+(,121/,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

of a revision to the state implementation

plan (SIP) for the vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program operating in

the Missouri portion of the St. Louis,

Missouri, ozone nonattainment area.

Missouri made several amendments to

the state-adopted I/M rule to improve

performance of the program and

requested that the SIP be revised. The

effect of this action ensures Federal

enforceability of the state air program

rules and maintains consistency

between the state-adopted rules and the

approved SIP. EPA proposed approval

of this rule in the Federal Register on

January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4842). This

final action is being published to meet

our statutory obligation under the Clean

Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This final rule is effective May

12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the 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 section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a SIP?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?

What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

What is being addressed in this document?

What comments were received on the

proposed approval of the I/M SIP revision

and what is our response?

What action is EPA taking?

What is the effective date for this

rulemaking?

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the 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 of the 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 submit these regulations

and control strategies to us for approval

and incorporation into the Federally

enforceable SIP. Each Federallyapproved SIP protects air quality

primarily by addressing air pollution at

its point of origin. These SIPs can be

extensive, containing state regulations

or other enforceable documents and

supporting information such as

emission inventories, monitoring

networks, and modeling

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 comment period,

and a formal 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 on the

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 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally-approved SIP. The

record of each SIP approval is

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled "Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans." The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

but are "incorporated by reference,"

which means that EPA has approved a

given state regulation with a specific

effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally-approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, we are

authorized to take an enforcement

action to return a violator to

compliance. Citizens are also offered

legal recourse to address violations as

described in section 304 of the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

This rulemaking addresses a number

of submissions from Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) concerning revisions to the I/M

SIP for St. Louis. The content of those

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 of section 307.366,

Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo);

established criteria and procedures for

the I/M contract; and provided the

residents of Franklin County the option

of biennial motor vehicle registration.

For vehicles sold by a licensed motor

vehicle dealer, any inspection and

approval within 120 days preceding the

date of the sale is considered timely for

the purpose of vehicle registration.

Costs for repair work performed 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

minutes before 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/M rule

(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 a test; incorporated a

transition program from January 1

through April 4, 2000; and provided

another test 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/M program and a commitment to do

so. This was in response to our

amendment of the Federal I/M rule that

changed the implementation date for

use of the OBD test from January 1,

2001, to January 1, 2002, and provided

options for other implementation dates.

We took no action on this plan as

Missouri was involved in amending the

I/M rule to incorporate the provisions of

the plan. This revision is described

below.

The December 13, 2002, submittal

contained additional amendments made

to the I/M rule. In addition to

restructuring the rule, a number of

amendments were made to: clarify the

meaning of vehicles primarily operated

25414

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25414 2003
Federal 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 fleet vehicle testing

requirements and requirements for

Federal facilities, set fee 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 fleet vehicle

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 as valid 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 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.

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/M program elements

for basic I/M areas that qualify for

redesignation to attainment. Under this

additional flexibility, an as-of-yet

unimplemented I/M program element

may be converted into a contingency

measure as part of the area's approved

maintenance plan (which, in turn, forms

a part of the area's approved

redesignation request). We believe that

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area

is eligible for redesignation and, in a

separate rulemaking today, we are

taking final action to find that the area

has attained the 1-hour ozone standard

and to redesignate the area from

nonattainment to attainment for that

standard. Thus, the Missouri I/M

regulation meets the requirements of 40

CFR 51.372, and we are taking final

action to approve the program pursuant

to that section.

MDNR's letter of January 17, 2003,

informed us that a printing error

occurred when the revised rule was first

published on November 30, 2002, in the

state's official administrative rules

publication, the Missouri Code of State

Regulations (CSR). Inadvertently, the

table containing the final transient

emission test standards for Light Duty

Vehicles was omitted in subparagraph

(3)(G)4.A of the Missouri rule. The table

was part of the rule revision which had

been adopted by the Missouri Air

Conservation Commission (MACC) after

notice and public comment. The postadoption publication of the rule omitted

the table, and the December 31, 2002,

publication of the 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 of the 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 view it as inadvertent and

nonsubstantive. In addition, the

corrected version of the state rule is the

version which was available to the

public for comment at the state level

and has been included in EPA's docket

for this rule since the January 30

publication of the proposal. Therefore,

we do not believe that any additional

public comment on the 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 also taking 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 of the I/NI SIP

Revision and What Is Our Response?

Comments were submitted by the

Great Rivers Environmental Law Center

on behalf of the Sierra Club and the

Missouri Coalition for the Environment.

Its conclusion was that EPA should

disapprove the proposed SIP revision. A

summary of the comments and our

responses to the comments are provided

below.

Comment 1: St. Louis is now a "serious" ozone nonattainment area

and, as a result, its I/M program must

meet the requirements of section

182(c)(3). EPA acknowledges that the

I/M program does not meet these

requirements. It should, accordingly, be

disapproved, or at most partially

approved.

Response 1: On November 25, 2002,

the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

vacated a June 26, 2001, rule extending

the St. Louis area's attainment date, and

remanded to EPA for "entry of a final

rule that reclassifies St. Louis as a

serious nonattainment area effective

immediately * * *" (Sierra Club and

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)).

In response to the Court's order, and in

accordance with section 181(b)(2) of the

Act, EPA reinstated 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 of January 30,

2004, for submission of SIP revisions to

meet the serious nonattainment area

requirements. The final rule also

explained that EPA was concurrently

proposing to redesignate the area to

attainment, and that such a

redesignation, if done prior to the

deadline for submission of the 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) of the CAA. This

subsequent rulemaking does not reopen

the issue of the submittal deadline or

the determination that SIP submissions

would not be due should the area be

redesignated prior to the due date.

Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA requires

EPA to approve a plan submission in

full if it meets "all of the applicable

requirements" of the Act. Under that

section a partial approval is appropriate

where only a portion of the plan

submission meets all of the applicable

requirements of the Act. The commenter

asserts that the I/M revision cannot be

fully approved because it does not meet

the I/M program 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 also the response to comment 2

concerning the due date for the serious

area requirements.) In addition, because

the area is today being redesignated to

attainment, it is no longer obligated to

meet the I/M requirements of section

182(c)(3). (See the September 4, 1992,

memorandum from John Calcagni,

"Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment," p. 4,

n. 3.) Therefore, the fact that the

submittal does not include all of the

requirements for an I/M program for a

serious area does not require EPA to

disapprove or partially approve it.

Since, as discussed elsewhere in this

notice, the submittal meets all of the

applicable requirements of the Act, EPA

is fully approving the revisions to the

Missouri I/M program.

25415

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25415 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Comment 2: 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

a matter of law", 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, if EPA "had obeyed the law",

the revisions would have been due by

June 14, 1998.

Response 2: 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 of January

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 of this rule.

With respect to the commenter's

assertion that the serious area

requirements should have been due by

June 14, 1998, this is based on an

argument made by the commenter in the

U.S. District Court and the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia that

the reclassification of the St. Louis area

to serious should have been 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 of this rulemaking as explained

previously, but it was rejected by both

Courts (See, Sierra Club v. Whitman,

285 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C. Cir.2002)). A

detailed discussion of the

inapplicability of the serious area

requirements to the St. Louis area is also

included in the response to comments

on the 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.

Comment 3: The proposed revisions,

as EPA itself concedes, do not even

meet the requirement for a basic I/M

program that moderate ozone

nonattainment areas must promulgate

and implement. Nonetheless, EPA says

that "additional flexibility" may be

extended to the state under 40 CFR

51.372. This is an arbitrary conclusion.

First, the cited regulation does not

provide for approval of I/M programs

that do not meet federal requirements; it

merely permits states to treat otherwise

approval programs as contingency

measures in their maintenance plans.

Second, the regulation's flexibility is

contingent upon the following: "A

contingency commitment that includes

an enforceable schedule for adoption

and implementation of the (I/M)

program, and appropriate milestones.

The schedule shall include the date for

submission of a SIP meeting all of the

requirements of this subpart. Schedule

milestones shall be listed in months

from the date EPA notifies the state that

it is in violation of the ozone or CO

standard or any earlier date specified in

the state plan. Unless the state, in

accordance with the provisions of the

maintenance plan, chooses not to

implement I/M, it must 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.

Response 3: The commenter is

incorrect in the assertion that 40 CFR

51.372 does not authorize EPA to

approve I/M SIPs that do not meet all

EPA requirements. Section 51.3 72(c)

states as follows: "Any nonattainment

area that EPA determines would

otherwise qualify for redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment shall

receive full approval of a SIP submittal

under sections 182(a)(2)(B) or 182(b)(4)"

if the submittal meets the requirements

of section 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 by Missouri

meets all of the applicable Federal I/M

requirements, with the exception that

Missouri does not require the exclusive

use of an OBD test for the retest of

vehicles which fail the initial OBD

emissions test (during the 2003-2004

phase-in of the Missouri OBD rule).

(After the 2003-2004 phase-in period,

the Missouri rule requires the

appropriate OBD test for both the initial

test and the retest, which is consistent

with EPA's rule.) Because, as explained

below, Missouri has included a

commitment to consider adoption of the

OBD test for the retest as a contingency

measure and has met all other

requirements of § 51.372(c), that section

authorizes EPA to fully approve the

Missouri I/M SIP submittal under

section 182(b)(4) of the CAA. This

conclusion is consistent with the

language of the regulation and with the

application of the regulation to other

I/M program approvals in conjunction

with redesignations (see 60 FR 12459;

March 7, 1995).

The commenter is also incorrect in its

assertion that Missouri's submission

does not meet the requirements of 40

CFR 51.372(c)(4), which the commenter

quotes in its comment. Section

51.372(c)(4) provides that the state must

make the following commitments: (1)

An enforceable schedule for adoption,

submission to EPA, and implementation

of the I/M program element; (2)

appropriate milestones in months from

EPA notification of the violation (or any

earlier trigger date provided in the

plan); and (3) a commitment to submit

the program to EPA within 18 months

of the notification of the violation,

unless the state elects not to implement

the I/M element of its contingency

measures. The commenter does not

identify any specific elements of this

requirement which it believes are not

met, but Missouri's maintenance plan

contains provisions meeting all of these

elements. The plan commits that the

state will adhere to the following

schedule (pp. 40-43 of the maintenance

plan), if the state selects this

contingency measure:

1. Three months from notification by

EPA of a violation-the state will

propose necessary regulatory changes

for adoption by the Missouri Air

Conservation Commission.

2. Five months from notification-the

state will present proposed revisions for

public hearing.

3. Six months from notification-the

state will request adoption by the

Commission.

4. Ten to eighteen months after

notification-the state will submit the

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 that these

commitments in Missouri's

maintenance plan do not meet the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.372(c)(4),

and EPA finds that the state has met

these requirements.

In the January 30, 2003, proposal on

the I/M revisions, EPA discussed how

Missouri had met the requirements of

section 51.372(c)(1)-(3) (68 FR 4842,

4844-4845). EPA did not receive any

comments on its proposal with respect

to these other requirements. For the

reasons stated in the proposal, EPA

finds that the requirements of section

51.372(c)(1)-(3) are met.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA's review of the material

submitted indicates that the state has

25416

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

revised the I/M program in accordance

with the requirements of the 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 (see Test Procedures

and Standards in the January 30, 2003,

proposed rule, page 4844 for further

discussion). However, since the St.

Louis area is being redesignated to

attainment with the 1-hour ozone

standard elsewhere in today's Federal

Register, and as provided for in the

Federal I/M rule at 40 CFR 51.372, we

are fully approving the Missouri SIP

revision for the St. Louis I/M program

pursuant to that 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/M program

area to report certification of

compliance to the state. These

requirements appear to be different from

those for other non-Federal groups of

Missouri registered vehicles. However,

at this 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 that this

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 not be appropriate

to require compliance with this

regulation if it is not authorized. We

will be revising this provision in the

future and will review state I/M SIPs

with respect to this issue when this new

rule is final.

Therefore, for these reasons, we are

neither proposing approval nor

disapproval of the specific requirements

which apply to Federal facilities at this

time.

