an entry atthe end ofthe table
to read asfollows:

§52.1320 Identificationof Plan.

(e) * * *

EPA APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment State sub- EPA ap- Explanation area mittal date proval date

Maintenance Plan for the Missouri Portion of the St. St. Louis

.................................................... 12/06/02 5/12/03

Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area including 2014 OnRoad Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets.

PART 81-[AMENDED] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. is amended by revising the entry for St.
* 2.In §81.326 thetable entitled Louis Area to read as follows:


### m1.The authority citation for part81 "Missouri-Ozone (1-Hour Standard)" §81.326 Missouri.
continues to read as follows:

, , , ,

MISSOURI-OZONE

[1-Hour Standard]

Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

St. Louis Area: Franklin County

........................................... 5/12/03 Attainment. Jefferson County

......................................... 5/12/03 Attainment. St. Charles County

...................................... 5/12/03 Attainment. St. Louis

....................................................... 5/12/03 Attainment. St. Louis County

.......................................... 5/12/03 Attainment.

1This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 03-11187 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[IL216-2;FRL-7496-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, and Designation of Areas forAir Quality Planning Purposes; State of Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has determined, in a separate rule published in today's Federal Register, that the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area (St.Louis area) has attainedthe one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area includes the Counties ofMadison, Monroe, and St. Clairin Illinois and the Counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. 

### 25442

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25442 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Louis and St. Louis Cityin Missouri. Based on the determination of attainment, EPAhas also determined, in today's separate rule, that certain ozone attainment demonstration requirements along with certain other ozone planning requirements ofpart D oftitle I ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) are not applicable for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.

The EPAis approving a request from the State ofIllinois, submitted on December 26, 2002, toredesignate the Metro-East St. Louis area (Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties, Illinois) (theIllinois portion ofthe St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area) to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS. In approving this request, the EPA is also approving the State's plan for maintaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014 as a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP); and finding as adequate and approving the State's 2014 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides ofNitrogen (NOx), as contained in the maintenance plan, for transportation conformity purposes. Refer also to a separate rule published today (the attainment determination rule) regarding similar approvals for the State ofMissouri.

The EPAis approving an exemption from certain NOx emission control requirements, as provided for in section 182(f) ofthe Clean Air Act, for the Metro-East St. Louis area. Because the St. Louis area is currently attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA is granting the Metro-East St. Louis area an exemption from NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology (NOx RACT) requirements. However, allNOx emission controls previously adoptedby the State must continue to be implemented. DATES: For good cause as explained below, this rule is effective May 12, 2003. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe documents relevant to this rule are available for inspection at the offices ofthe Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents shouldmake an appointment with the appropriate EPA office at least 24 hours in advance before visiting the office. The reference file number is IL 216.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty,Environmental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Regulation Development Section, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, (doty.edward@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever "we," "us," or "our" are used,we mean the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Table ofContents
I.What Is the Background forThis Rule? II.What Actions AreWe Taking and When Are They Effective? III. WhyAre We Taking These Actions? IV. What Are theEffects ofThese Actions? V. WhatComments DidWe Receive and What Are OurResponses? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

OnJanuary 30, 2003, EPA published

afinal rule and two proposed rules related to the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (68 FR 4836, 68 FR 4842, and 68 FR 4847). The final rule (theJanuary 30, 2003 final rule), 68 FR 4836, reinstated and made effective EPA's prior finding thatthe St. Louis nonattainment area failed to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS (one-hour

ozone standard) byNovember 15, 1996 (based on 1994-1996 ozone data) and reinstated a reclassification ofthe area to a serious nonattainment area. In addition,in the January 30, 2003 final rule, EPA established a schedule for submission of SIP revisions for Illinois andMissouri to meet the CAA requirements for aserious ozone nonattainment area and established November 15, 2004 as the date by which the St. Louis area must attain the ozone standard. A correction to this final rule

was published on February 13, 2003 (68 FR 7410) which corrected atable entry.

In aJanuary 30, 2003 proposed rule, 68 FR 4847 (theJanuary 30, 2003 proposed rule), EPA proposed to determine thatthe St. Louis area has attained the one-hour ozone standard (clean air determination) based on complete, quality-assured ozone monitoring data for theperiod of 2000 through 2002. In addition,in the same proposed rule, EPAproposed to: (a) approve the requests from the States of Missouri andIllinois to redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment ofthe onehour ozone NAAQS; (b) determine that certain planning requirements ofthe CAA are not applicable to the St. Louis

area based on the clean air determination; (c) approve an exemption from NOx RACT requirements in the Metro-East St. Louis
area; and (d)find adequate and approve Missouri's and Illinois' 2014 MVEBs for VOC andNOx, as contained in the States' maintenance plans, for transportation conformity purposes.

In the proposed rule found at 68 FR 4842, EPAproposed to approve a revision to the Missouri SIP for the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ M) program operating in the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment

area.

This rule is EPA's final action onthe January 30, 2003 proposed rule as it relates to the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area. A separate rule in today's Federal Register is EPA's final action finding that the St. Louis

area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard along with EPA's final action

on the January 30, 2003 proposed rule

as itrelates to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area. As noted in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule on page 4848, EPA received separate requests fromMissouri and Illinois toredesignate the St. Louis area to attainment. Inthe January 30, 2003 proposed rule, EPAproposed actions related to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe nonattainment area. However, EPA stated that it was considering issuance oftwo separate rules when ittook final action onthe redesignation requests. We received no comments onthis aspect ofthe proposal. Withthe exception ofthe determination ofattainment, EPAis takingfinal action related tothe Missouri portion ofthe nonattainment
area, andis taking final action onthe Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area in separate rulemaking actions. Section 107(d)(3)(v) provides, as aprerequisite to redesignation, that: "the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D." This section plainly shows that Congress
meantfor EPA to evaluate whether each State requesting redesignation ofan area has met the applicable requirements. In addition, each state has authority only
to adopt and submit for approval a maintenance plan and a revision ofits SIP that are applicable to its territory. Since each state has the authority only
to request redesignation for the portion ofthe area within itsboundaries, and EPA evaluated each states' request for redesignation separately, the final rules redesignating each states' portion ofthe nonattainment area are being published separately. However, EPA has concluded that in determining whether

or not amultistate area has attained the standard based upon complete, qualityassured ambient air quality monitoring data, EPA will consider the attainment
status ofthe area as awhole. Therefore, 25443

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25443 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

EPA's finding thatthe area has attained the NAAQS applies to the entire nonattainment area, and we are publishing that finding in a separate rule today. See 67 FR 49600,July 31, 2002 (Reinstatement ofRedesignation of Kentucky Portion ofCincinnatiHamilton area) for additional discussion ofthese issues.

The history for this action hasbeen
setforth in detail in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4847, 4848- 4849), and is summarized below.

The St. Louis area was designated as

an ozone nonattainment area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). OnNovember 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Under section 107(d)(4)(A) ofthe Act, on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the St. Louis area

was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area as a result of monitored violations ofthe one-hour

ozone NAAQS during the 1987-1989 period. OnJanuary 30, 2003, EPA reclassified the area to a serious ozone nonattainment area, effective January 30, 2003.

Illinois and Missouri adopted and implemented emission control programs required under the Act to reduce emissions ofVOC and NOx. These emission control programs include stationary source RACT (VOC and NOx in Missouri and VOC only in Illinois), vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ M), transportation control measures (TCMs), and other emission control

measures (see the analysis and discussion ofspecific emission control

measures at 68 FR 4847). As a result of the emission control programs, ozone monitors in the St. Louis area have recorded three years ofozone monitoring data for the 2000-2002 period showing that the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS.

On December 26, 2002, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted an ozone redesignation request and ozone maintenance plan for the Metro-East St. Louis area along with a request for an exemption from NOx RACT requirements for the Metro-East St. Louis area. Included in this State submittal is a plan to maintain the onehour ozone NAAQS through 2014 and 2014 VOC and NOxMVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. The January 30, 2003 proposed rule, in part, addressed this State submittal.

II. What Actions AreWe Taking?

Considering the comments onthe January 30, 2003 proposed rule, as discussed below and in the separate determination ofattainment rule published in today's Federal Register, we conclude that itis appropriate to finalize the actions proposed in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule with regard tothe Metro-East St. Louis area.
A. Determinationof Attainment

In a separate rule in today's Federal Register, EPA has determined that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, consisting ofboth the Missouri and the Illinois portions ofthe area, has attained the one-hour ozone standard. See sectionII.A oftoday's determination of attainment rule for further discussion regarding EPA's attainment determination.

Also, in the separate rule in today's Federal Register, EPAhas determined that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1) ofthe Act) along with certain other related requirements ofpart D oftitle I ofthe Act, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement (measuresneeded to mitigate a state's failure to achieve reasonable further progress toward, and attainment of, a NAAQS), the section 182 attainment demonstration and Rate-Of-Progress (ROP)requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement, arenot applicable tothe St. Louis area. The discussion contained in the separate rule pertaining to the CAA requirements which are no longer applicable tothe St. Louis area is hereby incorporated into this rule.

B. RedesignationoftheMetro-EastSt. LouisArea toAttainment

Although EPAis determining thatthe entire St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area has attained the one-hour ozone standard, EPA has concluded that itis appropriate totake final action related
to Illinois' request toredesignate the Metro-East St. Louis area and to Missouri's request to redesignate the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis nonattainment area in separate rulemaking actions published today. In this rule, EPAis taking the following actions with respect to the Metro-East St. Louis area:

1.EPA is approving a request from the State ofIllinois toredesignate the Metro-East St. Louis area to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS;

2.EPA is approving Illinois' plan for maintaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014, as arevision to the Illinois SIP; 3.EPA isfinding as adequate and approving the 2014 MVEBs for VOC and NOx in Illinois' ozone maintenance plan for the purposes oftransportation conformity; and 4. EPAis approving an exemption (waiver)from NOx RACT requirements for the Metro-East St. Louis area.
C.Effective DateofTheseActions

EPA finds that there is good cause for this redesignation to attainment, SIP revision, and exemption fromNOx RACT requirements to become effective immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature ofa redesignation to attainment which relieves the area from certain CleanAir Actrequirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date forthis action is authorized under both 5U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication ifthe 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 providedby the agency for good cause found andpublished with the rule". As indicated above, in the January 30, 2003 final rule, EPAreclassified the St. Louis

area to a "serious" nonattainment area and established a schedule for submission of SIP revisions fulfilling the requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas. Upon the effective date ofthis rule, the State ofIllinois will be relieved ofthe obligation to develop and submit these SIP revisions. In addition,the Illinois rules adopted to meet the requirements oftitle V ofthe CAA, provide that in a "serious" area, stationary sources with potential emissions ofVOC andNOx greater than 50 tons per year are major sources. As such, these major sources are subject to the title V permit program and are required to submit title Vpermit applications within twelve months of January 30, 2003. Upon the effective date ofthis rule, stationary sources which are newly subject to the title V permitting program as aresult ofthe January 30, 2003 reclassification ofthe St. Louis area to a serious nonattainment area will be relieved of the requirement to submit titleV permit applications to the State ofIllinois. EPA finds that good cause exists forthis final rulebeing immediately effective since it relieves the State ofIllinois as well as stationary sources ofcertain requirements established as aresult of the January 30, 2003 reclassification to

a serious nonattainment area.
III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?

EPA has determined, in a separate rule publishedin today's Federal Register, that the St. Louis area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. In 25444

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25444 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

this rule, we have concluded that Illinois has fully met the requirements for redesignation found at sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A ofthe CAA for redesignation ofan area from nonattainment to attainment for ozone. In addition, EPAbelieves thatthe State ofIllinois has demonstrated that the

area has attained, and thatthe criteria for redesignation havebeen met.

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule
at68 FR 4847, EPA described the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1)the Administrator determines thatthe area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the

area under section 110(k); (3)the Administrator determines thatthe improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting therequirements of section 175A; and, (5)the state containing such

area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part D ofthe Act.

EPA has determined that the St. Louis

area has attained the applicable NAAQS. EPAhas fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area under section 110(k). EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the Illinois portion ofthe area as meeting the requirements ofsection 175A. Illinois has met all requirements applicable tothe Metro-East St. Louis

area under section 110 and part D of the Act.

By finding that the maintenance plan provides for maintenance ofthe NAAQS through 2014, EPA is hereby finding adequate and approving the 2014 VOC andNOx MVEBs contained within the maintenance plan. The MVEB for NOx in the Metro-East St. Louis area is 18.72
tons per ozone season weekday. The MVEB for VOC in the Metro-East St. Louis area is 10.13 tons per ozone

season weekday. The rationale for these findings is as statedin this rulemaking and the January 30, 2003 proposed rule found at 68 FR 4847.

IV. WhatAre the Effects ofThese Actions?

In a separate rule published in today's Federal Register, EPAhas determined that the St. Louis area attained the 1- hour ozone standard and that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1) ofthe Act) along with certain otherrelated requirements of part D oftitle I ofthe Act, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency

measure requirement (measuresneeded
to mitigate a state's failure to achieve reasonable further progress toward, and attainment of, aNAAQS), the section 182 attainment demonstration and ROP requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement, are not applicable to the St. Louis area. EPA's determination that the St. Louis area has met the one-hour

ozone standard relieves Illinois and Missouri from the obligation to meet certain additional Clean Air Act requirements, which apply to areas not attaining that standard.

EPA notes that the area islikely to be designated nonattainment for the 8-hour

ozone standard, andwould be subject to any additional requirements as a result ofsuch designation. EPA also notes that it is not revoking the one-hour standard for the St. Louis area.

Approval ofthe Illinois redesignation request changes the official designation for the one-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area, including Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties, from nonattainment to attainment. It also incorporates into the Illinois SIP aplan for maintaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014. The plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations ofthe onehour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC andNOx MVEBs for 2014 for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area.

Approval of an exemption from NOx RACT requirements for the Metro-East St. Louis area means that Illinois is no longer obligated by the Clean Air Act to adopt and submitNOx RACT regulations for applicable NOx stationary sources. This also means that the Illinois SIP canbejudged to be complete despite the lack of such regulations in the Metro-East St. Louis

area.
V. What Comments Did We Receive and WhatAre OurResponses?

We received 5letters containing
comments regarding the January 30, 2003 proposed rule. Four ofthe letters supported the proposed rulemaking action. Two ofthe fourletters in support ofthe proposed rulemaking action raised issues to which we are responding in this section. One ofthe five letters contained adverse comments and opposed the proposed rulemaking actions. A summary ofthe comments and EPA'sresponses to them are providedbelow. This discussion addresses comments relating to the St. Louis area as awhole and comments specifically relating to the Illinois portion ofthe area. Comments relating specifically tothe Missouri portion of the area are addressed in a separate final rule forMissouri also publishedtoday.

A. CommentsRelatedtoMeetingthe Criteria forRedesignationtoAttainment
Comment 1:The St. Louis area has failed to meet any ofthe five criteria specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA for redesignation to attainment.

Response 1:EPA's determination that the St. Louis area has attained the onehour ozone standard is contained in a separate rule published in today's Federal Register. Further, EPAhas foundthat the area has met allfive of the criteria specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAAfor redesignation to attainment. Below are specific comments and responses raised by the commenter regarding each criterion. It shouldbe notedthat, although the commenter generally directed comments at issues for both States, Illinois and Missouri, thisfinal rulemaking focuses on the Illinois portion ofSt. Louis ozone nonattainment area. To that extent, most responses given here focus onthat portion ofthe nonattainment area. For

ourresponses relative to the Missouri portion ofthe area, please refer to the separate final rulemakings for the State ofMissouri also published in today's FederalRegister.

B. CommentsRelatedto Criterion1: The AreaMustBeAttainingthe 1-Hour OzoneNAAQS

Comment2:Monitoring data are not representative ofair quality conditions. Monitoring data collected during the Labor Day weekend in 2002 are "hopelessly contaminated" due to voluntary emission reductions undertaken by industry and others.

Response2:See the response to comment 2in the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding the determination ofattainment for the St. Louis area. See also theresponses to comments 18 and 19 below.

Comment3:Monitored data run directly counter to air quality modeling. 25445

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25445 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

The modeling supported the contention that the NAAQS could be attained only in 2004 after all control measures are adopted. Thus, the monitored ozone standard attainment during the 2000- 2002 period is a "fluke" explainable by factors otherthan the success ofthe pollution control measures. In addition, based ona September 4, 1992 EPA policy memorandum ("Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," from John Calcagni) (the Calcagni Memo), the
commenter believes that supplemental

ozone modeling maybe necessary to determine the representativeness ofthe monitored data. Without such supplemental modeling, the commenter asserts that the January 30, 2003 proposed rule's implicit conclusion that the St. Louis area ozone data are "representative" is baseless.

Response3: See theresponse to comment 3in the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding the determination ofattainment for the St. Louis area. See also theresponses to comments 19, 21, 23, and 24below.

Comment4:The monitored data do
not support a conclusion ofcontinued attainment since the number of exceedances tripled from 2000 to 2001 and more than doubled from 2001 to 2002, showing an upward trend in peak

ozone concentrations. The commenter notes that, ifthe same number ofozone standard exceedances that occurred in 2002 occur in 2003 or 2004, the area will again violate the one-hour ozone standard.

Response4:See theresponse to comment 4 in the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding the determination ofattainment for the St. Louis area. See also theresponse to comment 20below.

Comment5: EPA asserts that the data

are "quality assured" but provided no explanation. EPA must demonstrate that the data are quality-assured. EPA must document the adequacy ofthe states' quality-assurance plans. In addition, the
commenter questions whether the ozone datarelied on for the attainment determination were quality-assured since they were entered into AIRS faster than usual.

Response 5: See theresponse to comment 5in the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding the determination ofattainment for the St. Louis area. See also theresponse to comment 2in the separate rule concerning EPA's actions taken to insure theproper monitoring and quality-assurance ofozone data. C. CommentsRelatedto Criterion2:The AreaMustHaveaFully ApprovedSIP UnderSection 11O(k)

Comment6:The serious area SIP requirements ofthe CAA are applicable
to the St. Louis area. These requirements have not been met by the States, and there is no "claim" that they could not have been submitted with the redesignation request. Thus, the SIPs are not "fully approved". In addition,the Calcagni Memo includes procedures suggested byEPA for reducing the stringency ofthe control measures by requiring them to become part ofthe contingency plan. The states have not done these procedures.

Response6:The SIP, which is required to be "fully approved" under criterion 2,is the "applicable" implementation plan (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). This sectionrequires that the SIP mustbe "fully approved" under section 110(k) rather than partially, conditionally, or limitedly approved (Calcagni Memo page 3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires the SIP
to include "all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and Part D". The commenter asserts, without explanation, that the statute requires EPA to determine thatthe "serious"

area requirements are applicable to its consideration oftheredesignation request for the area. However, the Act is
not asprescriptive as the commenter

assumes. See, Wallv. EPA,265 F.3d 426,438 (6thCir. 2001) which states "The statute, however, does not describe how the EPA is to decide which Part D requirements are ,applicable' in evaluating a redesignation request."

EPA has established apolicy to provide guidance in determining how to apply the statutory criterion with respect to this issue. As statedin the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4851), the Calcagni Memo describes EPA's interpretation ofthe section 107(d)(3)(E) requirement. Under this interpretation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet the relevant CAA requirements that

come due prior tothe submittal of a complete redesignation request. Areas may be redesignated eventhough they have not adopted measures that come due after the submission ofa complete redesignation request. Pursuant to the January 30, 2003 final rule (68 FR 4836), the emission control measures and plans resulting from serious nonattainment area requirements for the St. Louis area are due onJanuary 30, 2004. Since these emission control

measures andplans are not yet due, the Illinois SIP is not deficient. EPApolicy and a reasonable application ofsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) allow for an area to be redesignated without the area adopting measures which are not yet due. EPAhas consistently applied this policy and interpretation in other redesignations, including the DetroitAnn Arbor redisgnation discussed at 60 FR 12465-12466.

In addition, there isno requirement in section 107(d)(3)(E) that indicates that States must "claim" that they could not have submitted the serious area SIP revisions or any additional revisions at the time ofthe redesignation requests if those requirements are not applicable to the area when the requests are made. EPA's action to reclassify the St. Louis

area to a serious nonattainment area was published in the Federal Register after Illinois had submitted its redesignation request, and itestablished a deadline for submission ofthe serious area requirements which has notyet passed. Thus, Illinoisis not required to include in itsrequest a "claim" thatthe State
cannot complete the serious area requirements.

Finally, the Calcagni Memo (pages 12-13) discusses the statutory requirement thatthe State must implement all measures included in its SIP prior to redesignation. (In our response to comment 26below, we discuss how this requirement hasbeen met.) This requirement does not expand the universe ofrequirements which are "applicable" for purposes of redesignation. Unless the serious area requirements are applicable, and already contained in the SIP prior to redesignation, the discussion in the Calcagni Memo does not relate to the issue raised by the commenter. Because the serious area requirements are not applicable requirements for the MetroEast St. Louis area andIllinois, the guidance in the Calcagni Memo relating
to mechanisms for converting part D

measures into contingency measures is
not applicable for the purposes ofthis redesignation and assessment ofIllinois'

ozone maintenance plan.

Comment7:The January 30, 2003 proposed rule suggests that a SIP meeting the serious area requirements need not be fully approved because such aplan is not yet due. The
commenter believes thatthe CAA does
notmake an exception for SIP revisions thathave or have not become due. In fact, the serious area requirements have,

as a matter oflaw, become due. The plans were due byJune 14, 1998, andno laterthan May 18, 2002 pursuant to previous EPA and Court actions. The
commenter statedthat the May 18, 2002 date was set byEPA in a March 19, 2001 rulemaking, and that the effect ofa 

### 25446

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25446 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

decision bythe Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit was to reinstate this submission due date.

Response7: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Act requires thatthe applicable SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) ofthe Act as one ofthe criteria for redesignation to attainment. As discussed in comments 6 above and 8 below, the applicable SIP for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis

area is fully approved, and the serious

area emission control measure andplan requirements are not yet due. In making this determination, EPAis not creating

an "exception" tothe statutory requirements for approved SIPs,but is determining that SIP revisions which

are not yet due are not "applicable" for
purposes of sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)ofthe Act (for purposes ofassessing the State's ozone redesignation request). As noted in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4838, on November 25, 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated

aJune 26, 2001 final rule extending the St. Louis area's attainment date to November 15, 2004, andremanded to EPA for "entry ofafinal rule that reclassifies StLouis as a serious nonattainment area effective immediately * * *" (SierraClub and MissouriCoalition fortheEnvironment

v. EPA,311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)). In response to the Court's order, and in accordance with section 181(b)(2) ofthe Act, EPAreinstated the nonattainment determination andreclassification contained in the March 19, 2001 rulemaking (66 FR 15585), but did not reinstate the state plan revision and regulation due date established in that rulemaking. In the January 30, 2003 final rule, EPA established a deadline of 12 months after January 30, 2003 for the States to submit the serious area requirements. The rationale for the deadline is stated in the January 30, 2003 final rule (68 FR 4838). Today's final redesignation rule does not reopen the January 30, 2003 final rule, and
comments on the appropriate deadline for the serious area requirements are beyond the scope ofthis rule.

With respect to the commenter's assertion thatthe serious area requirements should have been due by June 14, 1998, this isbased on an argument made bythe commenter in the U.S. District Court and in the Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia that the reclassification ofthe St. Louis area to serious should havebeen made retroactive to 1997, with the serious area

measures due in 1998. This argument is
not only outside ofthe scope ofthis rulemaking as explained previously, but it was also rejected by the Court. (See, SierraClubv. Whitman, 285 F.3d, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). As explained above, EPA's determination that the serious

area requirements are not "applicable" with respect tothis redesignation is consistent with the Act, with the January 30, 2003 final rule, with applicable EPApolicy, and with relevant judicial decisions. Additionally, note thatthe decision made by the Court on November 25, 2002 required the EPAto rulemake to reclassify the St. Louis area to serious nonattainment effective immediately on the date ofthe rulemaking. The Court did not order the EPAto reinstate the reclassification with an effective date contained in the March 19, 2001 rulemaking, andthe Court did not order the EPAto reinstate the May 18, 2002 State plan due date setforth in the March 19, 2001 rulemaking. Comment8:There is no "fully approved" or even partially approved SIP because the June 26, 2001 rule was vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Response8:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. In this rule, EPA is providing a response regarding only the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule
at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA described the actionstaken by EPA in the June 26, 2001 rule which were vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit. Also, in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA reproposed to approve somerequirements, and explained that certain additional actions vacated by the Court were no longer applicable requirements since the area has attained the NAAQS. As discussed in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, the additional actions vacatedby the Court which are no longer applicable include the contingency measure requirements ofsection 172(c), additional RACM requirements of section 172(c)(1) and section 182(b), and the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(b)(1). That discussion isincorporated byreference herein. See also the discussion in sectionII.A ofthe separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register concerning the inapplicability ofcertain requirements.

In the June 26, 2001 rule, EPAtook the following applicable actions: approved Missouri's andIllinois' 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration; found thatthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area met the reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirements ofthe Act; found thatthe contingency

measures identified by the States are adequate; approved the Illinois and Missouri motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs); and approved an exemption from the NO, RACT requirements for and disapproved an exemption from the NO, new source review (NSR)and NO, conformity requirements for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. EPAhas determined, for the reasons statedin the proposed rule, thatthe attainment demonstration, andRACM requirements, are no longer applicable requirements since the area has attained the NAAQS. Inthis final rule, EPA is approving contingency measures as part ofIllinois' maintenance plan, granting

an exemption from the NO, RACT emission control requirements, and approving MVEBs for 2014, for the Illinois portion ofthe area.

To be considered fully approved pursuant to section 110(k), the SIP must nothave partial approval, disapproval,

or conditional approval ofsubmittals. EPAis notpartially approving, disapproving, nor conditionally approving any ofthe SIP actions contained in the June 26, 2001 rule vacated by the Court.EPA is fully approving the measures submittedby Illinois which are applicable for
purposes ofsection 107(d)(3)(E)(v), and is determining thatthe other submissions are not applicable. Therefore, the Illinois SIP is "fully approved" for all applicable requirements.

Comment9:EPA attempted to assert thatthe Illinois andMissouri SIPs "can be considered to be approved". This is

a "pseudo-approval" and an attempt by EPAto escape the simple straightforward statutory requirement for afully approved SIP. This effort by EPAfails because ofthe clear language ofthe CAA, andbecause EPAmust do

a rulemaking to approve the SIPs. EPA is also avoiding the requirement for judicialreview ofits actions.

Response9: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. In this rule, EPA is providing a response regarding only the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

The use ofthe phrase "can be considered to be approved" (See the 25447

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25447 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4851-4852) was merely a statement that the SIP will meet the section 110 requirements and, as such, "can be considered to be approved" ifEPA approves certain plan elements, described in theproposed rulemakings. In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, EPA proposed to grant an exemption to the State ofIllinois from the NOx RACT requirements in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area under section 182(f) ofthe Act. In today's final rule, EPAis taking final action exempting the State ofIllinois from the NOx RACT requirements in the Metro-East St. Louis

area. By taking this action, EPA now concludes thatthe Illinois SIP is fully approved. The use ofthe quoted phrase

was not intended to escape a statutory requirement. In fact, itrecognized EPA's obligation to complete rulemaking in order to approve the SIP, and it recognized thatEPA could not determine thatthe SIP was fully approved and complete the redesignation ofthe Illinois portion of the St. Louis area to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS until ittook final action to approve the remaining SIP element (an exemption from a RACT requirement, as approved today, eliminates the CAA requirement for NOx RACT andmoots this SIP element). All ofthe SIP elements which are applicable tothe Metro-East St. Louis

area for purposes ofredesignation have either been approved in previous rulemakings or are approved in today's rule.

The proposed rule at 68 FR 4851
states that onNovember 25, 2002, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit (Court)issued a decision in SierraClub andMissouriCoalition for theEnvironmentv. EPA, 311 F.3d. 853 (7thCir. 2002) ("SierraClub"). In this decision, the Court vacated the June 26, 2001 final rule and remanded to EPAfor entry ofa final rule that reclassifies St. Louis as a serious nonattainment area for ozone. Although the Court's decision extensively addressed only EPA's action extending the attainment date for St. Louis providing itsrationale for vacating this action, the Court's order also vacated the other EPA actions in the June 26, 2001 final rule. EPA has approved all SIP elements that are applicable tothe Metro-East St. Louis
area, and is today determining that others are not applicable. This is not a "psuedo-approval" ofthe SIP elements, but a determination thatbecause certain requirements are not applicable (e.g., the ozone attainment demonstration and RACM), they need notbe approved. (See
response to comment 8 for more discussion.) The applicable requirements which were approved prior to the vacated June 26, 2001 action (e.g., VOC RACT and the 15 percent ROP plan) were subject to notice and
comment rulemaking and judicial review. The measures approved today (theozone maintenance plan and contingency measures, MVEBs, and NOx RACT exemption) have been subject to notice and comment rulemaking and this action is subject to judicial review. Our determination that certain requirements arenot applicable has been subject to notice and comment rulemaking and is subject tojudicial review. The public has had full opportunity to comment on all ofour actions, as evidenced bythe numerous comments submittedby the commenter. Therefore, EPA has not avoided any requirement forpublic comment or judicial review.

In acting on a redesignation request, EPA can rely on any prior SIP approvals plus any additional approvals it may perform in conjunction with acting on the redesignation. EPAhas already taken final action to approve all required SIP elements or is approving them in conjunction with this final action onthe redesignation. Therefore, the Metro-East St. Louis area has a fully approved SIP. See the Calcagni Memo, page 3. The Calcagni Memo allows for approval ofSIP elements and redesignation to attainment to occur simultaneously, and EPAhas frequently taken this approach in its redesignation actions. See (66 FR 53096) (PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 37879) (CincinnatiHamilton, Ohio, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, May 7, 1996); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995); and (61 FR 31832-31833) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 21, 1996). Comment 10:The SIP fails to meet the section 110 requirements because the inapplicable "moderate" area requirements contained in the SIP do
not provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe NAAQS; modeling shows thatthe plan does not provide for attainment until 2004.