What Is the Effective Date For This

Rulemaking?

To fulfill the requirements of the

CAA, this rulemaking is being done in

conjunction with another rulemaking

published today which finds that the 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 that the redesignation cannot

be completed until this I/M rulemaking

is completed, EPA finds that there is

good cause for this final rule to become

effective immediately upon publication

as the redesignation will also become

effective immediately for good cause

shown. See also the discussion in the

referenced rulemaking for additional

information. The immediate effective

date is authorized under 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1), which provides that

rulemaking actions may become

effective less than 30 days after

publication if the rule "grants or

recognizes an exemption or relieves 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 of SIP revisions

fulfilling the requirements for serious

ozone nonattainment areas. Upon the

effective date of the rule that finds the

area has attained, redesignates the area,

and approves the maintenance plan

(also published today), the state of

Missouri will be relieved of the

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. EPA finds that good cause

exists for this final rule being

immediately effective since, in

conjunction with the redesignation, it

relieves the state of Missouri of certain

requirements established as a result 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 is not subject to review by the

Office of Management 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 and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 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 or uniquely 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 will not 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 and Indian 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 of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, 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 of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule 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 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 CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the 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 of the 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 a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the United

States Senate, the United States House

of Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. A major rule cannot take effect

until 60 days after it is published in the

25417

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

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

804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 11, 2003. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule for the purposes of

judicial review nor does it extend the

time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, 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,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

* Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA-Missouri

* 2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by revising the entry for

10-5.380, under Chapter 5, to read as follows:

§52.1320 Identification of 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 Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area

10-5.380 ................................................................................ M otor vehicle em issions 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. Louis Area; Approval and

Promulgation of Implementation Plans,

and Redesignation of Areas for Air

Quality Planning Purposes, State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the

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 of Franklin, Jefferson, St.

Charles, and St. Louis as well as St.

Louis City in Missouri and the counties

of Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair in

Illinois. This determination is based on

three years of complete, 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 of part D of title I

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), are not

applicable to the St. Louis area.

EPA is also approving a request from

the state of Missouri, submitted on

December 6, 2002, to redesignate the St.

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. In approving this

request EPA is also approving the state's

plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS through 2014, as a revision 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 also to a separate rule published

today regarding similar approvals for

the state of Illinois.

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

at least 24 hours in 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 of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?

II. What actions are we taking and when are

they effective?

III. Why are we taking these actions to

redesignate the area?

IV. What are the effects of redesignation to

attainment of the 1 -hour NAAQS?

25418

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

V. What comments did we receive 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

a final 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 (based on 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 of Missouri 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

emission budgets 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 on page

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 of the nonattainment area.

However, EPA stated that it was

considering issuance of two separate

rules when it took final action on the

redesignation requests. We received no

comments on this aspect of the

proposal. With the exception of the

determination of attainment, EPA is

taking final action related to the

Missouri portion of the nonattainment

area and is taking final action on the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis

nonattainment area in separate

rulemaking actions. Section 107(d)(3)(v)

provides, as a prerequisite 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

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 of its

SIP that are applicable to its territory.

Since each state has the authority only

to request redesignation for the portion

of the area within its boundaries, and

EPA evaluated each states' request for

redesignation separately, the final rules

redesignating each states' portion of the

nonattainment area are being published

separately. However, EPA has

concluded that in determining whether

or not a multistate area has attained the

standard based upon complete, qualityassured ambient air quality monitoring

data, EPA will consider the attainment

status of the area as a whole. Therefore,

EPA's finding that the 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 and takes

separate action on a similar

redesignation request and SIP

submission by Illinois. See 67 FR 49600,

July 31, 2002 (Reinstatement of

Redesignation of Kentucky Portion of

Cincinnati-Hamilton area) for additional

discussion of these issues.

The history for this action has been

set forth in detail in the proposed

rulemaking published January 30, 2003

(68 FR 4847, 4848-4849), and is

summarized below.

The Missouri portion of the St. Louis

nonattainment area includes Franklin,

Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis

Counties and St. Louis City. The Illinois

portion of the St. Louis nonattainment

area includes Madison, Monroe, and St.

Clair Counties (collectively referred to

as the 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 CAA Amendments of 1990

were enacted. Under section

107(d)(4)(A) of the CAA, 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 of the 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 (see the analysis

and discussion of specific 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 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 of Natural Resources

(MDNR) submitted a Redesignation

Demonstration and Maintenance Plan

for the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area along with a

request to redesignate the Missouri

portion of the St. Louis nonattainment

area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. Included in the Redesignation

Demonstration and Maintenance Plan

for the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis

nonattainment area is a plan 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

V below, we are taking the following

actions:

A. Determination of Attainment

EPA is determining that the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area, consisting of

both the Missouri and the Illinois

portions of the area, has attained the 1-

hour ozone standard.

EPA is also determining that certain

attainment demonstration requirements

(section 172(c)(1) of the CAA), along

with certain other related requirements,

of part D of title I of the CAA,

specifically the section 172(c)(9)

contingency measure requirement

(measures needed to mitigate a state's

25419

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25419 2003
Federal 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 of progress

(ROP) requirements, and the section

182(j) multi-state attainment

demonstration requirement, are not

applicable to the St. Louis area.

On January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847),

EPA proposed that the 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 of this interpretation of

the CAA and incorporates those

explanations by reference. See (67 FR

49600) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Kentucky,

July 31, 2002); (66 FR 53095)

(Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,

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) (Grand Rapids,

MI). The United States Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit has upheld EPA's

interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.

3d 1551 (loth Cir. 1996).

EPA reiterates the position set forth in

its prior rulemaking actions and in the

January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847) proposed

rulemaking for the St. Louis area.

Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the 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

other related provisions, not to require

SIP submissions if an ozone

nonattainment area subject to those

requirements is monitoring attainment

of the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of

the NAAQS demonstrated with three

consecutive years of complete, qualityassured, air quality monitoring data).

EPA interprets the general provisions of

subpart 1 of part D of title I (sections

171 and 172) not to require the

submission of SIP revisions concerning

RFP, attainment demonstrations or

section 172(c)(9) contingency measures.

As explained in a memorandum from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

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 of subpart 2 in the

same manner. See Sierra Club v. EPA,

99 F. 3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).

The attainment demonstration

requirements of section 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 of the relevant NAAQS, EPA

believes there is no need for an area to

make a further submission containing

additional measures to achieve

attainment. This is also consistent with

the interpretation of certain section

172(c) requirements provided by EPA in

the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA

stated in 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 of the

NAAQS, the focus of state planning

efforts shifts to the maintenance of the

NAAQS and the development of a

maintenance plan under section 175A.

Similar reasoning applies to other

related provisions of subpart 2. The first

of these are the contingency measure

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the

CAA. EPA has previously interpreted

the contingency measure requirements

of section 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 of the 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 the requirements 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 the preliminary data collected

to date for the 2003 ozone season (for St.

Louis, the ozone season is April 1

through October 31 of each year). On the

basis of this review, EPA has

determined that the area has attained

the 1-hour ozone standard during the

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 other measures to attain the 1-

hour ozone standard.

B. Redesignation of Missouri Portion of

the St. Louis Area to Attainment

Although EPA is determining that the

entire St. Louis nonattainment area has

attained the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA

has determined that it is appropriate to

take final action related to Missouri's

request to redesignate the Missouri

portion of the St. Louis nonattainment

area and take final action related to

Illinois' request to redesignate the

Illinois portion of the 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 and Illinois (68 FR 4848). We

received one comment in support of

publishing separate rulemakings and no

adverse comments. In this rulemaking,

EPA is taking the following actions with

respect to the Missouri portion of the St.

Louis nonattainment area:

EPA is approving a request from the

state of Missouri to redesignate the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis

nonattainment area to attainment of the

1-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition, EPA is taking the

following actions:

1. Approving Missouri's plan for

maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

through 2014, as a revision to the

Missouri SIP;

2. Finding adequate and approving

the 2014 MVEBs of 47.14 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 that the attainment

demonstration (and related contingency

measure requirements) and reasonably

available control measure (RACM)

requirements of the CAA are not

applicable.

C. Effective Date of These Actions

EPA finds that there is good cause for

this determination of attainment,

redesignation to attainment and SIP

revision to become effective

immediately upon publication because a

delayed effective date is unnecessary

due to the nature of a redesignation to

attainment which relieves the area from

certain CAA requirements that would

otherwise apply to it. The immediate

25420

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

effective date for this action is

authorized under both 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1), which provides that

rulemaking actions may become

effective less than 30 days after

publication if the rule "grants or

recognizes an exemption or relieves a

restriction" and section 553(d)(3) which

allows an effective date less than 30

days after publication "as otherwise

provided by the agency for good cause

found and published with the rule."

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 of SIP revisions

fulfilling the requirements for serious

ozone nonattainment areas. Upon the

effective date of this rule, the state of

Missouri will be relieved of the

obligation to develop and submit these

SIP revisions. In addition, the Missouri

rules adopted to meet the requirements

of title V of the CAA, provide that in a "serious" area, stationary sources with

potential emissions of VOCs and NOx

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 V permit

applications within twelve months of

January 30, 2003. Upon the effective

date of this rule, stationary sources

which are newly subject to the title V

permitting program as a result of the

January 30, 2003, reclassification to a

serious nonattainment area will be

relieved of the requirement to submit

title V permit applications. In a separate

rulemaking, EPA is redesignating the

Illinois portions of the St. Louis area to

attainment. Additional requirements

specific to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area are described in that separate

rulemaking and are also being lifted as

a result of that portion's redesignation to

attainment. EPA finds that good cause

exists for this final rule being

immediately effective since it relieves

the state of Missouri as well as

stationary sources of certain restrictions

which would otherwise apply.

III. Why Are We Taking These Actions

To Redesignate the Area?

EPA has determined that the St. Louis

area has attained the 1-hour ozone

standard. In addition, EPA has

determined that the state of Missouri

has demonstrated that the criteria for

redesignation of the Missouri portion of

the area from nonattainment to

attainment have been met.

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule

at 68 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 that the 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 that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and applicable

Federal air pollutant control regulations

and other permanent and enforceable

reductions; (4) the Administrator has

fully approved a maintenance plan for

the area as meeting 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. EPA has fully approved the

applicable implementation plan for the

Missouri portion of the 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 of the

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 of the area as meeting

the requirements of section 175A.

Missouri has met all requirements

applicable to the Missouri portion of the

area under section 110 and part D.

By finding that the maintenance plan

provides for maintenance of the 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 of the St. Louis

area is 68.59 tons per ozone season

weekday. The MVEB for VOCs in the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area is

47.14 tons per ozone season weekday.

The rationale for these findings is as

stated in this rulemaking and the

January 30, 2003, proposed rule found

at 68 FR 4847.

IV. What Are the Effects of

Redesignation to Attainment of the 1-

Hour NAAQS?

These actions determine that the area

attained the 1-hour ozone standard and

that certain other related requirements

of part D of title I of the CAA,

specifically the section 172(c)(9)

contingency measure requirement

(measures needed 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

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 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 that the area is likely to be

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour

ozone standard and would be subject to

any additional requirements as a result

of such designation. EPA also notes that

it is not revoking the 1-hour standard for

the St. Louis area.

Approval of the Missouri

redesignation request changes the

official designation for the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area,

including the City of St Louis, and the

Counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St.

Charles, and St. Louis from

nonattainment to attainment. It also

incorporates into the Missouri SIP a

plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS through 2014. The plan

includes contingency measures to

remedy any future violations of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC

and NOx MVEBs for 2014 for the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

V. What Comments Did We Receive and

What Are Our Responses?

We received five letters regarding the

January 30, 2003, proposed rule found

at 68 FR 4847. Four of the letters

generally supported the rulemaking

action. Two of the four letters in support

of the rulemaking action raised issues to

which EPA is responding in this

section. One of the five letters contained

adverse comments. A summary of the

comments and EPA's responses to them

are provided below. This discussion

addresses comments relating to the St.