Response 10:EPA finds thatthe Illinois SIP meets the section 110 requirements. See the January 30, 2003 proposed rule andresponses to comments 8 and 9 for further discussion. See the responses to comments 19, 21, 23, and 24below. See alsothe response to comment 3in the separate rule published in today's Federal Register with regard to the redesignation ofthe Missouri portion of the St. Louis area. Comment 11:The SIP fails to meet the part Drequirements ofthe CAA. EPA
asserts that certain requirements ofpart D are not applicable because monitoring data show thatthe area has attained. EPArelies on the case ofSierra Club v. EPAfor this conclusion. However, this

case has no application here because it

was not a "redesignation case". Given the attainment demonstration modeling, itwould be impossible to conclude that any ofthe "Part D requirements are not necessary". Allpart D requirements are applicable unless, prior to redesignation, EPAformally exempts the St. Louis area fromthe Part D requirements.

Response 11:See section II.A ofthe separate rule published in today's Federal Register with regard to the redesignation ofthe Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for a discussion ofthe rationale for EPA's determination of attainment and suspension ofcertain CAA requirements.

The part D requirements applicable to the Metro-East St. Louis area specifically include the requirements of sections 172(c) and 176 as well asthe applicable requirements of subpart 2. The section 172(c) requirements include General Plan Requirements which, to the extent applicable, must provide for the implementation ofall RACM as expeditiously aspracticable (at a minimum, this requires RACT for stationary sources), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), emissions inventories, identification and quantification of allowable emissions formajor new or modified stationary sources, permits for

new and modified major stationary
source, other emission control measures needed to assure attainment ofthe NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) requirements, and contingency measures. Section 110(a)(2) requirements include: submittal ofa SIP thathas been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice andhearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems, and procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation ofa source permit program; provisions for the implementation ofpart C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)); provisions for the implementation ofpart Drequirements (nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)) permit programs); provisions for stationary source emission control measures, source monitoring, and source reporting; provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public andlocal agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. 25448

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25448 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Subpart 2requirements include: attainment demonstrations; 1990 base year inventory and periodic emissions inventories updates; emission statements; 15 percent rate-of-progress plans; VOC RACT; RACM; stage II vapor recovery; I/M; and NOx emission controls.

As stated in theresponse to comment 8 above, Illinois' SIP meets all applicable requirements, including section 110 and part D requirements. As statedin the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at68 FR 4852 and 4853, EPAhas approved Illinois' RFP plan,permitting programs, and VOC RACTrules as meeting therequirements ofpart D. Illinois' SIP has regulations requiring annual emission statements from major

sources. Illinois has submitted complete emission inventories, which havebeen approved bythe EPA. Illinois has approved general conformity rules pursuant to section 176. In this action, EPA has approved Illinois' maintenance plan, which includes adequate contingency measures. Thus, Illinois has met the applicable part D requirements ofthe Act. Note also that,

as stated in our response to comment 8 above, by finding that the St. Louis area has attained the one-hour ozone standard, the attainment demonstration and RACM requirements are no longer applicable requirements. See alsothe final rule for Missouri published in today's Federal Register describing how the Missouri portion ofthe area has met the applicable requirements.

Neither Section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Act

nor EPApolicy referenced by the
commenter require modeling as a prerequisite to redesignation ofan
ozone nonattainment area. In addition,

no modeling was conducted as part of the redesignation requests submittedby Missouri or Illinois. Thus, there is no modeling basis for EPAto make any conclusions regarding the necessity for the Part D requirements. (Modelingis
not a required element of a redesignation request. See, 65 FR 37879-Cincinnati redesignation for additional discussion ofthis issue. (See, Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d. 426 upholding this interpretation.) However, the monitoring data collected over the 2000 through 2002 period show thatthe area has in fact attained the ozone standard. EPA finds no need for further controls
to bring about attainment.

With respect to the commenter's assertion thatthe Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals SierraClubv. USEPA case is
not applicable because itis not a "redesignation" case, the commenter misses the point ofthe case as itrelates
to St. Louis. The Tenth Circuit's endorsement ofthe interpretation ofthe Act in "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard," John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995 (SeitzMemo), that certain "statutory" requirements relating to attainment are not applicable to an area which has attained the standard, was not dependent on the fact thatthe area was not being redesignated. The case involved a determination by EPAthat Salt Lake and Davies Counties, Utah, had attained the ozone standard, and that, therefore, certain additional requirements relating to attainment (such as an attainment demonstration) would not apply so long as the area continued to attain. The Court expressly recognized thatthe area couldbe redesignated without having met those requirements, even though the action at issue there was an attainment determination andnot aredesignation. The Court stated: "Recall thatthe Environmental Protection Agency's determination to exempt the Counties from limited ozone requirements is really no more than a suspension of those requirements for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard or until the area is formally redesignated to attainment." (SierraClubv. USEPA, 99 F.3d. 1551, 1558 (10th Cir.1996)) (See also,66 FR 53095 for EPA's redesignation ofthe Pittsburgh area.) The Court did not say, asthe commenter would have it,that the area would have
to adopt those measures which had been determined to be unnecessary in order
to be redesignated. As itdid in the Utah Counties, in which EPA redesignated those Counties without requiring that they meet the suspended requirements, EPA ishere determining thatthe St. Louis area is attaining the standard and that certain CAA requirements donot apply. The basis for this determination andthe suspension ofcertain requirements for the area was explained in detail in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850-4858 and further explained in this response to various comments onthe issue. The determination is based on monitored data, not modeling, for reasons explained in this notice. Nothing in the Tenth Circuit case prohibits EPA from simultaneously suspending the requirements andredesignating an area, which iswhat this rulemaking accomplishes. EPA has taken this dual action in anumber ofareas, including Louisville (66 FR 53665), Cincinnati (65 FR 37879), Grand Rapids (61 FR 31831), and Pittsburgh (66 FR 53094). Upon redesignation to attainment, the suspended nonattainment requirements will no longer apply at all since the area is no longer designated as a nonattainment area.

Comment 12:EPA asserts that the RACM requirements ofsection 172(c)(1) need not be adopted because the area has attained the NAAQS, thus, these

measures wouldnot accelerate attainment. This is confoundingly circular reasoning which erases the "fully approved" requirements ofthe CAA. EPA's assertion is not relevant here.

Response 12:The April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13560) states thatEPAinterprets section 172(c)(1) suchthat the RACM requirements are a "component" ofan area's attainment demonstration. Thus, since the attainment demonstration isnot an applicable requirement, RACM is also

no longer an applicable requirement. See our response to comment 8 above for further discussion. EPA has also been consistent in this interpretation. See the final rulemaking for Pittsburgh, 66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) for additional discussion ofthis interpretation.

EPA believes that itspolicy is not "confoundingly circular reasoning" but rather straightforward reasoning. Itis reasonable to conclude that states need
not develop an attainment demonstration showing how they will attain aNAAQS that they have already attained. Similarly, states need not adopt additional RACM asnecessary to accelerate attainment when attainment has already been achieved.

As stated in the response to comments 8 and 9 above, SIPs must be "fully approved," as required by section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), onlywith respect to the "applicable" requirements of section 110 and part D, as addressed in section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) ofthe Act. If requirements are not "applicable" with respect tothose sections, they need not be fully approved. Comment 13:The RACM and RACT requirements ofthe CAA are not tiedto reasonable further progress but are required by the CAAto be implemented

as expeditiously aspracticable. This is supported byH.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. atp. 223; Sierra Club v. USEPA, 99 F.3d 1551, 1557 (10th Cir. 1996); Wallv. EPA, 265 F.3d426, 441 (6th Cir. 2001); and, EPA's Seitz Memo, page 4. EPA's contention that any additional RACM andRACT

measures need not be adopted directly repudiates the plain language ofthe CAA.

Response 13:This comment refers to both the Missouri and the Illinois

### 25449

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25449 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See the separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding the redesignation ofthe Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains tothe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) ofthe Act is defined via section 171(1) ofthe Act as an annual incremental reduction in emissions of the relevant air pollutant (VOC and NOx in this case) that is required to ensure attainment ofthe applicable standard (here the one-hour ozone standard) by the applicable date. Section 182(b)(1)(A)
setsforth the specific requirements for RFP for a moderate nonattainment area which includes a reduction in VOC emissions ofat least 15 percent from baseline emissions. As stated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4854, EPA approved Illinois' 15 percent ROP plan on July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37494).

RACM is a general requirement of section 172(c)(1) which calls for SIPs to contain "all reasonably available control

measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area asmay be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology and shall provide for attainment ofthe national primary ambient air quality standards." EPA has consistently interpreted this provision
to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute to reasonable progress or attainment. See General Preamble 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. Thus, where an

area has already met all applicable requirements for progress and has attained the relevant standard, no additional RACM measures are required.

Section 182(b)(2) specifies the SIP requirements for RACT in moderate nonattainment areas. These requirements include implementation of RACT at each source ofVOC covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs) and atall other major sources ofVOC. EPA has never indicated that the area could avoid implementing VOC RACT requirements because the area has attained the standard.

As stated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4855, Illinois has adopted and implemented all required VOC RACT rules. In addition, section 182(f) establishes NOx RACT requirements for major stationary

sources. Under theprovisions of section 182(f), the EPAis exempting the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment area from the requirements for NOx RACT in this rulemaking. With the granting ofthis exemption, Illinois has met all applicable RACTrequirements.

The commenter states that H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. atp. 223 does not tie RACM and RACT measures to RFP. This document is a recitation ofthe statute, but does not address tying RACM and RACT to RFP.

With respect to the commenter's contention thatEPA's position regarding additional RACM andRACT measures being rejected in the Tenth Circuit Sierra Club case andin Wall v. EPA, the
commenter is incorrect. The Wall case involved VOC RACT, which isnot an issue here, because, as discussed previously, andin response to comment 14 below, Illinois has adopted all applicable VOC RACT measures. The Tenth Circuit Sierra Club case upheld EPA's determination that RACT was not tied to reasonable further progress, and that case did not address EPA's interpretation ofRACM at all. The commenter's Seventh Circuit brief, which itrelies onto support its position that RACM requirements must be met for an area to be redesignated, argued that EPA's interpretation ofthe RACM requirement (thatsection 172(c)(1) requires onlyimplementation of all RACM which would expedite attainment)is an improper reading of the CAA. Thatissue was not addressed

or decided bythe Seventh Circuit. However, the issue ofEPA's interpretation ofthe RACM requirement

was raised andupheld in the 5th Circuit (SierraClub v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743- 45 (5th Cir. 2002)) and in the District of Columbia Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA 294 F.3d 155, 162-63 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Both circuits found thatEPA's interpretation thatthe statute only required implementation ofRACM

measures that would advance attainment was reasonable.

Comment 14:The rulemaking should identify each VOC RACT rule implemented bythe states andidentify whether the states have met the VOC RACT requirements.

Response 14:This comment refers to both the Missouri and the Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

The January 30, 2003 proposed rule
states at 68 FR 4855 thatboth States have adopted andimplemented all required VOC RACT rules. In addition, the proposed rule provided the following Web site which contains the
content ofIllinoisrules: http:// www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm.

The Illinois VOC RACT rules for the Metro-East St. Louis area listed onthis Web site include the following:
Part 219-A General Provisions Part 219-B Organic Emissions From

Storage And Loading Operations Part 219-C Organic Emissions From

Miscellaneous Equipment Part 219-E Solvent Cleaning Part 219-F Coating Operations Part 219-G Use OfOrganic Material Part 219-H Printing And Publishing Part 219-Q Synthetic Organic

Chemical And Polymer Manufacturing Plant Part 219-R Petroleum Refining And

Related Industries; AsphaltMaterials Part 219-S Rubber And Miscellaneous

Plastic Products Part 219-T Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing Part 219-V Socmi: Batch And Air

Oxidation Processes Part 219-W Agriculture Part 219-X Construction Part 219-Y Gasoline Distribution Part 219-Z DryCleaners Part 219-Aa Paint And Ink

Manufacturing Part 219-Bb Polystyrene Plants Part 219-Gg Marine Terminals Part 219-Hh Motor Vehicle Refinishing Part 219-Pp Miscellaneous

Manufacturing Part 219-Qq Misc. Formulation Mfg. Part 219-Rr Misc. Organic Chemical

Mfg. Part 219-Tt Other Emission Units Part 219-Appendices.

These VOC control rules have been incorporated into the Illinois SIP by reference at 40 CFR 52.720. As part of the December 26, 2002 redesignation request submittal, the IEPA has confirmed that the State has implemented all RACT rules contained in the SIP.

Comment 15:The January 30, 2003 proposed rule concedes thatEPA's waiver ofthe NOx RACT requirements for the Illinois portion ofthe nonattainment area was vacated by the Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit. Therefore, the Illinois SIP is not approvable because it failsto meet the NOx RACT requirements ofthe Act.

Response 15:As proposed inthe January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4847 and as finalized in this rulemaking, the EPAis exempting the Metro-East St. Louis area from the NOx RACT requirements under section 182(f) ofthe Act. This NOxRACT exemption 25450

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25450 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

isbased on the St. Louis area attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS without the implementation ofthese NOx RACT emission controls. Section 182(f), and in particular section 182(f)(2)(B)(i), ofthe Act, provides for such an exemption since NOx RACT emission reductions in this area wouldbe in excess ofthose emission reductions needed to attain the standard, as evidenced by EPA's determination ofattainment finalized in

a separate rulemaking for Missouri also published in today's Federal Register. The rationale for the exemption isnot the same as that stated in the June 26, 2001 final rule vacated by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The vacated NOx RACT exemption was based ona modeled attainment demonstration indicating that additional NOx emission reductions in this area would not be needed to attain the onehour ozone standard. The EPAis not relying on the exemption basis expressed in that earlier, vacated final rule, but rather on a new determination, based onmonitored air quality. Attainment ofthe one-hour standard without the implementation ofNOx RACT rules demonstrates that such rules are not needed to attain the onehour ozone standard in the St. Louis

area. Therefore, the Metro-East St. Louis

area qualifies for a NOxRACT exemption under section 182(f)(2)(B)(i) ofthe Act.

Comment16:As the EPA concedes in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, the Illinois SIP does not include transportation conformity procedures as required bythe Act. EPA has no authority to waive this mandatory requirement for SIPs. Therefore, Illinois' SIP isincomplete.