Louis area as a whole, and comments

specifically relating to the Missouri

portion of the area. Comments relating

specifically to the Illinois portion of the

area are addressed in the final rule for

Illinois published elsewhere in this

Federal Register.

A. Comment Related to Meeting the

Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

Comment 1: The St. Louis area has

failed to meet any of the five criteria

specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

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 found that the

area has met all of the five criteria

25421

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

specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

CAA for redesignation to attainment.

Below are specific comments and

responses raised by the commenter

regarding each criterion.

B. Comments Related to Criterion 1: The

Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour

Ozone NAAQS

Comment 2: Monitoring data are not

representative of air quality conditions.

Monitoring data collected on Labor Day

weekend in 2002 are "hopelessly

contaminated" due to voluntary

emission reductions undertaken by

industry and others.

Response 2: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of

the CAA states that one criterion for

redesignation to attainment is that EPA

must determine that the 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 if there 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 of days per calendar year with

maximum hourly average

concentrations above 0.12 part per

million is equal to or less than 1 as

determined by appendix H." Appendix

H states, "The basic principle in making

this determination is relatively

straightforward. . . .In its simplest

form, the number of exceedances at a

monitoring site would be recorded for

each calendar year and then averaged

over the past 3 calendar years to

determine if this average is less than or

equal to 1." The monitoring data for the

St. Louis nonattainment area

demonstrate that the estimated number

of exceedances per year averaged over

three years (2000 through 2002) is 1.0 or

less at all monitoring sites in the area.

In the case of St. Louis, all of the data

collected are reviewed, quality assured

and submitted to EPA's Air Quality

System (AQS) database. EPA conducts a

number of activities to determine that

the data meet the data collection and

quality assurance procedures of 40 CFR

part 58 including the following:

-EPA ensures that the state (and local

agencies) is performing quality

assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

checks properly through systems

audits as required 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 of the

instruments as required in 40 CFR

part 58, appendix A.

-EPA chooses several hourly ozone

values and tracks those data points

from their collection at the monitor

through their data handling

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 of ozone season each year,

EPA certifies at least one primary

standard ozone photometer for each of

the state and local agencies. These

primary ozone photometers stay in

the state/local laboratories. Transfer

standard photometers are verified

against the primary photometer and

are used to calibrate the ozone

analyzers in the field. Thus, all of the

data collected is traceable back to

EPA's primary photometer.

-EPA, as well as the quality assurance

groups of the state and local agencies,

conduct audits on the ozone

instruments collecting the data. These

audits are required to be performed

quarterly as per 40 CFR part 58,

appendix A. EPA audits each ozone

instrument at least once per ozone

season. This ensures that the

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 of the

air quality. The data would only be

"contaminated" if there had been an

error with respect to collection and

quality assurance of the data, which

there was not. The commenter offers no

information indicating data collection

was improper. In addition, even if these

activities by the community were

relevant to whether the area had

attained, there is no evidence that

emissions were actually reduced to an

extent which would have a significant

effect on ozone levels. See response to

comment 18 below regarding 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, and in section V.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 of the 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 19 below

regarding EPA's conclusion that

improvements in air quality are

attributable to permanent and

enforceable reductions in ozone

precursor emissions.

Comment 3: EPA's proposal ignores

the second component discussed in a

September 4, 1992, redesignation

guidance document from John Calcagni

entitled "Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment" (Calcagni memo) to EPA

regional offices, that the determination

of attainment 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 could be attained only in 2004

after all control measures are adopted.

Thus, the monitored attainment is a

"fluke" explainable by factors other

than the success of the pollution control

measures. In addition, based on the

Calcagni memo the commenter believes

that supplemental ozone modeling may

be necessary to determine the

representativeness of the 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.

Response 3: The commenter cites a

policy memorandum entitled

"Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment" dated

September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo),

which states that there are two

components in determining that an area

has met the section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)

requirement. This policy states the

following:

The state must show that the area is

attaining the applicable NAAQS. There are two components involved in making this

demonstration which should be considered

interdependently. The first component relies

upon ambient air quality data. * * * The

second component relies upon supplemental

EPA-approved air quality modeling. No such

supplemental modeling is required for 03

25422

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25422 2003
Federal 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 of monitors may not be

representative of air quality (page 3). In

contrast, ozone is not a localized

pollutant, and the St. Louis area has an

extensive monitoring network

consisting of nineteen monitors

operating each year from 2000 through

2002 as described in EPA's proposal at

68 FR 4850. Therefore, consistent with

the language in the policy and the

rationale in calling for modeling in

some cases for some pollutants and not

in other cases, modeling is not required

as part of this redesignation. Neither

section 107(d)(3)(E) nor the policy

referenced by the commenter requires

modeling as a prerequisite to

redesignation of an ozone

nonattainment area. In addition, no

modeling was conducted as part of the

redesignation requests submitted by

Missouri or Illinois. Therefore, EPA

does not believe that the monitored data

runs counter to air quality modeling.

See Wall v. 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 the proposal and

section V.D below.

The ozone modeling approaches used

do not support any direct comparisons

between ozone modeling results and

monitored ozone concentrations for

years other than 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 to primarily predict the

relative impacts of emission changes on

future peak ozone levels assuming the

same meteorological conditions that are

modeled for the base 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 by the

existing science.

What the modeling results do imply is

that, as regional 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 of maintaining

the ozone standard in the St. Louis area,

thus supporting the approval of the

state's ozone redesignation request.

Illinois and Missouri are committed to

implement statewide NOx emission

controls regardless of the attainment

status of the St. Louis area. Both states

are currently implementing statewide

NOx control rules.

Comment 4: The monitored data do

not support a conclusion of continued

attainment since the trend is toward

increases in exceedances because 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, if the same

number of exceedances that occurred in

2002 occur in 2003 or 2004, the area

will again violate the one-hour ozone

standard.

Response 4: See response to comment

20 below for 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, is based on the

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)

and EPA's regulation which defines

attainment of the ozone standard. The

regulatory definition is based on design

values over a 3-year period, not on yearto-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

only be discerned for the 2000-2002

period by combining the annual number

of exceedances for all monitoring sites

in the area (by totaling the number of

exceedances for each year for all

monitoring sites combined). This

approach is technically flawed. The

ozone standard is based on assessing the

peak ozone data for each monitoring site

individually not by cumulating the data

for all sites. Review of the yearly

exceedance data for each monitoring

site, as given in Table 1 in the January

30, 2003, proposed rule (68 FR 4850)

and in response to comment 20 below,

shows that no consistent ozone

exceedance rate trend can be established

for the individual monitoring sites for

this period. For example, the West

Alton site experienced one ozone

exceedance per year 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 is the basis for

assessing compliance with the 1-hour

ozone standard, there is no consistent

"worsening" trend in peak ozone

concentrations.

Comment 5: EPA asserts that the data

is "quality assured" but provided no

explanation. EPA must demonstrate that

the data is quality assured. EPA must

document the adequacy of the states'

quality assurance plan. Also, the

commenter questions whether the data

relied on for the attainment

determination was quality-assured since

it was 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 should be

collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and

recorded in AIRS in order for it to 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 A to 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 that the

monitoring data be entered into AIRS

within 90 days after the end of the

calendar quarter in which it is collected.

Thus, monitoring data collected through

September 2002 must be quality assured

and entered into AIRS by December 31,

2002. Monitoring data for October 2002

must be quality assured and entered

into AIRS by March 31, 2003.

25423

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

Monitoring data collected in a calendar

quarter can be quality assured and

entered into AIRS at any time prior to

90 days after the end of that quarter.

The monitoring data is quality

assured and entered into AIRS by the

state and local agencies in the St. Louis

area. The regulation at 40 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 of 40 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 that EPA has

reviewed the plan and "it meets the

requirements of * * * EPA regulations

in 40 CFR part 58." As part of the

September 27, 1984, and March 4, 1981,

rulemakings the public was provided

the opportunity to review and comment

on Missouri's and Illinois' quality

assurance procedures. Pursuant to the

Calcagni memo, page 3, and upheld in

Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d. 426, 437), an

EPA action on a redesignation request

does not mean that earlier issues with

regard to the SIP will be reopened.

Thus, there is no requirement to present

quality assurance procedures in this

rulemaking.

In addition to Missouri'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 EPA reviewed and

approved the states' and local agencies'

quality assurance procedures. In order

to verify that the state and local agencies

followed these procedures and that the

data meets the data collection and

quality assurance procedures of 40 CFR

part 58, EPA conducted the actions

listed in the response to comment 2

above.

C. Comments Related to Criterion 2: The

Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP

Under Section 11 0(k)

Comment 6: The serious area SIP

requirements of the CAA are applicable

to the St. Louis area. These

requirements have not been

promulgated 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 by

EPA for reducing the stringency of the

control measures to become part of the

contingency measure. The states have

not done these procedures.

Response 6: The SIP which is

required to be "fully approved" under

criterion 2 is the "applicable"

implementation plan (section

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). This section requires

that the SIP must be "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 and Part D."

This comment relates 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 that the

"serious" area requirements are

applicable to its consideration of the

redesignation request for the area.

However, the CAA is not as prescriptive

as the commenter assumes. (See, Wall v.

EPA, 265 F.3d 426,438 (6th Cir. 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 a policy to

provide guidance in determining how to

apply the statutory criterion with

respect to which requirements are

applicable in reviewing a redesignation

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 of the section

107(d)(3)(E) requirement. Under this

interpretation, states requesting

redesignation to attainment must meet

the relevant CAA requirements that

come due prior 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 of a complete

redesignation request. A detailed

discussion of EPA's rationale for this

interpretation is contained in the rule

redesignating Detroit-Ann Arbor, 60 FR

12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995).

Pursuant to the January 30, 2003, final

rule reclassifying the St. Louis area to

"serious" (68 FR 4836), the serious

nonattainment area requirements are

due on January 30, 2004. The final rule

has not been timely challenged under

section 307(b)(1) of the CAA. Thus, the

serious nonattainment area

requirements due date is January 30,

2004. Since the serious area

requirements are not yet due, the SIP is

not deficient because the serious area

requirements have not been included.

EPA policy and a reasonable application

of sections 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 is no requirement in

section 107(d)(3)(E) that states must

"claim" (or demonstrate) that they

could not have submitted the serious

area SIP revisions or any additional

revisions at the time of the

redesignation requests, if those

requirements are not applicable to the

area when the request is made. EPA's

action to reclassify the area to a serious

nonattainment area was published 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

not yet 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 prior to redesignation (pages

12-13). (In response to comment 32,

EPA discusses how this requirement has

been met.) This requirement does not

expand the universe of requirements

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 and in a memorandum entitled

"State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after

November 15, 1992" dated September

17, 1993 (Shapiro memo), relating to

mechanisms for converting part D

measures into contingency measures is

25424

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

not relevant for purposes of this

redesignation.

Comment 7: The proposed rulemaking

suggests that a SIP meeting the serious

area requirements need not be fully

approved because such a plan is not yet

due. The CAA does not make an

exception for SIP revisions that have or

have not become due. In fact, the

serious area requirements have, as a

matter of law, become due. The plans

were due by June 14, 1998, and no later

than May 18, 2002, pursuant to previous

EPA and Court actions. The commenter

stated that the May 18, 2002, date was

set by EPA in a March 19, 2001,

rulemaking, and that the effect of a

decision by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit was to reinstate this

submission date.

Response 7: 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, and the serious area

requirements have not yet become due.

In making this determination, EPA is

not creating an "exception" to the

statutory requirements for approved

SIPs, but is determining that SIP

revisions which are not yet due are not

"applicable" for purposes of section

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). As stated in the

January 30, 2003, final rule at 68 FR

4838, on November 25, 2002, the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

vacated a June 26, 2001, rule extending

the St. Louis area's attainment date, and

remanded to EPA for "entry of a final

rule that reclassifies St Louis as a

serious nonattainment area effective

immediately * * *" (Sierra Club and

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)).