Response16: Section 176(c) ofthe Act provides that state conformity provisions must be consistent with Federal transportation conformity regulations thatthe CAA requires EPA
to promulgate. The Federal transportation conformity regulations

were finalized on November 24, 1993, amended on August 7, 1995, and amended again on August 15, 1997 (40 CFR parts 51 and 93 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendment: Flexibility and Streamlining). On March 2, 1999, a court decision (Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1999)) rescinded several sections ofthe Federal transportation conformity rule, requiring EPA torevise those sections ofthe Federal rule. Illinois submitted transportation conformity rules on September 23, 1998. The SIP revision was submittedby Illinois in response to the August 1997 changes tothe Federal regulations. EPA has not acted on the Illinois transportation conformity rules submittal as it does not address later Federal transportation conformity regulation amendments. Once EPAhas completed the revisions tothe Federal rule to reflect the 1999 court decision, Illinois will need to revise the State's rule to address the changes.

EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes ofevaluating Illinois' ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) ofthe Act. The rationale for this is based on a combination oftwo factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply withthe conformity provisions ofthe Act continues to apply to a nonattainment area after redesignation
to attainment, since such an area would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance ofconformity analyses in the absence ofFederally approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless ofwhether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal rules ifstate rules are not yet approved, EPA believes itis reasonable to view these requirements asnot applying for
purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request. EPA has explained itsrationale andhas applied this interpretation in a number ofredesignation actions. See redesignations for: Tampa, Florida (60 FR 52748, December 7, 1995); Jacksonville, Florida (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995); Miami, Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 1995); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31835, June 21, 1996); and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996). The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld this interpretation in Wallv. EPA,No. 00-4010, Slip Op. at 21-24 (6thCir. September 11, 2001). The Court upheld EPA's view that failure to submit arevision that meets the part D transportation conformity requirements is not a basis to deny an ozone redesignation request. Therefore, the EPA can redesignate the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone standard notwithstanding the lack of fully approved transportation conformity rules in Illinois' SIP.

D. CommentsRelatedto Criterion3: The Improvement inAirQualityMustBe Due toPermanentandEnforceable ReductionsinEmissions

Comment 17:The St. Louis area cannot meet this requirement since there is not an approved SIP meeting the "serious" area requirements, and there is no applicable implementation plan.

Response 17:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishere providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As described inthe response to comments for Criterion (2) above, the Illinois SIP meets the applicable CAA requirements. The applicable SIP requirements are described in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4850-4856). EPA's approval ofprevious SIP submittals and this rulemaking, which grants Illinois an exemption from the NOx RACT requirements, render Illinois' SIP "fully approved" for all applicable SIP requirements. As stated in response to comments 7 and 8 above, since the serious area requirements are notyet due, the SIP isnot deficient even though the serious area requirements have not been included.

In any event, this criterion is not dependent on which requirements are applicable or have been approved or implemented. The requirement is that air quality improvements be attributable
to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, which is a separable inquiry fromthe question ofthe requirements applicable to the area. Illinois' December 26, 2002 submission contains

a detailed analysis ofthe air quality improvements in the St. Louis area and theirrelation to the emission reductions resulting from the permanent and enforceable emission control measures which are in place inthe St. Louis area. (See response to comment 19 below for further discussion.) These measures and resulting emissions changes are listed in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4856-4858. These measures are all part ofthe applicable SIP. Thus, the
commenter is incorrect in its assertion thatthere is no applicable SIP.

Comment 18:Itis impossible to demonstrate that monitored concentrations during and after the 2002 Labor Day weekend resulted from permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. The emissions reductions

were due to voluntary curtailment of operations by large industrial operations.

Response 18:The monitoring data for the St. Louis nonattainment area demonstrate that the estimated number ofexceedances per year averaged over three years is 1.0 orless atall monitoring sites in the area. EPA 

### 25451

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25451 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

believes that any voluntary measures taken by industry and others over a two

orthree day period in this three year time period does not render the air quality monitoring data unrepresentative ofthe air quality. As explained in more detail in response to comment 19below, ozone levels monitored during 2000-2002 are due to permanent and enforceable emission control measures which are in place (e.g.I/Mprograms, RACT on VOC stationary sources).

In the event that some sources did voluntarily reduce emissions over this
two orthree day period, EPA has no basis to conclude that these voluntary reductions had a significant effect on the monitored air quality. Asthe
commenter points out, ozone formation

occurs through "complex chemistry and meteorology". Voluntary reductions

over a short time period may or may not have had an impact on the monitored air quality. (We note that "voluntary" reductions are always a factor, since total emissions at a given point in time depend, for example, on how many people decide to drive on a given day

orweekend). However, the State's demonstration that air quality improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions is based onits analysis ofemission reductions over aten-year period (see
response to comment 19), consistent with the guidance in the Calcagni Memo
atpage 4.

Note that in general, EPA encourages voluntary reductions to reduce emissions. EPA supports programs such

as the Air Quality Index which encourages people to voluntarily reduce

ozone forming activities such as filling gas tanks, painting,mowing, etc. at times when ozone formation is expected
to be high. Although these measures are not enforceable nor measurable, they are encouraged. In addition, EPA does not believe that Congress intended, in enacting section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) ofthe Act, that communities and states, acting
to protect the health oftheir residents, shouldbe ineligible for redesignation merely because they encourage voluntary ozone precursor emission reductions during periods when ozone concentrations maybe high.

Comment 19: EPA cannot demonstrate thatpermanent and enforceable emission reductions are responsible for any alleged improvement of air quality. The only way to demonstrate this point is through photochemical grid modeling. No such modeling has been presented. Without modeling, EPA's claim ispure speculation. Emission reductions attributable to the emission controls "could just as easily lead to increases in

ozone concentrations." The attainment demonstration modeling shows that attainment was "impossible" in 2003.

Response 19:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA's response to this and other
comments onthe attainment demonstration modeling is included in the response to comments 21 and 24 below. In addition, see Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) and our response to comment 23 for further discussion regarding the use ofmodeling in demonstrating maintenance ofthe NAAQS.

Neither section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) ofthe Act nor the Calcagni Memo referenced by the commenter require modeling as

aprerequisite to redesignation ofan

ozone nonattainment area. Thus, modeling is not anecessary prerequisite for demonstrating that the improvement in air quality is due topermanent and enforceable reductions. See the General Preamble forthe Interpretation ofTitle I ofthe CAA Amendments of1990, (57 FR 13496) (April 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992); "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992," Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro Memo); and "Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas," D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993. Our policies provide that an area may meet this requirement by showing how its ozone precursor emissions changed dueto permanent and enforceable emissions reductions from when the area was not monitoring attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS
to when it reached attainment. See the rationale setforth in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886- 37889) (June 19, 2000) andthe Pittsburghredesignation (66FR 53094) (October 19, 2001). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has recently upheld EPA'sinterpretation in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435).

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule
at 68 FR 4856-4858, EPA explains the basis for concluding thatthe observed air quality improvements are due to the implementation ofpermanent and enforceable emission reductions. The

reasons cited include: emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions; an analysis of meteorological conditions which has shown a downward trend in ozone design values while the annual number ofdays conductive to forminghigh

ozone concentrations showed no significant trend between 1989 and 2002; and an assessment ofemissions in 1990 and 2000 which has shown a substantial decrease in emissions of VOC andNOx.

Annual days conducive to ozone formation (those days with relatively clear skies, lowwind speeds and southerly wind directions, high peak temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and little orno precipitation) have shownno noticeable trend up or down, only relatively random year-to-year variations. The annual number of ozone conducive days have stayedbetween approximately 20 and 50, with no consistent increasing or decreasing trend. Meanwhile, annual site-exceedances have decreased from

over 120 in 1978,over 100 in 1983,over 60 in 1988, to atotal of11 in the three year period of2000 to 2002, showing a significant downward trend and steadily improving peak ozone levels. In addition,the year-to-year fluctuation of annual conducive days cannot be correlated with higher or lower ozone exceedance levels over the last few years. Since 1989, asthe annual number ofconducive days fluctuated fromyearto-year with no significant long term trend,the number ofexceedances demonstrated a significant long term downward trend. Thisindicates a disassociation between monitored exceedances and meteorological effects.

During the 1990-2000 period, as the area-wide worst-case three year ozone design values (see ourresponse to comment 20 for further discussion of the area's ozone design values) in the St. Louis area were decreasing, the VOC and NOx emissions inthe St. Louis area

were also significantly decreasing in a downward trend. The following tables listVOC and NOx emissions in 1990 and 2000 for the Missouri andIllinois portions ofthe St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. Both sections ofthe nonattainment area have experienced a 

### 25452

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25452 2003

### Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

downward trend in VOC and NOx no significant trends in days conducive are dueto the implementation of emissions. The downward trend in to ozone formation implies that permanent and enforceable emission emissions and ozone design values with observed improvements in air quality control measures. 

### 1990 AND 

### 2000 MISSOURI PORTION OF THE ST. Louis NONATTAINMENT AREA VOC AND 

### NOx EMISSIONS [Emissions in Tons Per Ozone Season Weekday]

Source category VOC NOx

1990: Poin t Sources ................................................................................................................................................................... 81.97 347.61 Area Sources .................................................................................................................................................................... 87.74 29.47 On-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 135.421 135.00 Off-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 64.30 114.32

1990 Totals

................................................................................................................................................................ 369.43 626.40

2000: Poin t Sources ................................................................................................................................................................... 46.59 165.96 Area Sources .................................................................................................................................................................... 57.38 32.27 On-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 103.79 181.75 Off-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 40.59 73.16

2000 Totals

................................................................................................................................................................ 248.35 453.14



### 1990 AND 2000 METRO-EAST AREA VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]

Source category VOC NOx

1990:
Poin t Sources ................................................................................................................................................................... 74.05 95.85 Area Sources .................................................................................................................................................................... 33.84 1.66 On-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 43.27 45.13 Off-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 23.49 23.99

1990 Totals

................................................................................................................................................................ 174.651 166.63

2000: Poin t Sources ................................................................................................................................................................... 17.91 61.91 Area Sources .................................................................................................................................................................... 28.32 1.18 On-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 26.57 54.71 Off-Road M obile Sources

................................................................................................................................................. 21.31 23.85 2000 Totals

................................................................................................................................................................ 94.11 141.64

Reductions in VOC andNOx emissions havebrought many areas
across the Country into attainment. EPA has approved many ozone redesignations showing decreases in

ozone precursor emissions resulting in attainment ofthe ozone standard. See redesignations for Charleston (59 FR 30326, June 13, 1994; 59 FR 45985, September 6, 1994), Greenbrier County (60 FR 39857, August 4, 1995), Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1994); (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994), Jacksonville/Duval County (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995), Miami/Southeast Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, 1995), Tampa (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995), Lexington (60 FR 47089, September 11, 1995), Owensboro (58 FR 47391, September 9, 1993), Indianapolis (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), SouthBend-Elkhart (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), Evansville (62 FR 12137, March 14, 1997; 62 FR 64725, December 9, 1997), Canton (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Youngstown-Warren (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (60 FR 31433, June 15, 1995; 61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996), Clinton County (60 FR 22337, May 5, 1995; 61 FR 11560, March 21, 1996), Columbus (61 FR 3591, February 1, 1996), Kewaunee County (61 FR 29508, June 11, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Walworth County (61 FR 28541, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Point Coupee Parish (61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996; 62 FR 648, January 6, 1997), andMonterey Bay (62 FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most ofthe

areas thathave been redesignated to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone standard have continued to attain it. Areas that are not maintaining the onehour ozone standard have maintenance plans to bring them back into attainment.

Between 1990 and 2000, area-wide VOC andNOx emissions in the St. Louis area decreased by 37 percent and 25 percent, respectively (46 percent and 25 percent, respectively, in Metro-East St. Louis). These emissions reductions are due to the use oflow volatility gasoline,

more stringent Tier I motor vehicle emission standards, implementation ofa
more stringent vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)program, controls on

area sources, adoption oftighter emissions limits on existing stationary
sources, and requirements for the use of reformulated and low RVP gasoline in
motorvehicles. Some ofthe specific emission control measures implemented in the Metro-East St. Louis area include:

* Basic and Enhanced I/M for Motor Vehicles

* Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)

* Low-Volatility (lowReid Vapor Pressure (RVP)) Gasoline

* Tightened Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Standards for Some Source Categories 25453

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25453 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

* RACT for Sources Covered By New Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs)

* Architectural Surface Coating Standards

* Volatile Organic Liquids Storage Facility Controls

* Automobile Refinishing Operation Controls

* Marine Vessel Loading Emission Controls.

The commenter claims that the combination ofNOx and VOC emissions reductions could just as easily have led
to increases in ozone. However, the actual monitoring data collected in the

area show that ambient ozone concentrations have dropped when this combination ofozone precursor emission reductions occurred. In other metropolitan areas, other levels ofVOC andNOx reductions have also resulted in attainment. See theredesignation rules listed above in the first part ofthis
response. The St Louis area's decrease in ozone levels is consistent with what other areas have experienced when

ozone precursor emissions have been reduced. The commenter has not provided data showing that decreases in

ozone precursor emissions have led to higher levels ofozone. In fact, the available data (as discussed in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule) for the St. Louis area prove justthe opposite. Decreases in VOC andNOx emissions in the St. Louis area are associated with a decrease in peak ozone levels. There is

no reason to assume that future reductions in VOC and NOx emissions will causejustthe opposite effect. Therefore, it is appropriate for the EPA
to assume that future reductions in VOC andNOx emissions willlead to lower peak ozone concentrations.

EPA's conclusion that improvements in air quality are attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in precursors is not "speculation" but is based on a careful review ofthe various technical analyses conducted by the States and described above. EPA believes it is reasonable not to require photochemical grid modeling. Threeyear averaging ofannual exceedance
rates addresses variations in meteorological conditions. Analysis of meteorological conditions showed no significant trend in the number ofdays conducive to ozone formation, and the
commenter has presented no evidence that the three year attainment period

was unusually favorable. Itis important
to note that, redesignation is not intended as an absolute guarantee that the area will never monitor future standard violations. This iswhat maintenance plan contingency measures

are designed to address and correct. See Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886-37889) (June 19, 2000) and the Pittsburghredesignation (66FR 53094) (October 19, 2001).

Comment20:Ifimprovements in St. Louis air quality were dueto permanent and enforceable emission reductions, the trend in monitored concentrations wouldbe to go down. However, exceedances tripled from 2000 to 2001 and more than doubled from 2001 to 2002.

Response20:Aviolation ofthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS occurs when the estimated number ofexceedances per year averaged over three years is greater than 1.0 at any monitoring sitein the

area or its downwind environs, using conventional rounding techniques. Although there was an increase in the number of exceedances between 2000 and 2001 as well asbetween 2001 and 2002, year-to-year trends in exceedances

are not usedto determine attainment, but rather an average over three years at each monitoring siteis used.As noted in a separate rulemaking publishedin today's Federal Register, EPA has determined thatthe St. Louis area is in attainment with the NAAQS.

As indicated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850, Table 1 Summarizes the number ofexpected exceedances at each monitor inthe area.