In response to the Court's order, and in

accordance with section 181(b)(2) of the

CAA, EPA reinstated the nonattainment

determination and reclassification

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 that the serious area

requirements should have been due by

June 14, 1998, this is based on an

argument made by the commenter in the

U.S. District Court and the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia that

the reclassification of the 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 of this

rulemaking as explained previously, but

it was rejected by both Courts (See,

Sierra Club v. 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 are not "applicable" with

respect to this redesignation because

they are not yet due is consistent with

the CAA, with the January 30, 2003,

final rule, with applicable EPA policy,

with relevant judicial decisions, and

with a long history of prior

redesignation actions.

Comment 8: There is no "fully

approved" or even a partially approved

SIP because the June 26, 2001, rule was

vacated by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit.

Response 8: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule

at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA

described the actions taken by EPA in

the June 26, 2001, rule which were

vacated by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit. Also, in the January 30,

2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4850

through 4856, EPA reproposed to

approve some requirements, 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 vacated by the

Court which are no longer applicable

include the contingency measure

requirements of section 172(c),

additional RACM requirements of

section 172(c)(1) and section 182(b), and

the attainment demonstration

requirements of section 182(b)(1). That

discussion is incorporated herein. See

also the discussion in section II.A

concerning the inapplicability of certain

requirements. In the June 26, 2001, rule,

EPA took the following relevant actions:

approved Missouri's and Illinois' 1-hour

ozone attainment demonstration; found

that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area met the RACM requirements of the

CAA; found that the contingency

measures identified by the states of

Illinois and Missouri are adequate;

approved the Illinois and Missouri

MVEBs; approved an exemption from

the oxides of nitrogen (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 of the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. EPA has

determined, for the reasons stated in

this rule and in the 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 as part of

Missouri's maintenance plan, and

approving MVEBs for 2014, for the

Missouri portion of the area. In a

separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register, EPA is approving revisions to

Missouri's I/M rule.

To be considered fully approved

pursuant to section 110(k), the SIP must

not have partial approval, disapproval,

or conditional approval of submittals.

EPA is not partially approving,

disapproving, nor conditionally

approving any of the SIP actions

contained in the June 26, 2001, rule

vacated by the Court. EPA is fully

approving the measures submitted by

Missouri which are applicable for

purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), and

is determining that the other

submissions are not applicable.

Therefore, the SIP is "fully approved"

for all applicable requirements.

Comment 9: EPA attempted to assert

that the Missouri and Illinois SIPs "can

be considered to be approved." This is

a "pseudo-approval" and an attempt by

EPA to escape the simple

straightforward statutory requirement to

have a fully approved SIP. This effort by

EPA fails because of the clear language

of the CAA, and because EPA must do

a rulemaking to approve the SIP. EPA is

also avoiding the requirement for

judicial review of its actions.

Response 9: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

25425

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

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area. The use of the phrase "can be

considered to be approved" (see the

January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR

4851, 4852) was merely a statement the

SIPs will meet the section 110

requirements and as such "can be

considered to be approved" if EPA were

to approve certain plan elements,

described in the proposed rulemakings.

On January 30, 2003, EPA published

two proposed rules found at 68 FR 4842

and 68 FR 4847. As part of these

proposals, EPA proposed to approve

revisions to Missouri's I/M rule. In

today's Federal Register, EPA is taking

final action approving Missouri's I/M

rule. By taking these actions, EPA now

concludes that Missouri's SIP is

approved. The use of the quoted phrase

was not intended to escape a statutory

requirement. In fact, it recognized EPA's

obligation to complete rulemakings in

order to approve SIPs, and it recognized

that EPA could not determine that the

SIP was fully approved until it took

final action to approve the remaining

SIP elements. All of the SIP elements

which are applicable to the St. Louis

area for purposes of redesignation have

either been approved in previous

rulemakings (see response to comments

6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 for a

discussion of these prior rulemakings)

or are approved in rulemakings

published today.

The proposed rule at 68 FR 4851

states that on November 25, 2002, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit (Court) issued a decision in

Sierra Club and Missouri Coalition for

the Environment v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853

(7th Cir. 2002). In this decision, the

Court vacated the June 26, 2001, rule

and remanded to EPA for entry of a final

rule that reclassifies St Louis as a

serious nonattainment area for ozone.

Although the Court's opinion addressed

only EPA's action extending the

attainment date for St. Louis, the Court's

order vacated the other EPA actions in

the rulemaking as well. EPA has

approved all SIP elements that are

applicable to the St. Louis area and is

determining that certain others are not

applicable. This is not a "pseudoapproval" of the SIP elements, but a

determination that because certain

requirements (e.g., the attainment

demonstration and RACM) are not

applicable, they need not be approved.

(See response to comment 8 for more

discussion of the 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 and judicial review. The

measures approved today (the

maintenance plan and contingency

measures, MVEBs, I/M program

revisions) have been subject to notice

and comment rulemaking and EPA's

action is subject to judicial review.

EPA's determination that certain

requirements are not applicable has

been subject to notice and comment

rulemaking and is subject to judicial

review. The public has had full

opportunity to comment on all of EPA's

actions, as evidenced by the numerous

comments submitted by the commenter.

Therefore, EPA has not avoided any

requirement for public 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 the redesignation. EPA has

already taken final action to approve all

required SIP elements or is approving

them in conjunction with this final

action on the 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 of SIP elements and

redesignation to occur simultaneously,

and EPA has frequently taken this

approach in its 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 of the

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 that the

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 of evaluating 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 of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit. EPA is 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 to the assertion that the area

must have an approved attainment

demonstration SIP in order to meet the

requirements of section 110, EPA has

addressed this issue in its response to

comments on the lack of an approved

attainment demonstration for the area.

Section 110(a)(1) does not add any

additional requirements for compliance

with the NAAQS other than those

included in section 172(c) and 182, and

the commenter does not identify 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 for Missouri was

proposed on February 22, 2002 (67 FR

8396), but has not yet been finalized.

For this reason alone, it is not an

applicable requirement. In addition, the

NOx SIP call requirements for a state are

not linked with a particular

nonattainment area's designation and

classification in that state. EPA believes

that the requirements linked with 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 of the designation of

any one particular area in the state.

Thus, we do not agree that the NOx

SIP call submission should be construed

to be an applicable requirement for

purposes of redesignation. 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 at (60 FR 62748, December

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65

FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the

25426

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

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399,

October 19, 2001).

Comment 11: The state SIPs fail to

meet the part D requirements of the

CAA. EPA asserts that certain

requirements of part D are not

applicable because monitoring data

shows the area has attained. EPA relies

on the case of Sierra Club v. 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 of the "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.

Response 11: Section II.A of this

document, discussing the rationale for

EPA's determination of attainment and

suspension of certain requirements,

addresses the applicability of the part D

requirements. The part D requirements

specifically include the requirements of

sections 172(c) and 176 as well as the

applicable requirements of subpart 2.

The section 172(c) requirements include

General Plan Requirements which to the

extent applicable, must provide for the

implementation of all RACM as

expeditiously as practicable (at a

minimum this requires RACT for

stationary source), RFP, emissions

inventory, identification and

quantification of allowable emissions

for major new or modified stationary

sources, permits for new and modified

major stationary sources, other emission

control measures needed to assure

attainment of the NAAQS, section

110(a)(2) requirements, and contingency

measures. Section 110(a)(2)

requirements include submittal of a SIP

that has been adopted by the state after

reasonable public notice and hearing;

provisions for establishment and

operation of appropriate apparatus,

methods, systems, and procedures

needed to monitor ambient air quality;

implementation of a source permit

program; provisions for the

implementation of part C requirements

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)); provisions for the

implementation of part D requirements

(nonattainment area NSR permit

programs); provisions for stationary

source emission control measures,

source monitoring, and source

reporting; provisions for air pollution

modeling; and provisions for public and

local agency participation in planning

and emission control rule development.

Subpart 2 requirements 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 the response to comment

8 above, the Missouri SIP meets all

applicable requirements including

section 110 and part D requirements. As

stated in the January 30, 2003, proposed

rule at 68 FR 4852 and 4853, EPA has

approved each state's RFP, permitting

programs, and VOC RACT rules as

meeting the requirements of part 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. EPA is approving in

this action Missouri's maintenance plan

which includes adequate contingency

measures. Thus, Missouri has met the

applicable part D requirements of the

CAA. Note that also as stated in the

response to comment 8, by finding that

the St. Louis area has attained the

standard, the attainment demonstration

and RACM requirements are no longer

applicable requirements. See also the

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) nor EPA

policy referenced by the commenter

requires modeling as a prerequisite to

redesignation of an ozone

nonattainment area. In addition, no

modeling was conducted as part of the

redesignation requests submitted by

Missouri or Illinois. Thus, there is no

modeling basis for EPA to make any

conclusions regarding the necessity for

the part D requirements. (Modeling is

not a required element of a

redesignation request. See, 65 FR

37879-Cincinnati redesignation for

additional discussion of this issue. See,

Wall v. 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 that the 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 that the Tenth Circuit Sierra

Club case is not applicable because it is

not a "redesignation" case, the

commenter misses the point of the case

as it relates to St. Louis. The Tenth

Circuit's endorsement of the

interpretation of the CAA in the Seitz

memo (that certain "statutory"

requirements relating to attainment are

not applicable to an area which has

attained the standard) was not

dependent on the fact that the area was

not being 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 as the area

continued to attain. The Court expressly

recognized that the area could be

redesignated without having met those

requirements, even though the action at

issue there was an attainment

determination and not a redesignation.

The Court stated: "Recall that the

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." (Sierra Club v. EPA, 99

F.3d 1551, 1558 (10th Cir. 1996)). (See

also, 66 FR 53095 for EPA's

redesignation of the Pittsburgh area.)

The Court did not say, as the 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 it did for the Utah

counties, in which EPA redesignated

those counties without requiring that

they meet the suspended requirements,

EPA is here determining that the St.

Louis area is attaining the standard and

that certain requirements are suspended

and do not apply because 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 and further

explained in this response to various

comments on the issue. The

determination is based on monitored

data, not modeling, for reasons

explained in this document. Nothing in

the Tenth Circuit case prohibits EPA

from simultaneously suspending the

requirements and redesignating an area,

which is what this rulemaking

accomplishes. EPA has taken this dual

action in a number 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 of section 172(c)(1)

need not be adopted because the area

has attained the NAAQS, thus, these

25427

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25427 2003
Federal 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 of the

CAA. EPA's assertion is not relevant

here.

Response 12: The April 16, 1992,

General Preamble (57 FR 13560) states

that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1)

such that the RACM requirements are a "component" of an 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 has been

consistent in this interpretation. See the

final rulemaking for Pittsburgh, 66 FR

53096 (October 19, 2001) for additional

discussion of this interpretation.

EPA believes that its 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 a NAAQS 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 the response to comments

8 and 9, SIPs must be "fully approved"

as required by section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii),

only with respect to the "applicable"

requirements of section 110 and part D,

as addressed in section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

If requirements are not "applicable"

with respect to those sections, they need

not be fully approved.

Comment 13: The RACM and RACT

requirements of the CAA are not tied to

reasonable further progress but are

required by the CAA to be implemented

as expeditiously as practicable. This is

supported by H.R. Rep. No. 101-490,

Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 223;

Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551, 1557

(10th Cir. 1996); Wall v. 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 of the

CAA.

Response 13: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the 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.,

section II 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) sets forth the

specific requirements for RFP for a

moderate nonattainment area which

includes a reduction in VOC emissions

of at 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 as practicable

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology and shall provide for

attainment of the 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 of VOCs covered

by Control Technology Guidelines

(CTGs) and all other major sources of

VOCs. 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, 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. at p. 223 does not tie RACM and

RACT measures to RFP. This document

is a recitation of the statute, but does not

address tying RACM and RACT to RFP.

With respect to the commenter's

contention that EPA's position regarding

additional RACM and RACT measures

was rejected in the Tenth Circuit Sierra

Club case and in Wall, the commenter

is incorrect. The Wall case involved

VOC RACT, which is not an issue here,

because, as discussed previously, and in

response to comment 14 below,

Missouri has adopted all applicable

VOC RACT measures. Missouri has also

adopted NOx 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 of RACM at all. The

commenter's Seventh Circuit brief,

which it relies on to support its position

that RACM requirements must be met

for an area to be redesignated, argued

that EPA's interpretation of the RACM

requirement (that section 172(c)(1)

requires only implementation of all

RACM which would expedite

attainment) is an improper reading of

the CAA. That issue was not addressed

or decided by the Seventh Circuit.