TABLE 

### 1.- 1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE ST. Louis, ILLINOIS-MISSOURI AREA FROM 

### 2000 TO 

### 2002

Estimated exceedances Average number of Site name County or city and state estimated 2000 2001 2002 exceedances 2000-2002

Jerseyville

....................................................... Jersey, IL

............................ ....... ................. 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 Alton

................................................................ M adison,IL

........................... ............. . ..... .... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M

aryville

.......................................................... M adison, IL

........................... ......................... 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 Edwardsville

.................................................... M adison

,IL

............................. ..................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wood River

..................................................... M adison

,IL

............................. ..................... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 H

ouston

........................................................... Randolph

, IL

............................ .................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E

ast S t. Louis

................................................. St. Clair, IL

.................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arnold

.............................................................. Jefferson, M O

........................... .... ............... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 West Alton

...................................................... St. Charles, MO

............................................ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Orchard Farm

................................................. St. Charles, MO

............................................ 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 Bonne Terre

.................................................... St. Genevieve

, M O

........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Lindbergh

............................................. St. Louis, M O

................................................ 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 Queeny

........................................................... St. Louis, M O

................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hunter

............................................................. St. Louis

, M O

................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flo Valley

........................................................ St. Louis, M O

................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St. Ann (old)

.................................................... St. Louis, M O

................................................ 0.0 n/a n/a 10.0 St. Ann (new)

.................................................. St. Louis, M O

................................................ n/a 0.0 0.0 1n/a Broadway

........................................................ St. Louis City, M O

......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clark

................................................................ St. Louis City, M O

..................... .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M

argaretta

....................................................... St. Louis City, M O

......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 The owner of the property on which the old St. Ann monitor was located terminated the lease agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The new site is 0.7 miles east of the old site. In general, ambient monitors should remain at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. However, when three complete, consecutive calendar years of data is not available for a monitoring site, adjustments are made consistent with EPA monitoring criteria, in determining the average number of estimated exceedances per year. The average number of estimated exceedances for 2000-2002 forthe old St. Ann monitor is the estimated exceedances for 2000, or 0.0. Inaddition, where a monitor has been in operation less than three years, the average estimated number of exceedances cannot be determined. Since the new St. Ann monitor has been in operation less than three years, the average number of estimated exceedances for 2000-2002 was not determined. 25454

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25454 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

The area has monitored attainment for the three year period from 2000-2002. This indicates that the current level of emissions is adequate to keep the St. Louis area in attainment. In addition, the Act does not presume that the area will always be in attainment. The Act provides that, ifthe area were to violate the 1-hour ozone standard, then the contingency measures in the maintenance plan wouldbe triggered. This would reduce the ozone precursor emissions and bring the area back into attainment.

One exceedance was monitored in the

area in 2000, three in 2001, and seven in 2002. EPA notes that when dealing with numbers as small as one exceedance in 2000, any subsequent increase in the number ofexceedances will result in the number ofexceedances being atleast doubled. Thus, citing a doubling or tripling ofexceedances is
not necessarily an indicator of significant changes in air quality.

The one-hour ozone NAAQS isbased

on athree-year average. For aviolation, the estimated number ofexceedances per year must exceed 1.0 at any monitoring site. Under this standard, a monitor may record up to three exceedances over a three-year period without causing a violation ofthe standard. The fourth-highest monitored level at a monitor over a three-year period canbe used as an indicator of potential violations ofthe NAAQS. (Notethat since other factors, such as missing data, can affect the calculation ofthe estimated number ofexceedances, the fourth highest monitored value is
not solely used to determine a violation. See the discussion in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4849 and 4850 for an example ofhow the number ofestimated exceedances is determined.) The term "design value" is used to refer to the fourth highest monitored value in a three year period. For an individual monitor, the design value is the fourth-highest monitored value in a three-year period. For an area such as the St. Louis area, the highest ofthe individual monitor design values

over a three-year period is referred to as the "area's design value". The lower an area's design value the more likely the

area will meet the standard. Also, an area's design value which decreases

over time indicates thatthe monitored

ozone concentrations are generally lowering and the air quality is improving.

The St. Louis area's design value decreased as follows:

0.156 parts per million (ppm)in 1987-1989 (see 52 FR 13385-13386 dated March 18, 1999); 0.136 ppm in 1994-1996 (see 53 FR 15581 dated March 19, 2001); 0.131 ppm in 1996- 1998 (see 53 FR 15583 dated March 19, 2001); 0.127 ppm in 1998-2000 (see 53 FR 15584 dated March 19, 2001), and, 0.123 ppm in 2000-2002. This indicates that the monitored air quality improved over this time period.

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule
at 68 FR 4856-4858, and in the response to comment 19, EPA explains the basis for concluding thatthe observed air quality improvements are dueto the implementation ofpermanent and enforceable emission reductions. The reasons citedinclude emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions, an analysis of meteorological conditions which has shown atrend in thereduction ofozone from 1989 tothe present while the number ofdays conducive to forming

ozone showed no significant trend, and

an assessment ofemissions in 1990 and 2000 which have shown substantial decreases in emissions ofVOCs and
NOx.

Finally, itis noted thatthe commenter

errs in totalling the exceedance numbers from many monitors for each year and concluding, on thebasis ofthe exceedance totals that a worsening

ozone trend has occurred. Referring to Table 1in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4850) (repeated above), one can see that many monitors, including the worst-case monitor at West Alton, show no consistent trend in exceedance numbers in the 2000-2002 period on a monitor-specific basis. The "sudden" increase in exceedances from

zero to two at the Orchard Farm and SouthLindbergh monitoring sites, although implying aworsening ozone trend, simplypoint tothe instability of considering year-to-year changes within

a small time period.

Comment21:The onlymodeling which the commenter is aware ofwas relied upon in the June 26, 2001 rulemaking. This modeling shows that it is impossible to attain the NAAQS in St. Louis in 2002. The significant factor is long range transport. This suggests that variations in out-of-state transport may account forthe monitored improvements in air quality.

Response21:Previous modeling referenced by the commenter was conducted aspart ofthe attainment demonstration approved by EPAin the June 26, 2001 rulemaking (66 FR 33995). (This approval was vacated bythe U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit, as explained previously.) This modeling demonstrated thatutilizing planned controls and measures, the area will attain the standard by no later than November 15, 2004. EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the modeling demonstrated it was impossible to attain the standard in 2002. The purpose ofthe modeling was to determine the likelihood of attainment. EPA's approval ofthe States' attainment demonstrations did
notinclude a determination that attainment ormaintenance ofthe standard prior to 2004 was impossible.

The assumptions used in the modeling for the attainment demonstration approved in the June 26, 2001 rulemaking are described in an April 3,2001 proposed rule (66 FR 17649-52). In this discussion, EPA noted thatthe Statesincorporated corrections to the 1996 base year emissions inventory, documented an assessment ofthe model's performance by applying statistical tests, and discussed assumptions regarding which
states are affected bythe NOx SIP call including NOx limits on facilities.

As discussed in the April 2001 notice, the States had taken measures torevise the emissions inventory toreflect the
mostcurrent data inputs available. In addition, an evaluation ofthe model

was performed as ameasure ofthe "likelihood" thatthe standard will be achieved. The June 26, 2001 rulemaking
at 66 FR 17652 states:

The states conclude, and EPAconcurs, that therevised modeling system performs at an acceptable level because itsatisfactorily reproduces peakozone concentrations relative to themonitored peak ozone concentrations. The modeling system adequately simulates the observed magnitude and spatial and temporal patterns of monitored ozone concentrations. Furthermore, the modeling results accurately differentiate between dayswith marginal

ozone levels and days with elevated ozone concentrations. Therefore, based onthe revised modeling and WOE results presented by the states which confirm theadequacy of theadopted emission control strategy,EPA is approving the states' attainment demonstrations.

The conclusions made regarding the likelihood ofattainment based upon the attainment demonstration modeling

were thebest that could be drawn from the available information. Itislikely that different conclusions regarding attainment wouldbe drawn ifthe State's

were required to conduct modeling as part ofthe maintenance demonstration. Forexample, ifaprospective maintenance demonstration were performed with an ozone photochemical model following EPA guidance, the modeling would be allowed to use episode days from the 2000-2002 period, not 1991 and 1995 as was used in the attainment demonstration modeling. Itis highly likely, ifnot certain, thatthe outcome would be a conclusion that attainment will be 25455

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25455 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

preserved through the required 10-year period.

Ozone models are designed to primarily predict the relative impacts of emission changes on future ozone levels. Thus, it is not uncommon to observe that actual monitored ozone concentrations are different than modeled values at certain locations. The commenter's assertion that attaining the standard in 2002 is impossible is not supported bythe existing science.

The commenter does not provide data
to support its hypotheseis that variations in out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in air quality. The commenter only speculates that out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in air quality. As described in theresponse to comments 19 and 20 above, the States demonstrated that improvements in air quality are due to emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions, an analysis of meteorological conditions which has shown no significant decrease in the annual number ofdays conducive to

ozone formation while there hasbeen a significant reduction in monitored

ozone concentrations, and an assessment ofemissions in 1990 and 2000 which have shown decreased emissions ofVOCs andNOx. Thus, the
states have demonstrated thatthe air quality improvements in the St. Louis

area are due topermanent and enforceable emission reductions in the St. Louis area.
E.CommentsRelated to Criterion4:The AreaMustHaveaFullyApproved MaintenancePlanMeetingthe RequirementsofSection 175A
Comment22:Under section 175A(a) ofthe Act, the state maintenance plans
must be a SIP revision. Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act requires a SIP to contain enforceable emission limitations. The maintenance plan for each State does not include any enforceable emission limitations.

Response22:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding the redesignation of the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis

area for EPA's response to this comment

as it pertains tothe Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

The Act requires the area tohave a fully approved SIP andto have met all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe Act. The Illinois SIP satisfies this requirement as described in EPA's proposed rulemaking published on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847). The

measures that the State relies onto maintain the one-hour ozone standard (theemission controls which havebeen previously implemented plus the statewide NOx emission control rules

now being implemented) have been approved into the SIP and are State and Federally enforceable. This includes Illinois' statewide NOxrules, approved by the EPA on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56449 and 66 FR 56454). The State must continue to implement these measures
asprovided for in the Federally approved SIP.

The Act does not require a separate level ofenforcement for amaintenance plan as aprerequisite to redesignation. The enforcement program approved for and applicable tothe SIP as awhole also applies tothe maintenance plan. See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37881- 37882), and Sixth Circuit decision in Wall v. EPA, supra, at 20-21, upholding EPA's interpretation ofthe requirement.

All ofthe control measures which the State relied on to attain and maintain the one-hour ozone standard are SIPapproved measures. EPA cannot withhold its approval ofthe maintenance plan submitted byIllinois because ofconcerns that the State may, at some future time, either submit a SIP revision to amend orremove a program,

orthat the State may fail to implement these programs in the Metro-East St. Louis area. The Federally approved SIP requirements remain in place, and remain enforceable until suchtime as EPA takes action to approve SIP revisions to amend orremove them. This can onlybe done via Federal rulemaking, which includes procedures for public comment and review. Comment23:Section 182(j), 40 CFR 51.112(b), the Calcagni Memo, andthe General Preamble require the use of photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance. EPA is overruling Congress, EPA regulations, and common

senseby proposing topredict maintenance for ten years without any modeling. Monitoring is more accurate to show past concentrations, but modeling is required topredict future concentrations. The commenter cites Ober v. U.S.E.P.A., 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) in support ofthis assertion.

Response23:EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the use of photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance is required bythe Act, EPA policy, orEPA regulations. The EPA is
not overruling Congress orEPA regulations. Section 175A requires States to develop and submit, as a SIP revision,

aplan for maintaining the NAAQS for atleast 10years afterredesignation. The plan shall contain such additional
measures, ifany, as the Administrator deems necessary to ensure such maintenance. Section 175A does not require modeling.

Section 182(j) contains no reference to maintenance plans. Section 182(j)(1) requires that each state in a multi-state

ozone nonattainment area shall "* * * (A)take allreasonable steps to coordinate, substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of State implementation plans applicable tothe nonattainment

area concerned; and (B) use photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in his discretion, to be atleast as effective". The language in this section clearly refers to "nonattainment" areas. Thus, EPA believes that section 182(j) is applicable
to attainment demonstrations not maintenance plans.

Even ifthe commenter is correct in the assertion that section 182(j) applies
to maintenance plans, this section does
notnecessarily require modeling. EPA has the discretion to approve the use of other analytical methods determined to be atleast as effective. In the Calcagni Memo, on page 9, EPA stated "A State may generally demonstrate maintenance ofthe NAAQS by either showing that future emissions ofa pollutant orits
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show thatthe future mix of

sources and emission rates will not

cause a violation ofthe NAAQS". By this policy, EPAhas, in effect, expressed howits discretion will be utilized regarding the use ofemissions in lieu of modeling for demonstrating maintenance. In addition, the Sixth Circuit in Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that "EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be demonstrated by showing thatthe future emissions ofa pollutant's precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place." The Oberv.U.S.E.P.A. case citedby the commenter deals with modeling requirements for approval of a SIP revision in a nonattainment area for particulate matter, and has no relevance
to the ozone maintenance plan at issue here.

The regulation at40 CFR 51.112(a) requires the SIP to demonstrate that the
measures, rules, andregulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. The regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(b) specifies 25456

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25456 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

what the demonstration required in 40 CFR §51.112(a) must include. The Sixth Circuit in Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined thatEPA's position that the regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(a) applies only to attainment demonstrations and not to maintenance plans is "neither impermissible nor in conflict with a statutory mandate * * * Moreover, EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be demonstrated by showing that the future emissions ofa pollutant's precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place."

Lastly, the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at68 FR 4858 states that emissions ofNOxin the Metro-East St. Louis area will be reduced from 141.64 to 96.67
tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014 and in Missouri, they will be reduced from 453.14 to 317.58 tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014. Emissions ofVOCs in the MetroEast St. Louis area will be reduced from 94.11 to 75.98 tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014 and in Missouri, theywill be reduced from 248.35 to 182.57 tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014. A "common sense" conclusion is that further emission reductions are projected to occur through 2014. Based

onpast trends ofemissions decreases, peak ozone levels will continue tobe reduced from 2000 to 2014. Further modeling would continue to demonstrate attainment. The commenter has not provided any data to indicate that these emission reductions would lead to modeled increases in ozone concentrations.

Comment24:EPA and the States have statedin testimony provided to courts andthe public that maintenance ofthe NAAQS in 2003 isnot possible. EPA andthe states have stated that, due to upwind emissions, attainment with the NAAQS cannot be achieved until 2004.

Response24:The commenter uses the

same arguments in this comment to state thatthe attainment with the NAAQS cannot be maintained as was used in comment 21 above to claim that the area cannot attain the NAAQS. See the response to comment 21 for further discussion.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion thatthe modeling demonstrated it was impossible to maintain the standard in 2003. The evaluation ofthe modeling isto determine the likelihood of attainment by a future attainment deadline (2004 in this case). EPA's approval ofthe States' attainment demonstrations did not include a determination that attainment

ormaintenance ofthe standard prior to 2004 was impossible.