However, the issue of EPA's

interpretation of the RACM requirement

was raised and upheld in the 5th Circuit

(Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-

745 (5th Cir. 2002)) and the District of

Columbia Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA,

294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

Both circuits found that EPA's

interpretation that the statute only

required implementation of RACM

measures that would advance

attainment was reasonable.

Comment 14: The rulemaking should

identify each VOC RACT rule

implemented by the states and identify

whether the states have met the VOC

RACT requirements.

Response 14: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

The January 30, 2003, proposed rule

states at 68 FR 4855 that both states

have adopted and implemented all

required VOC RACT rules. In addition,

the proposed rule provided the

following web sites which contain the

content of these rules, and references to

EPA's rulemakings approving these

rules. The Web site for 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's rulemakings

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

10 CSR 10-5.220 Control of Petroleum

Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer,

37 FR 10842 (5/31/72)

10 CSR 10-5.295 Control of Emissions

From Aerospace Manufacturing and

Rework Facilities, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/

2000)

10 CSR 10-5.300 Control of Emissions

from Solvent Metal Cleaning, 45 FR

24140 (4/9/80) and 45 FR 56806 (7/

11/80) (correction)

10 CSR 10-5.310 Liquefied Cutback

Asphalt Paving Restricted, 45 FR

24140 (4/9/80) and 45 FR 46806 (7/

11/80) (correction)

10 CSR 10-5.320 Control of Emissions

from Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Installations, 46 FR 20172 (4/3/81)

10 CSR 10-5.330 Control of Emissions

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 of Emissions

from Rotogravure and Flexographic

Printing Facilities, 46 FR 20172 (4/3/

81)

10 CSR 10-5.350 Control of Emissions

from Manufacture of Synthesized

Pharmaceutical Products, 46 FR

20172 (4/3/81)

10 CSR 10-5.360 Control of Emissions

from Polyethylene Bag Sealing

Operations, 49 FR 40164 (10/15/84)

10 CSR 10-5.370 Control of Emissions

from the Application of Deadeners

and Adhesives, 55 FR 7712 (3/5/90)

10 CSR 10-5.390 Control of Emissions

from Manufacture of Paints,

Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels and

Other Allied Surface Coating

Products, 50 FR 14925 (4/16/85)

10 CSR 10-5.410 Control of Emissions

from the Manufacture of Polystyrene

Resin, 55 FR 7712 (3/5/90)

10 CSR 10-5.420 Control of Equipment

Leaks from Synthetic Organic

Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing

Plants, 53 FR 12417 (4/14/88)

10 CSR 10-5.440 Control of Emissions

from Bakery Ovens, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/

2000)

10 CSR 10-5.442 Control of Emissions

From Offset Lithographic Printing

Operations, 65 FR 8060 (2/17/00)

10 CSR 10-5.450 Control of VOC

Emissions from Traffic Coatings, 65

FR 8060 (2/17/00)

10 CSR 10-5.451 Control of Emissions

from Aluminum Foil Rolling, 65 FR

8060 (2/17/00)

10 CSR 10-5.455 Control of Emissions

from Solvent Cleanup 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 of Emissions

From Volatile Organic Liquid Storage,

65 FR 31489 (5/18/00)

10 CSR 10-5.520 Control of Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions From

Existing Major Sources, 65 FR 31489

(5/18/2000)

10 CSR 10-5.530 Control of Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions From

Wood Furniture Manufacturing

Operations, 65 FR 31489 (5/18/00)

10 CSR 10-5.540 Control of Emissions

From Batch Process Operations, 65 FR

31489 (5/18/00)

10 CSR 10-5.550 Control of Volatile

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 of each 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 and NOx

RACT rules. Thus, the SIP is not

approvable.

Response 15: Missouri has adopted

and EPA has approved into Missouri's

SIP a NOx RACT rule meeting the

requirements of section 182(f). The

Missouri NOx RACT rule can be found

at 10 CSR 10-5.510. See comment 13 for

further discussion on Missouri's NOx

RACT rule. As described in response to

previous comments, pursuant to the

Calcagni Memo page 3, and upheld in

the Wall case cited previously, an EPA

action on a redesignation request does

not mean that earlier issues with regard

to the SIP will be reopened. See also,

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th

Cir. 1998). Thus, EPA is not reopening

Missouri's NOx RACT rule as part of

this redesignation.

Missouri has adopted and EPA has

approved into the SIP a state-wide NOx

rule (10 CSR 10-6.350 Emissions

Limitations and Emissions Trading of

Oxides of Nitrogen, 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 of evaluating

Missouri's redesignation request.

EPA has determined that Missouri has

adopted all applicable NOx and NOx

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's response to comments included

in that rulemaking are incorporated

here.

The Federal rule at 40 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 of a SIP submittal

under Sections 182(a)(2)(B) or 182(b)(4)

if the submittal contains the following

elements: (1) Legal authority to

implement a basic I/M program (or

enhanced if the State chooses to opt up)

as required by this subpart. The

legislative authority for an I/M program

shall allow the adoption of

implementing regulations without

requiring further legislation. (2) A

request to place the I/M plan (if no I/M

program is currently in place or if an I/

M program has been terminated) or the

I/M upgrade (if the existing I/M program

is to continue without being upgraded)

into the contingency measures portion

of the maintenance plan upon

redesignation. (3) A contingency

measure consisting of a 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 of the

ozone or CO standard or other air

quality problem, in accordance with the

provisions of the maintenance plan. (4)

A contingency commitment that

includes an enforceable schedule for

adoption and implementation of the I/

M program, and appropriate milestones.

The schedule shall include the date for

submission of a SIP meeting all of the

requirements of this subpart. Schedule

milestones shall be listed in months

from the date EPA notifies the State that

it is in violation of the ozone or CO

standard or any earlier date specified in

the State plan. Unless the State, in

accordance with the provisions of the

maintenance plan, chooses not to

implement I/M, it must 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 EPA to approve the

maintenance plan. Regarding item (3)

above, section 7.1 of the 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 2003
Federal 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 of the I/

M program. Section 7.1 of the

maintenance plan sets for a schedule

with milestones for promulgation and

implementation of a program meeting

the requirements.

This meets the condition imposed by

the Federal rule at 40 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 EPA is 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/M program 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. Comments Related to Criterion 3: The

Improvement in Air Quality Must Be

Due to Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

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.

Response 17: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the 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/M rule 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 have been approved or

implemented. The requirement is that

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 of the air quality

improvements in St. Louis and their

relation to the permanent and

enforceable control measures which are

in place in the area. (See response to

comment 19 for further discussion.)

These measures are listed in the

proposal at 68 FR 4856-4858. These

measures are all part of the applicable

SIP. Thus, the commenter is incorrect in

its assertion that there is no applicable

SIP.

Comment 18: It is 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 that the estimated number

of exceedances per year averaged over

three years is 1.0 or less at all

monitoring sites in the area. EPA

believes that any voluntary measures

taken by industry and others over a twoor three-day period in this three-year

time period does not render the air

quality monitoring data

unrepresentative of the 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- or three-day period, EPA has 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, on how many

people decide to drive on a given day

or weekend.) However, the state's

demonstration that air quality

improvements are due to permanent and

enforceable emission reductions is

based on its analysis of emission

reductions over a ten-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.

at times when ozone formation is

expected to be 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 has been

presented. Without modeling, EPA's

claim is pure 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

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

EPA's response to this and other

comments on the attainment

demonstration modeling is included in

the response to comments 21 and 24. In

addition, see the response to comment

23 for further discussion regarding the

use of modeling in demonstrating

maintenance of the NAAQS.

Neither Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) nor

the Calcagni memo referenced by the

commenter require modeling as a

prerequisite to redesignation of an

ozone nonattainment area. Thus,

modeling is not required to demonstrate

that the improvement in air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions. See General Preamble for

the Interpretation of Title I of the CAA

Amendments of 1990 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 of the 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 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 guidance provides that an

area may meet this requirement by

showing how its ozone precursor

emissions changed due to permanent

and enforceable emissions reductions

from when the area was not monitoring

attainment of the 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 Wall v.

EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435).

In the January 30, 2003, proposed rule

at 68 FR 4856-4858, EPA explained the

basis for concluding that the observed

air quality improvements are due to the

implementation of permanent and

enforceable emission reductions. The

reasons include, analysis of the

emission controls which have resulted

in emission reductions, an analysis of

meteorological conditions showing a

trend toward the reduction of ozone

concentrations while the number of

days conducive to forming ozone

showed no significant trend, and an

assessment of emissions in 1990 and

2000 which have shown a substantial

decrease in emissions of VOCs 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, and little or no

precipitation) have shown no noticeable

trend up or down, only yearly

variations. The number of conducive

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

of 11 in the three-year period of 2000 to

2002. In addition, year-to-year

fluctuation of conducive 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 of exceedances

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

and NOx emissions in the 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 and Illinois portions of the 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 of days conducive to ozone

formation shows that the observed

improvements in air quality are due to

the implementation of permanent 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 have brought many

areas across the country into attainment.

EPA has approved many ozone

redesignations showing decreases in

ozone precursor emissions resulting in

attainment of the ozone standard. See

redesignations for Pittsburgh (66 FR

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), South Bend-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), and Monterey Bay (62

FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most of the

areas that have been 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 to bring them back

into attainment.

Between 1990 and 2000, area-wide

VOC and NOx emissions in the St. Louis

area decreased by 37 percent and 25

percent, respectively. In Missouri, the

VOC and NOx emissions during this

time period decreased by 33 percent and

28 percent, respectively. (See the

rulemaking redesignating the Illinois

portion of the St. Louis area published

in today's Federal Register for NOx and

VOC reductions for the Metro-East area.)

These emissions reductions were due to

the implementation of Missouri's 15

percent rate-of-progress plan, including

its implementation of a centralized

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program and stationary

source controls. Additional reductions

25431

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

were due to tighter 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 of NOx 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 of ozone precursor

reductions occurred. In other

metropolitan areas, other levels of VOC

and NOx reductions have also resulted

in attainment. See the areas listed above

in first part of this 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 of ozone.

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 of the 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

of meteorological conditions showed no

significant trend in the number of days

conducive to ozone formation, and the

commenter has presented no evidence

that the three-year attainment period

was unusually favorable. It is 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. See the

Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879,

37886-37889, June 19, 2000) and the

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 53094,

October 19, 2001) for additional

discussion of this issue.

Comment 20: If improvements in St.

Louis air quality were due to permanent

and enforceable reductions, the trend in

monitored concentrations would be to

go down. However, exceedances tripled

from 2000 to 2001 and more than

doubled from 2001 to 2002.

Response 20: As stated in response to

comment 2 above, a violation of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the

estimated number of exceedances per

year averaged over three years is greater

than 1.0 at any monitoring site in 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 as between 2001 and

2002, year-to-year trends in exceedances

are not used to determine attainment,

but rather an average over three years is

used. For reasons stated previously,

EPA has determined that the St. Louis

area is in attainment with the NAAQS.

As indicated in the January 30, 2003,

proposal at 68 FR 4850, Table 1

Summarizes the number of expected

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 city and state mated

2000 2001 2002 exceedances

2000-2002

Jerseyville ........................................................... Je rsey, IL ........ ............................. 0 .0 1.0 1.0 0 .7

A lto n .................................................................... M a d iso n , IL ................ . ....................... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

M aryville .............................................................. M ad ison , IL .................. ......... .................. 0 .0 0 .0 1.0 0 .3

Edw ardsville ........................................................ M adison, IL ..................... .................. ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0

W ood R iver ......................................................... M adison, IL ....................... ............................. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0 .3

H o usto n ............................................................... R ando lph, IL .................... ................. ........... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

E ast S t. Lo uis ..................................................... S t. C la ir, IL ....................... .................... ......... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

A rnold .................................................................. Jeffe rson , M O ................... ................ ........... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

W e st A lto n .......................................................... S t. C ha rle s, M O ............................ . .................. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 .0

O rchard Farm ..................................................... St. C harles, M O ............................ . .................. 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 .7

Bonne T erre ........................................................ St. G enevieve , M O ............................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0

S o uth Lindberg h ................................................. S t. Lo uis, M O ............................ .. .................... 0 .0 0 .0 2 .0 0 .7

Q ue e n y ............................................................... S t. Lo u is , M O ..................................................... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

H unte r ................................................................. S t. Lo uis, M O ..................... ........................... . 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

Flo V alley ............................................................ S t. Lo uis, M O ...................... ........................... . 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

St. A nn (old) ........................................................ St. Louis, M O ...................... ........................... . 0.0 n/a n/a 1 0.0

St. A nn (new ) ...................................................... St. Louis, M O ......................... ........................... n/a 0.0 0.0 1 n/a

B roadw ay ............................................................ St. Louis C ity, M O ........................ .................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0

C la rk .................................................................... S t. Lo uis C ity, M O ........................ ..................... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

M argaretta ........................................................... S t. Lo uis C ity, 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. In addition, 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 of ozone. In addition, the CAA

the three-year period from 2000-2002. does not presume that the area will

This demonstrates that the current level always be in attainment. The CAA

of emissions is adequate to keep the area provides that if the area were to violate

in attainment during weather conditions the 1-hour ozone standard, then the

as in past years associated with higher contingency measures in the

maintenance plan would be triggered.

This would reduce the ozone precursor

emissions and bring the area back into

attainment.

One exceedance in the area was

monitored in 2000, three in 2001, and

25432

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25432 2003
Federal 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 of exceedances

will result in the number of exceedances

being at least doubled. In other words,

when dealing with a number as small as

one, any increase will be at least double

that value. Thus, citing a doubling or

tripling of exceedances is not

necessarily an indicator of significant

changes in air quality.

The one-hour ozone NAAQS is based

upon a three-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 a three-year

period without causing a violation of

the standard. The fourth highest

monitored level at a monitor over a

three-year period can be used as an

indicator of potential violations of the

NAAQS. (Note that since other factors,

such as missing data, can affect the

calculation of the estimated number of

exceedances, 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 of how the number of

estimated 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 of the 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 that the monitored ozone

concentrations are generally lowering

and the air quality is improving.

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 (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 that the observed air

quality improvements are due to the

implementation of permanent 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 trend in the reduction of ozone

from 1989 to the present while the

number of days conducive to forming

ozone showed no significant trend, and

an assessment of emissions in 1990 and

2000 which have shown substantial

decreases in emissions of VOCs and

NOx.

Finally, it is noted that the commenter

errs in combining the exceedance data

from many monitors and concluding, on

the basis of the exceedance totals that a

worsening ozone trend has occurred.

Referring to Table 1 in 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 at the Orchard Farm and South

Lindbergh monitoring sites, although

implying a worsening ozone trend,

simply point to the instability of

considering year-to-year changes within

a small time period.

Comment 21: The only modeling

which the commenter is aware of was

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 for the monitored

improvements in air quality.

Response 21: Previous modeling

referred to by the commenter was

conducted as part of the attainment

demonstration approved by EPA in the

June 26, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR

33995). (This approval was vacated by

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit, as explained

previously.) This modeling

demonstrated that utilizing 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 of the modeling was

to determine the likelihood of

attainment. EPA's approval of the states'

attainment demonstrations did not

include a determination that attainment

or maintenance of the 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

that the states incorporated corrections

to the 1996 base year emissions

inventory, an assessment of the model's

performance by applying statistical

tests, and assumptions regarding which

states are affected by the 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 of the model was performed

as a measure of the "likelihood" that the

standard will be achieved. The June 26,

2001, rulemaking at 66 FR 17652 states:

The states conclude, and EPA concurs, that

the revised modeling system performs at an

acceptable level because it satisfactorily

reproduces peak ozone concentrations

relative to the monitored 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 days with marginal ozone levels and days with elevated ozone

concentrations. Therefore, based on the

revised modeling and WOE results presented

by the states which confirm the adequacy of

the adopted emission control strategy, EPA is

approving the states' attainment

demonstrations.

The conclusions made regarding the

likelihood of attainment based upon the

attainment demonstration modeling

were the best that could be drawn from

the available information. And, it is

likely that different conclusions

regarding attainment would be drawn if

the states were required to conduct

modeling as part of the maintenance

demonstration. For example, if a

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)

rather than the 1996 base-year inventory

used in the attainment demonstration

modeling. It is highly likely, if not

certain, that the 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 on future ozone

levels. Thus, it is not uncommon to

observe that actual monitored ozone

concentrations are different from

25433

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25433 2003
Federal 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 by the 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 the response to comments

19 and 20 above, the states

demonstrated that improvements in air

quality are due to permanent and

enforceable emission controls which

have resulted in emission reductions, an

analysis of meteorological conditions

which has shown no significant

decrease in the annual number of days

conducive to ozone formation, while

there has been a significant reduction in

monitored ozone concentrations, and an

assessment of emissions in 1990 and

2000 which has shown decreased

emissions of VOCs and NOx. Thus, the

states have demonstrated the

improvements in the St. Louis area are

due to permanent enforceable

reductions in the St. Louis area.

E. Comments Related to Criterion 4: The

Area Must Have a Fully Approved

Maintenance Plan Meeting the

Requirements of Section 175A

Comment 22: Section 175A(a) of the

CAA requires that state maintenance

plans must be SIP revisions. Section

110(a)(2)(A) of the 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 yet been promulgated.

Response 22: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the 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 and to have met all

of the applicable requirements of the

CAA. The area's SIP satisfies these

requirements as described in this final

rule and in EPA's proposed rulemaking

published on January 30, 2003 (68 FR

4847). The measures that the states are

relying on to maintain the 1-hour ozone

standard have been approved into the

SIPs and are state and Federally

enforceable. This includes Missouri's

NOx RACT rule found at 10 CSR 10-

5.510 and the statewide NOx rule found

at 10 CSR 10-6.350. (See response 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 of enforcement for a maintenance

plan as a prerequisite to redesignation.

The enforcement program approved for

and applicable to the SIPs as a whole

also applies to the maintenance plan.

See discussion in the Cincinnati

redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37881-

37882), and the Sixth Circuit decision in

Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d at 438,

upholding EPA's interpretation of the

requirement. As explained below in the

response to comment 26, Missouri has

committed to continue to implement the

measures included in the approved SIP

and relied on for maintenance of the

standard.

All of the control measures which the

states relied upon are SIP-approved

measures. EPA cannot withhold its

approval of the maintenance plan

submitted by the states because of

concerns that the states may, at some

future time, either submit a SIP revision

to amend or remove a program, or that

the states may fail to implement these

programs in the St. Louis area. The

Federally-approved SIP requirements

remain in place and enforceable until

such time as EPA takes action to

approve SIP revisions to amend or

remove them. This can only be done via

Federal rulemaking, which includes

procedures for public comment and

review.

Comment 23: 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

sense by proposing to predict

maintenance for ten years without any

modeling. Monitoring is more accurate

to show past concentrations, but

modeling is required to predict future

concentrations. The commenter cites

Oberv. U.S.E.P.A., 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir.

1996) in support of its assertion.

Response 23: EPA disagrees with the

commenter's assertion that the use of

photochemical modeling to demonstrate

maintenance is required by the CAA,

EPA policy or EPA regulations. The EPA

is not overruling Congress, or EPA

regulations.

Section 175A requires states to

develop and submit, as a SIP revision,

a plan for maintaining the NAAQS for

at least 10 years after redesignation. The

plan shall contain such additional

measures, if any, 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 all reasonable steps to

coordinate, substantively and

procedurally, the revisions and

implementation of State implementation

plans applicable to the nonattainment

area concerned; and (B) use

photochemical grid modeling or any

other analytical method determined by

the Administrator, in his discretion, to

be at least 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 if the 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 of the

NAAQS by either showing that future

emissions of a pollutant or its

precursors will not exceed the level of

the attainment inventory, or by

modeling to show that the future mix of

sources and emission rates will not

cause a violation of the NAAQS." By

this policy, EPA has, in effect, expressed

how its discretion will be utilized

regarding the use of emissions in lieu of

modeling in 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 that the future

emissions of a pollutant's precursors

will not exceed the level that allowed

the area to achieve attainment in the

first place." See also EPA's discussion

in its brief in the Wall case. The Ober

case cited by 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 at 40 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 of the NAAQS. The

regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(b) specify

25434

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25434 2003
Federal 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 that EPA'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 of a 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 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. Projected

emissions of VOCs in Illinois will be

reduced from 94.11 to 75.98 tons per

ozone season weekday from 2000 to

2014 and in Missouri, they will 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

on past trends of emissions 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.

Comment 24: EPA and the states have

stated in testimony provided to courts

and the public that maintenance of the

NAAQS in 2003 is not possible. EPA

and the states have stated that, due to

upwind emissions, attainment of the

NAAQS cannot be achieved until 2004.

EPA's modeling demonstrates that it is

not possible to assure that the NAAQS

would be maintained in 2003.

Response 24: The Commenter uses the

same arguments in this comment to

state that the attainment of the 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 that the modeling

demonstrated it was impossible to

maintain the standard in 2003. The

purpose of the modeling is to predict

the likelihood of attainment. EPA's

approval of the states' attainment

demonstrations did not include a

determination that attainment or

maintenance of the standard prior to

2004 was impossible.

The commenter refers to documents

submitted by EPA and the states, as well

as to language used in various

rulemakings stating, in effect, that

reductions in upwind emissions are

necessary for attainment of the 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 on the

attainment demonstration and the

accompanying modeling. The

statements made were the best

conclusions that could be drawn from

the available information.

The conclusion that the maintenance

plan will provide for maintenance of the

NAAQS for the next ten years as

required by section 175A is based, in

part, on more recent information than

what was relied upon in the attainment

demonstration which included the

modeling referred to by 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 data to 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 that the plan demonstrates

maintenance through 2014.

Comment 25: 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.

Response 25: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area. EPA disagrees with the commenter

that this action must include in the

record further evidence of resource

commitments. The analysis has already

been performed in prior rulemakings

and need not be reopened here. See the

redesignation of Cincinnati (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,

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th

Cir. 1998).

In a final rulemaking action published

on April 9, 1980 (45 FR 24146), EPA

approve Missouri's SIP as meeting the

financial and manpower resource

commitments of the CAA.

The Sixth Circuit in Wall v. EPA (265

F.3d 426, 437) determined regarding

resource and authority commitments for

enforcement that "there is no language

in the CAA or in 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

under the Calcagni Memorandum,

advising that 'an EPA action on a

redesignation request does not mean

that earlier issues with regard to the SIP

will be reopened,' an interpretation that

has been upheld by this 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 EPA noted that in proposing to

approve Missouri's I/M program, the

"the SIP includes a detailed budget plan

that describes the source of funds 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."

Comment 26: EPA policy 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 to EPA policy.

Response 26: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area. Missouri has a commitment on page

29 of the maintenance plan which states

"The department provides assurance

that all of the control measures adopted

by state rules and listed in the ROP plan

or this document will be enforced to

ensure maintenance of the one-hour

ozone NAAQS."

The commenter refers to the Calcagni

memo at page 10 which states that "the

25435

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25435 2003
Federal 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 shown to 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 that the states will

promptly correct any violation of the

standard which occurs after

redesignation of the area as an

attainment area. These provisions shall

include a requirement that the state will

implement "all measures with respect to

the control of the 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 D New Source Review

(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment" from Mary D. Nichols,

assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, EPA stated its interpretation

on the term "measures" used in section

175A does not include part D NSR

permitting programs. In accordance

with this interpretation, EPA believes

that lowest achievable emission rate

(LAER) and offsets, which are

components of Missouri'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 of the 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 LAER requirements

included in stationary source permits

and the 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 of Part C of Title I of the

CAA. (In Missouri, the LAER and offset

requirements remain in effect, unless

the NSR rules are revised by the state

and the 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 extent that it causes or

contributes air pollution in excess of the

NAAQS (Section 165). 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. Thus,

maintenance of the NAAQS is an

inherent feature of the PSD program,

should Missouri 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 of NOx

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 plan upon redesignation if

the State can adequately demonstrate

that such action will not interfere with

maintenance of the standard." As stated

above, for Missouri, all control measures

established prior to redesignation as a

result of the LAER and offset

requirements are being retained

following redesignation and NOx RACT

is being retained.