The commenter references documents submittedby EPA andthe States as well

aslanguage used in various rulemakings stating, in effect, that reductions in upwind emissions are necessary for attainment ofthe standard and thatthe earliest attainment date isNovember 15, 2004. At the time these documents were developed, EPA and the States were basing their conclusions onthe attainment demonstration including the accompanying modeling. The
statements made were the best conclusions that could be drawn from the available information.

The conclusion thatthe maintenance plan will provide for maintenance ofthe NAAQS for the nextten years as required by section 175A isbased, in part, on more recent information than what was relied upon in the attainment demonstration which included the modeling referred toby the commenter. The maintenance plan includes an emission inventory which is more recent than the inventory used in the attainment demonstration. See the
response to comment 36 for further discussion.

EPA has no datato support the commenter's hypothesis that variations in out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in air quality. The
commenter only speculates that out-ofstate transport solely account for the improvement in air quality. EPA concludes thatthe plan demonstrates maintenance through 2014. Comment25:The SIPs must provide

assurance that the Stateshave adequate personnel, funding and authority to carry out the SIP. The record for this action must provide real evidence of this assurance. The commenter raises the following specific concerns with regard to Illinois:

a. The Illinois I/M funding expires on June 30, 2003. Illinois has no funding mechanism to replace this funding. Based onthis observation, the EPA
cannot lawfully find that Illinois has adequate funding to fully implement its SIP;

b. EPA cannot lawfully find thatthe Illlinois motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate because they
presume full funding for the Illinois I/ M program;
c. Illinois is failing to adequately administer and enforce the title V

source operating permits program due mainly to alack offunding. Illinois failed to issue all source permits within three years ofreceiving interim approval ofits title V permits program by the EPA

onMarch 7, 1995 (60 FR 12478). At least 24 ofthe unpermitted sources are located in Madison and St. Clair Counties, Illinois. Illinois has announced that itwill be very difficult
to meet a commitment to issue all required source permitsby the December 2003 deadline. Illinois is also violating the requirement to act on all

source permit applications within 18 months ofreceipt, violating the requirements of40 CFR 70.7(a)(2). This is due to alack of adequate funding; and

d. Illinois is failingto adequately enforce its title V program through regular source inspections.

The commenter expresses the general

concern that Illinois lacks the funds to adequately enforce any ofthe Clean Air Act requirements and to implement its SIP, including NSR, PSD, and RACT rules. Therefore, the commenter believes thatEPA shouldreject Illinois'
statement in the maintenance plan that Illinois has the necessary resources to enforce any violations ofitsrules or

source permit provisions.

Response25:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishere providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding the redesignation of the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis

area for EPA's response to this comment

as itpertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area, and as itrelates to the general assertion thatthe Illinois maintenance plan lacks a showing of adequate resources.

With regard to the commenter's Illinois-specific comments, we have the following responses:

a. The IllinoisI/M program, in the Metro-East St. Louis area, is currently funded through a combination offuel
taxes and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. It isEPA's understanding that Illinois currently has sufficient funding from CMAQ previously appropriated and obligated and fromfuel taxes to run this program through December 2003. Meanwhile, Illinois officials are seeking alternative funding sources to replace the expired CMAQ funding, including continuance ofCMAQ funding through Congressional reauthorization. The EPA believes atthis time that itis reasonable
to assume that Illinois will continue to implement this program, for several

reasons. First, Illinois is committed to continuing implementation ofthis program, which ithasbeen operating since 1986. Second, ifIllinois fails to maintain this program other than termination through approvable means (for example, by substituting an emissions control measure to achieve 

### 25457

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25457 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

equal orgreater emissions reductions), the program remains an enforceable component ofthe approved SIP. Finally, it is noted that this program is
contractor operated, with the contractor operating under abinding contract extending through 2005. This contract, which is onfile at EPA as part ofthe documentation for this portion ofthe SIP, contains penalty clauses insuring that the State will continue funding the I/M program through the lifetime ofthe
contract (inthe event thatthe State prematurely terminates the contract, the State would still be obligated to reimburse the contractor through 2005 for the estimated value ofthe contract). Illinois has no financial incentive to discontinue the I/M program;

b. Since, for the reasons described above, EPA can assume thatthe Illinois I/M program will continue to operate in the Metro-East St. Louis area and since this program is an ozone maintenance

measure assumed in Illinois' ozone maintenance demonstration, itis correct to conclude that Illinois' mobile source emissions budgets are acceptable and

are not injeopardy due to a pending termination ofthe I/M program; and

c-d. As evidenced in the December 23, 2003 maintenance plan, Illinois remains committed to implementing the SIP after redesignation ofthe area. The Illinois ozone SIP for the Metro-East St. Louis area has been fully approved, and there are no criteria requiring EPA to evaluate and assess title V programs prior to redesignation ofthe area to attainment. The SIP approval and redesignation criteria do not include evaluating permitting programs to ascertain whether any deficiencies exist in these programs. The maintenance plan is designed to assure that attainment ofthe one-hour ozone standard is preserved. Whatever deficiencies are confirmed to exist in the source permitting program may be addressed and corrected in other contexts, including a finding offailure
to implement under section 173(b) of the Act. Therefore, this comment is not

abasis for disapproving Illinois' ozone maintenance plan and the EPA disagrees withthe commenter on this issue.

In addition,it shouldbe noted that section 107(d)(3) and section 175A

ozone redesignation and ozone maintenance plan requirements require compliance with section 110 and part D requirements under title I ofthe Act. Title I ofthe Act itselfdoes not require compliance with title V ofthe Act for purposes ofconsidering redesignations
to attainment ofthe NAAQS. Therefore,

even ifthe commenter were correct in its assertion that Illinois isnot properly implementing its title V permit program, this would not be abasis for disapproval oftheredesignation request and

concerns withtitle V compliance and implementation are moot.

The ozone SIP for the Metro-East St. Louis area has been fully approved, and there are no criteria requiring EPA to evaluate and assess title V programs prior to redesignation ofthe area to attainment. The SIP approval and redesignation criteria do not include evaluating permitting programs to ascertain whether any deficiencies exist in these programs. The maintenance plan is designed to assure that attainment ofthe one-hour ozone standard ispreserved. Whatever deficiencies are confirmed to exist in the source permitting program may be addressed and corrected in other contexts, including afinding offailure
to implement under section 173(b) of the Act.

EPA disagrees with the commenter that this action must include in the record further evidence ofIllinois

resource commitments. Neither this
commenter nor any otherperson has submitted substantive comments that would lead EPA to separately analyze whether it should call on the State to revise its section 110(a)(2) SIP regarding enforcement and funding.

Comment26:EPApolicy indicates that a state may not relax existing controls upon redesignation. However, the States are moving requirements for Lowest Achievable Emissions Rates (LAER), new source emission offsets, andNOx RACT to the contingency plans without amodeling demonstration showing that these control measures are not needed for attainment, contrary toEPA policy.

Response26:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

Illinois has a commitment on page 26 ofthe maintenance plan to maintain all ofthe emission control measures implemented in the Metro-East St. Louis

area to ensure maintenance ofthe onehour ozone NAAQS.

The commenter refers to the Calcagni Memo at page 10 which states that "the State will be expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such

measures are shownto be unnecessary for maintenance or are replaced with measures that achieve equivalent reductions".

Section 175A ofthe Act requires that maintenance plans shall contain contingency provisions deemed necessary to assure thatthe States will promptly correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs after redesignation ofthe area as an attainment area. These provisions shall include arequirement that the State will implement "all measures with respectto the control ofthe air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area". On page 6 of an October 14, 1994 memorandum entitled, "Part DNew Source Review (partD NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment" from Mary D. Nichols, assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,EPA stated its interpretation thatthe term "measures" used in section 175A does notinclude partD NSRpermitting programs. In accordance with this interpretation, EPAbelieves thatLAER and offsets, which are components ofIllinois' partD NSR permitting program, are not required to be retained following redesignation of the Metro-East St. Louis area as an attainment area.

LAER and new source emissions offsets are specified in part D and subpart 2 ofthe Actto be applicable to nonattainment areas. Upon redesignation to attainment, these requirements are no longer applicable. Removing the LAER and offsets provision inthe State's permitting program is not contrary to the above mentioned policy. Upon redesignation
to attainment, the LAERrequirements included in stationary source permits and the emissions offsets which were obtained by stationary sources atthe timewhen the LAER and offset provisions were in effect will remain in effect forthose facilities. Thus,the LAER and offset measures which were relied upon to attain the NAAQS will remain in effect following redesignation.

Following redesignation, any new facilities subject to the State's permitting requirements willbe subject
to the PSDrequirements ofpart C oftitle Iofthe Act. Under these requirements, the State must ensure that suchnew facilities willnot cause significant deterioration ofair quality to the extent thatthey cause or contribute topeak

ozone levels in excess ofthe NAAQS (see section 165 ofthe Act). As part of the PSD program, sources are required
to perform a source-specific air quality demonstration to show no adverse impact on the NAAQS. Thisis a more accurate way ofpredicting impacts than 25458

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25458 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

to do generalized modeling which does
not consider emissions growth at specific sources.

Illinois' new source rules are structured such that new source requirements, for new sources seeking permits after the area is redesignated to attainment, automatically revert to PSD requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. This rule is part ofIllinois' approved SIP.

For Illinois, it is noted that the State has not relied on NOx RACT to attain the ozone standard and the Illinois SIP does not contain NOx RACT rules. Therefore, moving NOx RACT to the contingency plan is not a relaxation of the Illinois SIP.

Regarding modeling, the Shapiro Memo at page 6 states that "States may be able to move SIP measures to the contingency plan upon redesignation if the State can adequately demonstrate that such action will not interfere with maintenance ofthe standard * * * for
ozone, the State would need to submit

an attainment modeling demonstration consistent with EPA's current "Guideline on Air Quality Models." showing thatthe control measure is not needed to maintain the standard". As stated above, all emission control

measures in place as a result ofthe LAER and Offsets rules are being retained by sources already implementing them following redesignation. For the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area, as noted above, NOx RACT isnot part ofIllinois' existing SIP. Thus, no modeling is needed to demonstrate thatthese measures are not needed since all are being retained or

are not parts ofexisting SIPs.

Comment27: The contingency provisions ofthe maintenance plans fall short ofthose required. All serious area requirements of section 182(c) ofthe CAA shouldbe included in the contingency plans and implemented promptly in case ofaviolation. Virtually none ofthese provisions are included in the contingency plans and, thus, the contingency plans cannot be approved.

Response27:EPA disagrees withthe commenter's assertion that all ofthe serious area requirements ofsection 182(c) should be included in the contingency plans and implemented in

case ofa violation.

The requirements ofsection 175A(d)

are the applicable requirements for contingency measures in maintenance plans. Section 175A(d) states:

Eachplan revision submitted under this section shall contain suchcontingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure thatthe State will promptly correct any violation ofthe standardwhich occurs after the redesignation ofthe area as an attainment area. Such provisions shallinclude a requirement that the State will implement allmeasures with respect to the control ofthe air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State implementation plan forthe area before redesignation ofthe area as an attainment

area.

None ofthe serious area requirements

were contained in the SIPs prior to redesignation. The plans must contain contingency measures which assure that the States "will promptly correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs after the redesignation ofthe area as an attainment area". As described in
response to comment 28 below and in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, EPA believes that this requirement has been

met. The statute does not require that all serious area requirements be included in the maintenance plans as contingency measures, but rather that all measures included in the SIP prior

to redesignation be included in the maintenance plans as contingency

measures. As explained previously, certain serious area requirements need

not be met in the case ofthe St. Louis

area since the area has attained the standard prior to the date that these requirements are due. Since these provisions are not applicable in the St. Louis area, they do not need to be included in the maintenance plans as contingency measures.

The commenter's assertion that there is no implementation plan applicable to this "serious area" is addressed above. See, for example, our response to
comment 17.

Comment28:42U.S.C. 7505a(d) requires that the states will promptly

correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs afterredesignation. However, there is nothing in either contingency plan which assures prompt correction offuture violations. The plans contain no adopted measures, and

no schedule to adopt specific measures. The plans offer to adopt an unspecified

measure within eighteen months of notification of aviolation. This is an unreasonably long period. The plans should require adoption in much less than eighteen months and immediate implementation.

Response28:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. EPA disagrees that Illinois' maintenance plan lacks adequate contingency provisions shouldthe area violate the standard. As stated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4859, the contingency plan portion of each State's maintenance plan delineates the State's planned actions in the event offuture one-hour ozone standard violations, increasing ozone levels threatening a subsequent violation ofthe ozone standard, and unanticipated increases in ozone precursor emissions threatening a subsequent violation ofthe ozone standard. Illinois has developed a contingency plan with several levels of triggered actions depending on whether the ozone standard has actually been violated after the redesignation ofthe

area to attainment orwhether a subsequent violation ofthe ozone standard is threatened on thebasis of increased ozone concentrations approaching the standard or unanticipated significant increases in

ozone precursor emissions. Illinoishas also committed to continue to implement all control measures included in the SIP prior to redesignation consistent with section 175A(d) ofthe Act.

The action trigger levels andplanned corrective actions in each contingency plan are the following:

A Level I Triggerwill be exceeded if: (1)The monitored ambient ozone levels exceed 124 parts per billion, one-hour averaged, more than once peryear at any monitoring site in the St. Louis maintenance area (the current St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area), or more than
two exceedances in any two-or threeyear period; or (2)the St. Louis maintenance area's VOC or NOx emissions for 2005 or 2008 increase

more than 5percent above the 2000 attainment levels. In the event one of these action trigger levels are exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will work together
to evaluate the situation and determine ifadverse emissions trends are likely to continue. If so, the States will determine what and where emission controls may be required to avoid a violation ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be completed within nine months ofthe determination ofthe action trigger exceedance.

A Level II Trigger will be exceeded if

aviolation ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS at any monitoring sitein the St. Louis ozone maintenance area is recorded after the area is redesignated to attainment ofthe standard. Ifthis trigger is exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will worktogether to conduct athorough analysis to determine appropriate new emission control measures, fromthose 

### 25459

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25459 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

listed below, to address the cause ofthe

ozone standard violation.

The contingency plan for Illinois lists

anumber ofpossible contingency

measures. The plan calls for the appropriate contingency measures to be adopted no later than 18 months of a Level I or Level II trigger being exceeded. The December 23, 2002 maintenance plan for the Metro-East St. Louis area stated that the adopted contingency measures would be implemented as expeditiously as practicable, but generally within 24 months of adoption. However, in a letter dated April 15, 2003 from the IEPA, the State noted that the final maintenance plan was erroneously modified based on

aprior comment letter from the EPA addressing the State's October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan.The State has corrected its contingency implementation deadline commitment
to reflect the contingency implementation deadline language contained in the October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan, which commits the State to implement adopted contingency

measures within 18 months of a determination ofaviolation ofthe onehour ozone 

### standardbased on qualityassured data. The October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan was the version ofthe maintenance plan reviewed by the public in the State's public hearing and duringits public review period. The State notes that, in amending its October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan to the final December 23, 2002 version, the State did not intend to extend the implementation deadline for contingency measures, but to merely address EPA's comment on the October 1, 2002 draftversion. With the April 15, 2003 letter, the State ofIllinois officially clarifies its commitment to implement contingency measures within 18 months ofa determination thata one-hour

ozone standard violation has occurred. The April 15, 2003 letter includes a revised contingency measures section, section 6.1, to replace the same section ofthe December 23, 2002 version ofthe State's maintenance plan, consistent with its clarification.

The list ofpossible contingency

measures in Illinois' contingency plan include the following:

Point Source Measures

* NOx SIP call Phase II (non-utility measures)

* Reinstatement ofrequirements for

new source offsets and/or Lowest Achievable Emission Rates

* Apply RACT to smaller existing

sources * Tighten RACT for existing sources covered by Control Techniques Guidelines * NOx RACT * Expand geographic coverage of
current point source emission control

measures * Apply Maximum Available Control Technology for industrial sources * Other point source measures to be identified Mobile Source Measures- * Transportation Control Measures, including, but not limited to, area-wide rideshare programs, telecommuting, transit improvements, and traffic flow improvements * High-enhanced vehicle inspection/ maintenance (OBDII) * California engine standards * Other mobile source measures tobe identified

Area Source Measures
* California architectural/industrial maintenance coating emission controls * California commercial and

consumer products coating emission controls

* Broader geographic applicability of existing emission control measures

* California off-road engine standards * Other area source measures to be identified

As stated in the Calcagni Memo, page 12, "For purposes of section 175A, a State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further actionby the State in order for the maintenance plan
to be approved. However, the contingency planis considered tobe an enforceable part ofthe SIP and should

ensure that the contingency measures

are adopted expediently once they are triggered." Thus, according to this policy, the plans need not contain adopted measures.

In order to properly deal with future

ozone standard violations andto comply with its own internal rulemaking procedure requirements, Illinois requires time to evaluate potential controls and provide public notice andpublic participation in the rulemaking process when adopting contingency measures. The commenter provided no rationale for why a time period shorter than 18 months to adopt and implement contingency measures is warranted. EPA finds that 18 months, as described in Illinois' maintenance plan,

as amended bythe IEPA's April 15, 2003 letter, to adopt and implement contingency measures is a reasonable time period for Illinois to meet its regulatory obligations while meeting the requirement under section 175A to promptly correct any violation ofthe

one-ozone standard after the redesignation ofthe St. Louis area to attainment. In addition, this 18 month period to adopt and implement contingency measures is consistent with other redesignations, such as that approved for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (66 FR 53102), in which a 12 to 24 month time period was specified to adopt and implement contingency

measures.

Comment29:Neither maintenance planprovides any procedure for quantifying thereductions needed to correct violations.

Response29:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishere providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As indicated above, the maintenance plans refer to aviolation ofthe NAAQS

as a level II trigger. In the event ofa violation, Illinois and Missouri have committed to worktogether to conduct

a thorough analysis to determine appropriate measures to address the

cause ofthe ozone standard violation. It is impossible for a State to determine, before aviolation, what emission reductions are necessary to correct a violation. Forexample, ifIllinois would select tightening RACT for existing

sources as a contingency measure, the
amount ofemissions reductions resulting from implementation ofthis

measure is dependent upon the number ofsources subject to RACT rules in the

area at the time ofthe violation. Since the State has no control over when a

source ceases operating, itis impossible
to determine, at this time, how many

sources will be affected by atightening ofRACT which may be implemented at

some unspecified time inthe future. Thus, itis impossible to determine beforehand howmuch of an emission reduction will be achieved by implementing this measure.

The approach taken in the Illinois maintenance plan is to conduct a thorough analysis to determine the magnitude ofthe emissions reductions needed to correct an ozone standard violation, the types ofsources for which emission reductions mustbe made, and the mechanisms for achieving the emissions reductions. The list of contingency measures includes a reasonable mix ofemission control

measures fromwhich to select the emission control measures most suited
to address a future ozone standard violation (a level II trigger), ifone 25460

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25460 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

occurs, orto alleviate an unanticipated worsening of air quality or emissions (a level Itrigger). EPAfinds thatthis is a reasonable approach which will assure prompt correction ofthe air quality problem. In addition, this approach is consistent with EPA guidance contained in the Calcagni Memo. Comment30:The contingency

measures in the maintenance plans are vague and open ended. Neither plan identifies any measures to be adopted. No firm schedule for adoption and implementation isincluded.

Response30:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees with the commenters assertion thatthe contingency measures

are vague, and open ended. In response to comments 28 and 29 above, EPA addressed the procedures contained in the maintenance plan for evaluating which measures are necessary to promptly correct aviolation.

In addition,in response to comment 28 above, EPAidentified the listof potential contingency measures contained in Illinois' maintenance plan along with a schedule of 18 months to adopt andimplement selected contingency measures in the event ofa violation (a level II trigger) or worsening air quality (alevel Itrigger). EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan satisfies EPA guidance regarding adoption and implementation of contingency measures consistent with EPA guidance and the Act. Comment31:Each maintenance plan contains inadequate provisions to respond to anticipated violations ofthe NAAQS. Anticipated violations are based onemissions inventories exceeding the 2000 inventory or two exceedances atany monitoring site during atwo- or three-year period. There is no commitment to adopt any additional controls to address anticipated violations.

Response31:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area. As indicated above, aLevel I Trigger will be exceeded if: (1)the monitored ambient ozone levels exceed 124 parts per billion, one-hour averaged, more than onceper year at any monitoring site in the St. Louis maintenance area (thecurrent St. Louis ozone nonattainment area), ormore than two exceedances in any two- or three-year period; or (2)the St. Louis maintenance area's 2005 or 2008 VOC orNOx emissions increase more than 5percent above the 2000 attainment levels. In the
event one ofthese actiontrigger levels

are exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will work together to evaluate the situation and determine ifadverse emissions trends are likely to continue. Ifso, the States will determine what and where emission controls may be required to avoid a violation ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be completed within nine months ofthe determination ofthe action trigger exceedance to select emission controls needed to mitigate possible future ozone standard violations. Illinois commits to implement any selected emission controls as expeditiously aspractible.

It is true that Illinois has not specified implementation deadlines for implementing new emissions controls in the event ofexceedance ofa Level I trigger. Illinois has only committed to conduct studies to determine ifnew emission controls are needed to avert possible future ozone standard violations. These studies could conclude thatno additional emission controls are needed to avoid a future

ozone standard violation. For example, such a study during 2004 could conclude that statewide NOx emission controls to be implemented to meet the State's NOx control SIP will be adequate
to prevent a future ozone standard violation. In this case, Illinois may conclude thatno additional emission controls are necessary. Given that the study could reach such a conclusion, Illinois is not committing to implement additional emission controls at this time.

In addition,note that section 175A(d) ofthe Act onlyrequires a state to implement additional emission controls in the event ofa standard violation after

an area is redesignated to attainment. Under this section ofthe Act, States are not obligated to implement additional emission controls ifan area is "threatened" with afuture ozone standard violation. Similarly, EPA does
not require such action onthe part of the States. EPA does encourage the States to take preventative measures to prevent future ozone standard violations ifat all possible, but does not definitively require the States to implement additional emission controls unless aviolation ofthe standard has actually occurred. The commitments of Illinois torespond to Level I triggers go beyond the minimum requirements of section 175A(d) and the EPA.

The contingency plan meets the requirements ofsection 175A(d) ofthe Act and applicable guidance in the Calcagni Memo. The Administrator has exercised discretion regarding adoption and implementation ofcontingency

measures consistent with EPA guidance and the Act.

Comment32:The maintenance plans contain no commitment to implement

measures inthe SIP. EPA cannot approve the maintenance plan without this commitment.

Response32:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishere providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

The commenter is incorrect in its
statement that the maintenance plan does not contain a commitment to implement emission controlmeasures in the SIP. Such a commitment was included in Illinois' maintenance plan. Section 6.1 ofIllinois' maintenance plan
states the following: "Consistent with this plan, Illinois agrees to adopt and implement the necessary corrective actions in the event that violations of the one-hour ozone NAAQS occur anywhere within the St. Louis maintenance area after redesignation to attainment." In addition, as described in
response to comment 28, Illinois is retaining and is continuing to implement all ofthe emission control

measures contained in its SIP prior to redesignation.

Comment33:The maintenance plans do not address expected growth in areas adjacent to the nonattainment area, such

as Ste. Genevieve County. An
assessment ofthis growth should be included. Also, the plans are based on the "irrational assumption" that "if there is no increase in emissions, and no decrease in controls, the standard will be maintained."

Response33:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA ishere providing a response regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it 

### 25461

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25461 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

The commenter's characterization of the "basic premise" ofthe maintenance plans is incorrect. The plans do not simplistically assume that there will be

no increase in emissions. The plans carefully project the growth in emissions that will occur invarious

source sectors (source categories or types), andthe emission reductions which will occur based on emission control programs which are in place, in order to determine the net change in emissions from 2000 through 2014. The States are required to and have applied the appropriate techniques to estimate and account for potential emissions changes in the area. These techniques

are necessarily based on source sectorspecific growth indicators (positive and negative), i.e., sector-specific economic factors, because the States have no way ofpredicting specific changes which will take place on a source-by-source basis in the emissions inventory.

Specific new source projects, such as those citedby the commenter, are addressed through mechanisms other than maintenance plans. To implement

new source projects, Illinois implements PSD andNSR permitting regulations depending on the attainment status and classification of an area. These regulations address the air quality impacts ofnew sources and expansion ofexisting sources both inside and outside the boundaries ofnonattainment

areas. They are designed to prevent new

source construction orexisting source expansion which would adversely affect

an area's ability to attain or maintain a national standard.

EPAbelieves thatit is the function of the State's air permitting rules, rather than the maintenance plan, to ensure that specific potential new sources do
not create emissions which would interfere with the maintenance ofthe

ozone standard. The new source rules in Illinois' address potential new sources both inside and outside ofthe St. Louis

area.

The anticipated plant referenced by the commenter is apotential source in Missouri. See theresponse to comment 33 in a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for a discussion regarding this facility. Comment34:The emission estimates in the maintenance plans are unreliable. A recent study offlares throws doubt into the St. Louis emission inventory. Flares area used extensively in the Metro-East St. Louis area, including at the Conoco Wood River Refinery, two barge loading facilities, Granite City Steel, and three bulk gasoline storage facilities. EPAmust consider the significant underestimation offlare emissions in the emission inventory.

Response34:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinoi portions of the St. Louis area. EPAis here providing

aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as itpertains
to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis

area.

EPA believes thatthe States used the appropriate emission estimates in developing the emission inventories. The commenter cites astudy of emissions from flares reported by the Bay Area Management District which the commenter alleges shows thatthe States greatly underestimated emissions from flares. EPA does not agree thatthe study cited bythe commenter renders the emission estimates unreliable.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD) study referenced by the commenter is a "Draft" document, which has the stipulation "Do Not Cite or Quote." In addition,the study was specific to refinery flares and not allflare systems in general. The submitted comment inappropriately extends the applicability ofthis draft study document to flares at barge loading facilities, steel making operations, and bulk gasoline storage facilities.

IEPA staffreviewed the flare operations atthe Conoco Phillips Wood River Refinery, which is the onlyfacility in the Metro-East St. Louis area that the AQMD study findings would possibly apply to, andfound a well-designed emissions recovery and control system. The flares at theWood River refinery function primarily as safety devices and

are provided to avoid discharge ofraw hydrocarbons to the atmosphere both duringupsets and duringplanned intermittant maintenance activities. Process units' hydrocarbon emissions to flares are kept to aminimum toprevent product loss.Whenever possible, vent gasses arerecovered, compressed, and used for firing heaters andboilers rather than being sent to flares. Seal vessels andpressure control systems allow nearly all ventgasses to be recovered by managing the pressure levels during normal operations andupsets.

The Conoco Phillips Wood River Refinery has four refinery flares thatthe findings ofthe AQMD study would apply to-the distilling flare, the alkylation flare, the aromatics lowpressure flare, andthe aromatics highpressure flare. The AQMD technical assessment document presented thatthe primary concern for the 28 flares studied was that refinery flares were being usedmore often andmore routinely than historic emissions data indicated. Forthe Conoco Phillips WoodRiver Refinery, this finding is not valid. The Conoco Phillips refinery flares are used only as safety devices and as minimally as possible because loss ofproduct occurs when these devices must be used. When it became necessary to use these safety devices, all upset emissions were reported in the annual emissions reports. Such reports for 2000 were used in the development ofthe emission inventories developed by the IEPA for theredesignation request and the maintenance plan. Therefore, the Illinois redesignation request and maintenance plan accurately includes these emissions.

Another issue identified in the AQMD refinery flare study was in regards to emissions control efficiency (CE) since its impact has a significant effect on reported emissions. All field studies regarding flare CE, which were referenced in the AQMD technical analysis document, indicate thatCEs of greater than 98 percent could be expected for flares. The emissions for the Conoco Phillips flares, as included in Illinois' emissions inventories, uses EPA'srecommended CE of98 percent for allflares except in the lube area, which has a 99 percent CE. Therefore, any impact ofinventory emissions from overestimation ofCE is considered to be insignificant for the Conoco Phillips WoodRiver Refinery.

In regards tothe impacts of crosswinds, the AQMD technical analyis documentreferences one laboratory scale Canadian study that indicates that CEs may be impacted by crosswinds. The Canadian researchers, however, indicate that applying their laboratory findings after scaling up to the actual sizes offlares that refineries normally use could prove difficult. A referenced study in the AQMD technical analysis document shows that crosswinds with a speed of18 miles per hour (8 meters per second) are needed before any impact is seen onCEs for flares. In the years of1999 and 2000, no hourly wind speeds greater than 11 miles perhour was recorded at the Edwardsville monitor, which is located less than 10 miles from Wood River, during high ozone days in the St. Louis

area. Therefore, crosswinds are not considered to be an issue that might impact emission estimates for the Metro-East St. Louis area refinery flares.

Further review ofthe document has shown that methane was included in the emission factorthat was used to 

### 25462

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25462 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

derive emissions for this study.Methane is not an ozone precursor, and the inclusion ofthis pollutant could significantly alterthe preliminary findings. The study targets the control efficiencies ofthe flares and states that "efficiency drops approximately by the cube ofthe speed (wind)". This would suggest that on high wind event days that the control efficiencies wouldbe at their lowest. However, in the St. Louis
area, high ozone days havebeen characterized by low wind conditions, which would produce minimal impact

on flare control efficiencies during the periods ofconcern.

Lastly, NOx and VOC emissions from all flares constitute less than one-tenth ofone percent ofthe total emissions inventory for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. Therefore, any potential changes in calculation methodology from this source category,

even ifchanges were warranted based

onthis draft study, would still likely produce an insignificant change to the St. Louis area total VOC and NOx emissions.