Comment 27: The contingency

provision of the maintenance plan fall

short of those required. All serious area

requirements of Section 182(c) of the

CAA must be included in the

contingency plan and implemented

promptly in case of a violation.

Virtually none of these provisions are

included in the contingency plan and

thus cannot be approved.

Response 27: EPA disagrees with the

commenter's assertion that all the

serious area requirements of section

182(c) are required to be included in the

contingency plan and implemented in

case of a violation.

The requirements for maintenance

plans and contingency measures are set

forth in section 175A(d). Section

175A(d) states:

Each plan revision submitted under this

section shall contain such contingency

provisions as the Administrator EPA deems

necessary to assure that the State will

promptly correct any violation of the

standard which occurs after the redesignation

of the area as an attainment area. Such

provisions shall include a requirement that

the State will implement all measures with

respect to the control of the air pollutant

concerned which were contained in the State

implementation plan for the area before

redesignation of the area as an attainment

area.

None of the 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 that the states "will promptly

correct any violation of the standard

which occurs after the redesignation of

the area as an attainment area." As

described in response to comment 28

below, EPA believes that this

requirement has been met. The statute

does not require that all serious area

requirements be included in the

maintenance plan as contingency

measures but 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

not be 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 this rulemaking. See, e.g.,

response to comment 17.

Comment 28:42 U.S.C. 7505a(d)

requires that the states will promptly

correct any violation of the standard

which occurs after redesignation.

However, there is nothing in either

contingency plan which assures prompt

correction of future 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 a violation. This is an

unreasonably long period. The plans

should require adoption in much less

than eighteen months and immediate

implementation.

Response 28: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

EPA disagrees that Missouri's

maintenance plan lacks adequate

contingency provisions should the 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 in the event

of future 1-hour ozone standard

violations, increasing ozone levels

threatening a subsequent violation of

the ozone standard, and unanticipated

25436

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25436 2003
Federal 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 of triggered actions

depending on whether the ozone

standard has actually been violated after

the redesignation of the area to

attainment or whether a subsequent

violation of the ozone standard is

threatened on the basis of increased

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) of the CAA.

The action trigger levels and planned

corrective actions in the contingency

plan are the following:

A Level I Trigger will be exceeded if:

(1) The monitored ambient ozone levels

exceed 124 parts per billion, 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), 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 5 percent 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

if adverse emissions trends are likely to

continue. If so, the states will determine

what and where emission controls may

be required to avoid a violation of the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be

completed within nine months of the

determination of the action trigger

exceedance.

A Level II Trigger will be exceeded if

a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

at any monitoring site in the St. Louis

ozone maintenance area is recorded

after the area is redesignated to

attainment of the standard. If this 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 of the ozone standard

violation.

The contingency plan for Missouri

lists a number of possible contingency

measures. The plan calls for the

appropriate contingency measures to be

adopted and implemented within 18

months of a Level I or Level II trigger

being exceeded. The list of possible

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 and Lowest

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

of section 175A, a State is not required

to have fully adopted contingency

measures that will take effect without

further action by 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 are triggered."

Thus, EPA has long interpreted section

175A not to require that contingency

measures have already been adopted.

On July 21, 1983 (48 FR 33265), EPA

approved Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-

1.010, General Organization which set

forth the organization, powers and

duties of the Missouri Air Conservation

Commission. The rule contained a new

section (3) which described procedures

to be followed by the Air Pollution

Control Program for providing public

notice and public 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 adopt regulations,

Missouri requires time to evaluate

potential controls and provide public

notice and public participation in the

rulemaking process when adopting

contingency measures. In addition,

selected controls would require a period

of time for sources to install the controls

(e.g., RACT on smaller sources) or for 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 of measures is

unreasonable. The statute affords EPA

discretion to determine whether the

timeframe for implementation of

contingency measures is reasonable.

EPA finds that 18 months as described

in the maintenance plan to adopt and

implement contingency measures is a

reasonable time period for Missouri to

meet its regulatory obligations while

meeting the requirement under section

175A to promptly correct any violation

of the standard. In addition, this 18-

month period to adopt and implement

contingency measures is consistent with

other redesignations such as Pittsburgh

(66 FR 53102) in which 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 of contingency

measures, and Northern Kentucky

(Cincinnati-Hamilton) (65 FR 37879,

June 19, 2000) and (67 FR 49600, July

31, 2002).

Comment 29: Neither maintenance

plan provides any procedure for

quantifying the reductions needed to

correct violations.

Response 29: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

As indicated in the response to

comment 28 above, the maintenance

plan refers to a violation of the NAAQS

as a level II trigger. In the event of a

violation, Illinois and Missouri have

committed to work together to conduct

a thorough analysis to determine

appropriate measures to address the

cause of the ozone standard violation. It

is impossible for a state to determine,

before a violation, what reductions are

necessary to correct a violation. For

example, if Missouri would select

tightening RACT for existing sources as

a contingency measure, the amount of

reductions by implementing this

measure is dependent upon the number

of sources subject to RACT rules in the

25437

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

area at the time of the violation. Since

the state has no control over when a

source ceases operating, it is impossible

to determine, at this time, how many

sources will be affected by a tightening

of RACT which may be implemented at

some unspecified time in the future.

Thus it is impossible to determine

beforehand how much of a 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 is to conduct a

thorough analysis to determine the

magnitude of the reductions needed to

correct the violation, the types of

sources from which reductions must be

made (e.g., point, area, or mobile

sources), and the mechanisms for

achieving the reductions. The list of

contingency measures includes a

reasonable mix of measures from which

to select the measures most suited to

address a future violation (a level II

trigger), if one occurs, or to alleviate an

unanticipated decline in air quality (a

level I trigger). EPA finds that this is a

reasonable approach which will assure

prompt correction of the violation. In

addition, consistent with the Calcagni

memo, the maintenance plan includes a

Level I trigger in which Missouri will

evaluate and determine if adverse

emissions trends are likely to continue.

If so, Missouri will determine what and

where emission controls may be

required to avoid a violation of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS.

Comment 30: 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 is included.

Response 30: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's

assertion that the 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 a violation.

In addition, in response to comment

28 above, EPA identified the list of

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 of a

violation (a level II trigger) or a decline

in air quality (a level I trigger). EPA has

concluded that the maintenance plan

satisfies statutory requirements and EPA

guidance regarding adoption and

implementation of contingency

measures consistent with EPA guidance

and the CAA. The commenter

acknowledges this 18-month time

period to adopt and implement

contingency measures in the comments.

Comment 31: Each maintenance plan

contains inadequate provisions to

respond to anticipated violations of the

NAAQS. Anticipated violations are

based upon inventories exceeding the

2000 inventory or two exceedances at

any monitoring site. There is no

commitment to adopt any additional

controls to address anticipated

violations.

Response 31: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

As indicated above, a Level 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), or more 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 5 percent above the

2000 attainment levels. In the event one

of these action trigger levels is

exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will

work together to evaluate the situation

and determine if adverse emissions

trends are likely to continue. If so, the

states will determine what and where

emission controls may be required to

avoid a violation of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. The emission controls will be

selected from a list of measures

included in the contingency plan. A

study shall be completed within nine

months of the determination of the

action trigger exceedance, and

Missouri's maintenance plan contains a

commitment to adopt and implement

the necessary contingency measures

within 18 months of a Level I trigger

consistent with the discretion afforded

EPA by the statute. The contingency

plan meets the requirement of section

175A(d) and the applicable guidance in

the Calcagni memo.

Comment 32: The maintenance plans

contain no commitment to implement

measures in the SIP. EPA cannot

approve the maintenance plan without

this commitment.

Response 32: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the 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 of the control

measures adopted by state rules and

listed in the ROP plan or this document

will be enforced to ensure maintenance

of the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Any

revisions to the control measures

included as part of the maintenance

plan will be submitted as a SIP revision

to EPA for approval." As described in

response to comment 28, Missouri is

retaining all of the measures contained

in its SIP prior to redesignation.

Comment 33: The maintenance plans

do not address expected growth in areas

adjacent to the nonattainment area such

as Ste. Genevieve County. An

assessment of this growth should be

included. Also, the plan is based on the

"irrational assumption" that "if there is

no increase in emissions, and no

decrease in controls, the standard will

be maintained."

Response 33: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

The commenter's characterization of

the "basic premise" of the maintenance

plan is incorrect. The plan does not

simplistically assume that there will be

no increase in emissions. The plan

carefully projects the growth in

emissions which will occur in various

source sectors, and the reductions

which will occur based on emission

25438

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25438 2003
Federal 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

of predicting 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 of new sources

and modifications of existing sources

both inside and outside the boundaries

of the nonattainment area. They are

designed to prevent 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 such project 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 of the Federallyapproved SIP.

EPA believes that it 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 of the

ozone standard.

Comment 34: The emission estimates

are unreliable. A recent study of flares

throws doubt into the St. Louis emission

inventory. EPA must consider the

significant underestimation of flare

emissions in the emission inventory.

Response 34: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

EPA believes that the states used the

appropriate emission estimates in

developing the emission inventory. The

commenter cites a study of emissions

from flares reported by the Bay Area

Management District which the

commenter alleges shows that the states

greatly underestimated emissions from

flares. EPA does not agree that the study

cited by 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 or quote." This

document is currently undergoing

scientific review. Therefore, no

conclusions or comparisons should be

drawn from this study until it becomes

final. This study specifically addresses

refinery flare emissions. However, no

refineries are located in the Missouri

side of the non-attainment area. Further

review of the 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 of this

pollutant could significantly alter the

preliminary findings. The study targets

the control efficiencies of the flares and

states that "efficiency drops

approximately by the cube of the 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 on flare

control efficiencies during the periods

of concern. Lastly, NOx and VOC

emissions from all flares constitute less

than one-tenth of one percent of the

total inventory for the Missouri side of

the St. Louis area. Therefore, any

potential changes in calculation

methodology from this source category,

even if changes were warranted based

on this draft study, would still likely

produce an insignificant change to the

total inventory.

Comment 35: Missouri states that it

operates an enhanced I/M program but

this has never been authorized by the

Missouri legislature.

Response 35: 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 of the national ambient air

quality standard. That authority is

codified in the Missouri Revised

Statutes, Sections 643.300-643.355.

Missouri's I/M program has

incorporated most of the features of an

enhanced program, described in our

2000 rulemakings (65 FR 8097, February

17, 2000 and 65 FR 31480, May 18,

2000).

The I/M program operated in the St.

Louis, Missouri, area is known as the

Gateway Clean Air Program. The

Gateway Clean Air Program utilizes

transient emission testing, the IM240

test, at centralized testing stations.

These features are commonly thought of

as being associated with an "enhanced"

I/M program, as compared with

decentralized, idle test programs. The

IM240 test measures the vehicle under

various operating conditions, measures

NOx, and makes these measurements in

terms of grams per mile, all of which the

idle test cannot. Additionally, the

Gateway Clean Air 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/M program.

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), and the

commenter does not provide any

information indicating that the assumed

reductions are not appropriate.

Comment 36: The emission inventory

submitted by Missouri is not an

inventory of emissions during the

attainment period but is projected

emissions drawn from Missouri's old

attainment demonstration. EPA cannot

conclude that keeping emissions no

higher than these projected inventory

amounts will ensure maintenance of the

NAAQS.