Comment35: The Illinois request for approval ofits maintenance plan and revised motorvehicle emissionsbudgets

was submitted under the signature of David Kolaz, Chief,Bureau ofAir, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). This submission included the commitment to adopt contingency measures in the event of

ozone standard exceedances and/or violations. The IEPAis without authority to make this commitment on behalfofthe State ofIllinois. During the Illinois public hearing (November 7, 2002), the IEPA statedthat itdid not have the authority to impose emission control requirements. The IEPA explained that such authority rests with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a separate and independent State agency. The EPA cannot lawfully approve the maintenance plan submitted bythe IEPA ifthe State is not legally bound to implement the commitments in the plan, including contingency measures.

Response35: Under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, the IEPA has authority to develop and submit for EPA approval air quality control plans. Section 4(j) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act states: "The Agency shall have the duty to represent the State ofIllinois in any and allmatters pertaining to plans, procedures, or negotiations for interstate compacts or other governmental arrangements relating to environmental protection." In addition, section 4(1) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act states that "The Agency is hereby designated as * * * air pollution agency for the state for all purposes of the Clean Air Act * * *" These provisions give the IEPA the authority
to develop and submit air quality plans
to the EPA. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the IEPA lacks the authority to submit an ozone maintenance plan that commits the State to certain actions iftriggered under the contingency plan.

With regard to adoption ofspecific emission control measures or rules, the IEPA has the authority and responsibility of developing source emission control regulations, which are subsequently adoptedby the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Establishment ofa separate rulemaking body is consistent with the process established by many states.

The Calcagni Memo suggests that a procedure for adoption ofcontingency

measures shouldbe in place. However, there is no suggestion that a state must alter or suspend its rulemaking process in order to committo implementation of contingency measures. Ifthe State is unable to adopt aparticular contingency

measure as aresult ofitsrulemaking
process, it will be required to adopt and implement another equally effective

measure (orgroup ofmeasures) within the same 18-month time frame. The IEPA will continue to be responsible for ensuring that its commitment ismet, andthe commitment remains enforceable.

Comment36:EPA cannot conclude that keeping emissions no higher than the projected inventory amounts will

ensure maintenance ofthe ozone NAAQS.

Response36:As statedin response to comment 23 above, keeping emissions

no higher than those that occurred in the attainment period (2000 through 2002) will ensure maintenance ofthe NAAQS. The Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that "EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance
to be demonstrated by showing thatthe future emissions ofpollutant's
precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place." Comment37:Neither maintenance plan provides a technical analysis demonstrating that maintenance ofthe 2000 emission levels will assure maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Such a demonstration requires photochemical grid modeling.

Response37:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA'sresponse to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees that modeling is required to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. EPAreiterates itsresponse to comment 23 in that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Wallv. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that "EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance tobe demonstrated by showing thatthe future emissions ofa pollutant's precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the first place." Also see the response to comment 36 above.

Illinois' maintenance plan includes a technical analysis, as described in the response to comment 28 above, that demonstrates maintenance ofthe NAAQS based on a comparison ofbase year (attainmentyear) andprojected VOC andNOx emissions. This analysis
meets the maintenance requirements of the Act and ofEPA guidelines.

Comment38:EPA announced substantial changes in its PSD program

on December 21, 2002. Illinois is required to administer these changes in attainment areas effective March 3, 2003, and three years later for nonattainment areas. 67 FR 80185. Therefore, the new NSR rules will not go into effect inthe Metro-East St. Louis

area for three years unless EPA redesignates the area to attainment. On February 27, 2003, Illinois announced that itis filing alawsuit challenging the NSR changes due, in part, to the fact thatthe State lacks the resources to administer the new NSR rules. Onthe basis ofthis admission, EPA cannot lawfully make the finding that Illinois has adequate resources to administer the

new NSRprogram that will only be
necessary ifEPA redesignates the area to attainment.

Response38:The Federal revisions to the PSD regulations promulgated on December 31, 2002 became effective on March 3, 2003. States like Illinois, to which EPA had delegated the authority
to administer the PSDprogram, are required to implement the revisions as oftheir effective date. The commenter does not provide any specific information thatthe IEPA lacks the

resources to administer the revised program in the Metro-East St. Louis area upon redesignation. In addition,the IEPA has not formally notified EPAthat itdoes nothave sufficient resources to 25463

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25463 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

administer the PSD program under the revised regulations.

Even ifthe State is unable to administer the PSD program in the Metro-East St. Louis area, the only
consequences wouldbe thatEPA would, under this hypothetical situation, withdraw the delegation of the PSD program and administer the program itself. In addition, sources would still be required to obtain a

source permits (and demonstrate that they will not adversely impact air quality) prior to construction, regardless ofwhich agency (the IEPA or EPA) is responsible for permit issuance. Therefore, the perceived defect would
not result in an inability to maintain the one-hour ozone standard in the area.

Comment39:The maintenance plan
must include RACM and RACT, for the

reasons stated in comment 13 above.

Response39:EPAincorporates its
response to comment 13 in response to this comment.

F. CommentsRelatedto Criterion5: The AreaMustHaveMetAllApplicable Requirements UnderSection 110and PartD
Comment40:Neither State has met all the requirements applicable to the area. The serious area requirements of section 182(c) are applicable, but none ofthese requirements have been met. Some of the requirements are applicable and enforceable now, such as the 50 ton per year threshold for permitting and enforcement andparagraphs 7,8, and 10 ofsection 182(c).

Response40:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As stated in theresponse to comments 6 through 11 above, the Illinois SIP
meets the applicable requirements and the serious area requirements are not applicable for purposes ofthis redesignation. States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet the relevant CAA requirements that

come due prior tothe submittal of a complete redesignation request. Areas
may be redesignated even though they have not adopted measures that come due after the submission ofa complete redesignation request. Upon completion oftoday's actions, the Illinois SIP is fully approved for all applicable regulations. SIP revisions addressing the serious area requirements are required to be submitted byJanuary 30, 2004, after the submittal ofIllinois' complete redesignation request and maintenance plan.

The commenter errs in the conclusion that the 50 ton peryear emissions threshold for permitting and enforcement is not in effect in Illinois. As ofJanuary 30, 2003, the St. Louis

area was classified as a serious nonattainment area (68 FR 4836). At that time, the 50 ton per year emissions threshold for permitting and enforcement immediately became effective in Illinois. However, by redesignating the Metro-East area to attainment in this rulemaking, the 50
ton per year emissions threshold for permitting and enforcement is no longer applicable.

Section 182(c) paragraphs 7and 8 refer to special rules for modifications of major sources while paragraph 10 refers
to a 1.2 to 1offset requirements for serious nonattainment areas. As stated in response to comment 7, EPA established afuture date for submission ofthe serious area requirements, including section 182(c)(7), (8), and (10), andthe requirements are not now applicable for purposes ofthis redesignation.

G. CommentsRelatedto Implementation ofContingency Measures
Comment41:A commenter requested that in the final rule, EPA expressly
state that, in the event ofa future violation ofthe NAAQS, Illinois and Missouri will not necessarily be required to evaluate any particular contingency measure nor be required to submitfurther attainment demonstrations.

Response41:As stated above, the contingency plans delineate the States' planned actions in the event offuture one-hour ozone standard violations (LevelII trigger in the Illinois and Missouri ozone maintenance plans), multiple ozone standard exceedances at any monitor in a single ortwo year period (not a violation based on three
years ofdata) (Level Itrigger in the Illinois andMissouri ozone maintenance plans), orunanticipated emissions increases threatening a subsequent violation ofthe one-hour

ozone standard (Level Itrigger in the Illinois andMissouri ozone maintenance plans). In the event ofan exceedance ofa Level Itrigger, Illinois will work with Missouri to evaluate the situation andto determine ifadverse emissions or air quality trends are likely
to continue and to threatened maintenance ofthe one-hour standard. If so, Illinois will determine to what extent, what type, and where (local or regional) emission controls may be required to avoid a violation ofthe onehour ozone standard. A study will be completed within nine months ofthe determination ofthe action trigger exceedance. Ifneeded to avoid future

ozone standard violations, emission control measures and regulations will be adopted within 18 months ofthe completion ofthe study and implemented as expeditiously as practicable.

In the event of aLevel II trigger (a determination ofa violation ofthe onehour ozone standard in the St. Louis area), the States will complete an analysis ofthe air quality issue within six months ofthe ozone standard violation determination, and Illinois will adopt andimplement necessary emission control measures and rules within 18 months ofthe ozone standard violation determination.

EPA expects that, throughthis process, the States will identify the appropriate emission control measures to implement in the near term to maintain the ozone NAAQS. The States

are not obligated to select any particular emission control measure for study and/

or implementation. The States must, however, select those emission control

measures thattheir analyses show are adequate for maintenance ofthe NAAQS and which can be implemented within the time constraints contained within the maintenance plans.

With regard to the need for new ozone attainment demonstrations, as indicated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4847), a final determination of attainment leadsto the conclusion by the EPA that Illinois is not obligated to produce new ozone attainment demonstrations for the St. Louis area for
purposes ofattaining the one-hour

ozone standard. The available qualityassured ozone data for the mostrecent three years demonstrate that the St. Louis area has attained the one-hour

ozone standard. This conclusion leads
to the conclusion that additional emission reduction in the Metro-East St. Louis area may onlybe needed for the
purposes ofmaintaining the ozone standard in the St. Louis area and for reducing ozone and ozone precursor transportinto downwind areas. Therefore, additional ozone modeling to support a new ozone attainment demonstration is notneeded at this time.

Following the redesignation ofthe St. Louis area to attainment ofthe one-hour

ozone standard (the subject ofthis final rule and that for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area alsopublished today),

aviolation ofthe one-hour ozone 

### 25464

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25464 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

standard will not necessarily trigger the need for Illinois to conduct additional photochemical dispersion modeling for the St. Louis area. In this situation, the maintenance plan requirements place

no specific ozone modeling requirements on the State. Illinois is free
to choose the types ofanalyses itdeems necessary to determine the levels and types ofadditional emission controls needed to rectify the ozone attainment problem. Redesignated areas are not subject to an obligation to meet additional nonattainment area requirements, such as attainment demonstrations, since they are no longer

as nonattainment areas. Instead, they
must implement contingency measures, which iswhat Congress provided in the Act.

H. CommentsRelatedtoRedesignation ofaPortionoftheSt.LouisArea

Comment42:One commenter requested that in the event the EPA is unable to finalize Missouri's I/M
program, as proposed in a separate rulemaking on January 30, 2003, EPA shouldproceed with the redesignation for the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis

area.

Response42:In aseparate rule published in today's Federal Register, EPA is approving Missouri's revised I/ M rule. In addition, as explained above, EPA is finalizing its actions onthe Missouri and Illinois redesignation requests in separate rulemakings.

L CommentsRelatedtoInterstate Transport

Comment43:EPAmust ensure that the CAA requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) pertaining to interstate transport impacts are actively and adequately met through the States' SIP's and through Federal control programs such as the NOx SIP call.

Response43:This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois portions ofthe St. Louis area. EPA is here providing aresponse regarding the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation ofthe Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion ofthe St. Louis area.

As stated above, EPAbelieves that
state obligations under the NOx SIP call

are not applicable requirements for
purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request. The NOx SIP call requirements

are not linked with a particular area's

ozone designation and classification. EPA believes thatthe requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's classification are the requirements that are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The NOx SIP call submittal requirements continue to apply to a State regardless ofthe designation of any one particular area in the State.

Thus, we do notbelieve thatthe NOx SIP call submission shouldbe construed
to be an applicable requirement for purposes ofredesignation. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176) (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826) (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458) (May 7, 1996); andTampa, Florida final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, 62741) (December 7,1995). See alsothe discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890) (June 19, 2000).

Illinois has adopted and EPAhas approved statewide NOxrules into the SIP on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56449 and 66 FR 56454). These rules will remain in effect and will remain Federally enforceable following the redesignation ofthe Metro-East St. Louis

area to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone standard.

Comment44:A commenter notes that the expected NOx emission control programs and emission reductions for the St. Louis area should not be jeopardized dueto the absence of continued Federal enforceability ofthe SIPs.

Response44:The SIPs will remain Federally enforceable following redesignation ofthe St. Louis area to attainment. In addition, NOx emission control measures (withthe exception of NSR, which will be replaced by PSD) which are currently in place will remain

as SIP requirements following redesignation to attainment. Illinois will continue to implement and enforce its statewide NOx emission control regulations adopted to comply with the NOx SIP call. This rulemaking, however, finalizes aNOx RACT waiver for the Metro-East St. Louis area. NOx RACT has never been part ofthe Illinois SIP. This redesignation does not jeopardize any NOx emission control regulations expected andpart ofthe SIP for the Metro-East St. Louis area orfor the State ofIllinois. Comment45:The redesgination ofthe St. Louis area to attainment should not weaken the impetus to rapidly address NOx transport to downwind areas. These efforts are critical to addressing the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the St. Louis and downwind areas. Any revisions to SIP requirements would haveto meet the applicable provisions ofthe Act andbe approved bythe EPA.

Response45:As noted above, the redesignation ofthe St. Louis area to attainment ofthe one-hour ozone standard will have no effect on the implementation ofthe statewide NOx control rules inIllinois. In addition, irregardless ofthe attainment status of the St. Louis area forthe one-hour ozone standard, EPA will proceed with making its decision as to whether the eastern portion ofMissouri must meet specific NOx SIP call requirements. EPAwill closely review any proposed changes in the NOx emission control programs which are currently inplace in the Metro-East St. Louis area and in Illinois
to ensure thatthe proposed changes will
not adversely affectthe attainment of the NAAQS in the St. Louis area and in downwind ozone nonattainment areas.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a "significant regulatory action" and, therefore, is not subject toreview by the Office ofManagement and Budget.For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements andimposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired by state law, itdoes not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it willnot have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 25465

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25465 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does

not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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 arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This actionis not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2003. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects

40CFRPart52

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

40CFR Part81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas, Ozone. Dated: April 30, 2003. Thomas V. Skinner, Regional Administrator,Region5.

* For the reasons statedin thepreamble, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m1.The authoritycitation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart 0-Illinois

* 2. Section 52.726 is amendedby adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows:

§52.726 Controlstrategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(ee) Approval ofthe Maintenance Planfor the Illinois Portion ofthe St. Louis Area-On December 30, 2002 Illinois submitted Maintenance Planfor the Illinois portion ofthe St. Louis Nonattainment Area. The plan includes 2014 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Budget of 10.13 tonsper ozone season weekday ofVOCs and 18.72 tons per

ozone seasonweekday NOx tobe used in transportation conformity.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

m1.The authoritycitation forpart 81 continues to read as follows:

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

* 2.In §81.314 the table entitled "Illinois-Ozone (1-Hour Standard)" is amended by revising the entry for St. Louis Area to read as follows:
§81.314 Illinois.

* *

ILLINOIS-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

St. Louis Area: M

adison County

............................................. M ay 12, 2003

...................... Attainment M

onroe County

.............................................. M ay 12, 2003

...................... Attainment St. Clair County

............................................. M ay 12, 2003

...................... Attainment

1This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-11524 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 25466

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25466 2003