Response 36: Missouri did not use the

same inventories in the attainment

demonstration as was used in 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 of demonstrating

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Both point and area source inventories

were grown from 1999 emission

inventories. To demonstrate

maintenance of the ozone standard

through a ten-year maintenance period,

Missouri projected VOC and NOx

emissions for the St. Louis area to 2007

25439

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25439 2003
Federal 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

at 65 FR 20411 for the attainment

demonstration, EPA noted that "The

state submittals describe in detail the

procedures used to develop, and then

project, the base 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 of the NAAQS. 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 that the

future emissions of a pollutant's

precursors will not exceed the level that

allowed the area to achieve attainment

in the first place."

Comment 37: Neither maintenance

plan provides a technical analysis

demonstrating that maintenance of the

2000 emission levels will assure

maintenance of the NAAQS. Such a

demonstration requires photochemical

grid modeling.

Response 37: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the 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 of Appeals

for 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 that the

future emissions of a pollutant's

precursors will not exceed the level that

allowed the area to achieve attainment

in the first place."

Missouri's maintenance plan includes

a technical analysis as described in the

response to comment 28 above that

demonstrates maintenance of the

NAAQS, based on a comparison of base

year (attainment year) and projected

VOC and NOx emissions. This analysis

meets the requirements of the CAA, is

consistent with EPA guidance, and

demonstrates maintenance of the

NAAQS.

Comment 38: The maintenance plan

must include RACM and RACT, for the

reasons stated in comment 13 above.

Response 38: EPA incorporates its

response to comment 13 in response to

this comment.

F. Comments Related to Criterion 5: The

Area Must Have Met All Applicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D

Comment 39: Neither state has met all

the requirements applicable to the area.

The serious area requirements of section

182(c) are applicable but none of these

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 and paragraphs 7, 8, and 10

of section 182(c).

Response 39: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

As stated in the response to comments

6 through 11 above, the SIPs meet the

applicable requirements and the serious

area requirements are not applicable for

purposes of this redesignation. States

requesting redesignation to attainment

must meet the relevant CAA

requirements that come due prior 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 of a

complete redesignation request. Upon

completion of today's actions, the SIP is

fully approved for all applicable

regulations. SIP revisions addressing the

serious area requirements were required

to be submitted by January 30, 2004.

Section 182(c) paragraphs 7 and 8

refer to special rules for modifications of

major sources while paragraph 10 refers

to 1.2 to 1 offset requirements for

serious nonattainment areas. Missouri

rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 defines the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area as

a moderate ozone nonattainment area. A

SIP revision would be required to

redefine the Missouri portion of the St.

Louis area to a serious nonattainment

area. As stated in response to comment

7, EPA established a future date for

submission of the serious area

requirements, including section

182(c)(7),(8), and (10), and the

requirements are not now applicable for

purposes of this redesignation.

G. Comments Related to

Implementation of Contingency

Measures

Comment 40: One commenter

requested that in the final rule, EPA

expressly state that in the event of a

future violation of the NAAQS, Illinois

and Missouri will not necessarily be

required to evaluate any particular

contingency measure nor be required to

submit further attainment

demonstrations.

Response 40: As stated above, the

contingency plan portion of each state's

maintenance plans delineate the states'

planned actions in the event of future 1-

hour ozone standard violations,

increasing ozone levels threatening a

subsequent violation of the ozone

standard, and unanticipated increases in

ozone precursor emissions threatening a

subsequent violation of the ozone

standard. In the event of a level I trigger,

Illinois and Missouri will work together

to evaluate the situation and determine

if adverse emissions trends are likely to

continue. If so, the states will determine

what and where emission controls may

be required to avoid a violation of the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be

completed within nine months of the

determination of the action trigger

exceedance. In the event of a 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. Comments Related to Redesignation

of a Portion of the St. Louis Area

Comment 41: 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

should proceed with the redesignation

for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis

area.

Response 41: In today's Federal

Register, EPA is approving Missouri's

revised I/M rule. In addition, as

explained above, EPA is finalizing its

actions on the Missouri and Illinois

25440

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

redesignation requests in separate

rulemakings.

L Comments Related to Interstate

Transport

Comment 42: EPA must 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.

Response 42: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby

providing a response regarding the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

See the rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Illinois portion of the St.

Louis area.

As stated above, EPA believes that

submissions under the NOx SIP call

should not be considered applicable

requirements for purposes of evaluating

a redesignation 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 the relevant

measures to evaluate in reviewing a

redesignation request. The NOx SIP call

submittal requirements continue to

apply to a state regardless of the

designation of any one particular area in

the state.

Thus, we do not believe that the NOx

SIP call submission should be construed

to be an applicable requirement for

purposes of redesignation. 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). See also the discussion on this

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65

FR 37890, June 19, 2000).

Missouri has adopted and EPA has

approved into the SIP a state-wide NOx

rule (10 CSR 10-6.350 Emissions

Limitations and Emissions Trading of

Oxides of Nitrogen (65 FR 82285,

December 28, 2000). This rule will

remain as a SIP requirement following

redesignation of the area to attainment.

EPA is also determining in a separate

rulemaking (proposed at 67 FR 8396)

whether or not the eastern part of

Missouri is to be subject to the NOx SIP

call in response to a court remand.

Comment 43: The expected NOx

emission control programs and emission

reductions for the St. Louis area should

not be jeopardized due to the absence of

continued federal enforceability of the

SIPs.

Response 43: The SIPSs will remain

Federally enforceable following

redesignation of the St. Louis area to

attainment. In addition, all of the 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

of the CAA and be approved by EPA.

Comment 44: The redesignation of the

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.

Response 44: The St. Louis

redesignation to attainment will not

delay EPA's decision as to whether or

not the eastern portion of Missouri 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 that the

proposed changes will not adversely

affect the maintenance of the 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 is not subject to review by the

Office of Management 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 and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 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 or uniquely 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 will not 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 and Indian 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 of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, 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 of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule 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 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 CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the 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 of the 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 a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

25441

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25441 2003
Federal 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 of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 11, 2003. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule for the purposes of

judicial review nor does it extend the

time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Ozone, Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 29, 2003.

William W. Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

* Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 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 at the end of the table

to read as follows:

§52.1320 Identification of 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 et seq. is amended by revising the entry for St.

* 2. In § 81.326 the table entitled Louis Area to read as follows:

m 1. The authority citation for part 81 "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 Attainm ent.

Jefferson County ......................................... 5/12/03 Attainm ent.

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

St. Louis ....................................................... 5/12/03 A ttainm ent.

St. Louis County .......................................... 5/12/03 Attainm ent.

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

[IL 216-2;FRL-7496-4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans, and Designation

of Areas for Air 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 attained the one-hour ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). The St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area includes the

Counties of Madison, Monroe, and St.

Clair in Illinois and the Counties of

Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.

25442

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

Louis and St. Louis City in Missouri.

Based on the determination of

attainment, EPA has also determined, in

today's separate rule, that certain ozone

attainment demonstration requirements

along with certain other ozone planning

requirements of part D of title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) are not

applicable for the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area.

The EPA is approving a request from

the State of Illinois, submitted on

December 26, 2002, to redesignate the

Metro-East St. Louis area (Madison,

Monroe, and St. Clair Counties, Illinois)

(the Illinois portion of the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area) to attainment

of the 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 of Nitrogen (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 of Missouri.

The EPA is approving an exemption

from certain NOx emission control

requirements, as provided for in section

182(f) of the 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, all NOx

emission controls previously adopted by

the State must continue to be

implemented.

DATES: For good cause as explained

below, this rule is effective May 12,

2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this rule are available for

inspection at the offices of the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make 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 of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

II. What Actions Are We Taking and When

Are They Effective?

III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?

IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

V. What Comments Did We Receive and

What Are Our Responses?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This

Rule?

On January 30, 2003, EPA published

a final 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

(the January 30, 2003 final rule), 68 FR

4836, reinstated and made effective

EPA's prior finding that the St. Louis

nonattainment area failed to attain the

one-hour ozone NAAQS (one-hour

ozone standard) by November 15, 1996

(based on 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 SIP revisions for Illinois

and Missouri to meet the CAA

requirements for a serious 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 a table entry.

In a January 30, 2003 proposed rule,

68 FR 4847 (the January 30, 2003

proposed rule), EPA proposed to

determine that the St. Louis area has

attained the one-hour ozone standard

(clean air determination) based on

complete, quality-assured ozone

monitoring data for the period of 2000

through 2002. In addition, in the same

proposed rule, EPA proposed to: (a)

approve the requests from the States of

Missouri and Illinois to redesignate the

St. Louis area to attainment of the onehour ozone NAAQS; (b) determine that

certain planning requirements of the

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 and NOx, as contained in the

States' maintenance plans, for

transportation conformity purposes.

In the proposed rule found at 68 FR

4842, EPA proposed to approve a

revision to the Missouri SIP for the

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program operating in the Missouri

portion of the St. Louis nonattainment

area.

This rule is EPA's final action on the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule as it

relates to the Illinois portion of the 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 it relates 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 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 of the nonattainment area.

However, EPA stated that it was

considering issuance of two separate

rules when it took final action on the

redesignation requests. We received no

comments on this aspect of the

proposal. With the exception of the

determination of attainment, EPA is

taking final action related to the

Missouri portion of the nonattainment

area, and is taking final action on the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis

nonattainment area in separate

rulemaking actions. Section 107(d)(3)(v)

provides, as a prerequisite 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

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 of its

SIP that are applicable to its territory.

Since each state has the authority only

to request redesignation for the portion

of the area within its boundaries, and

EPA evaluated each states' request for

redesignation separately, the final rules

redesignating each states' portion of the

nonattainment area are being published

separately. However, EPA has

concluded that in determining whether

or not a multistate area has attained the

standard based upon complete, qualityassured ambient air quality monitoring

data, EPA will consider the attainment

status of the area as a whole. Therefore,

25443

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

EPA's finding that the 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 of Redesignation of

Kentucky Portion of CincinnatiHamilton area) for additional discussion

of these issues.

The history for this action has been

set forth 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). On November 15,

1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 were enacted. Under section

107(d)(4)(A) of the 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 of the one-hour

ozone NAAQS during the 1987-1989

period. On January 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 of VOC 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 of specific 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 of ozone

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 NOx MVEBs for

transportation conformity purposes. The

January 30, 2003 proposed rule, in part,

addressed this State submittal.

II. What Actions Are We Taking?

Considering the comments on the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule, as

discussed below and in the separate

determination of attainment rule

published in today's Federal Register,

we conclude that it is appropriate to

finalize the actions proposed in the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule with

regard to the Metro-East St. Louis area.

A. Determination of Attainment

In a separate rule in today's Federal

Register, EPA has determined that the

St. Louis ozone nonattainment area,

consisting of both the Missouri and the

Illinois portions of the area, has attained

the one-hour ozone standard. See

section II.A of today's determination of

attainment rule for further discussion

regarding EPA's attainment

determination.

Also, in the separate rule in today's

Federal Register, EPA has determined

that certain attainment demonstration

requirements (section 172(c)(1) of the

Act) along with certain other related

requirements of part D of title I of the

Act, specifically the section 172(c)(9)

contingency measure requirement

(measures needed 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, are not

applicable to the St. Louis area. The

discussion contained in the separate

rule pertaining to the CAA requirements

which are no longer applicable to the St.

Louis area is hereby incorporated into

this rule.

B. Redesignation of the Metro-East St.

Louis Area to Attainment

Although EPA is determining that the

entire St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area has attained the one-hour ozone

standard, EPA has concluded that it is

appropriate to take final action related

to Illinois' request to redesignate the

Metro-East St. Louis area and to

Missouri's request to redesignate the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis

nonattainment area in separate

rulemaking actions published today. In

this rule, EPA is taking the following

actions with respect to the Metro-East

St. Louis area:

1. EPA is approving a request from the

State of Illinois to redesignate the

Metro-East St. Louis area to attainment

of the one-hour ozone NAAQS;

2. EPA is approving Illinois' plan for

maintaining the one-hour ozone

NAAQS through 2014, as a revision to

the Illinois SIP;

3. EPA is finding as adequate and

approving the 2014 MVEBs for VOC and

NOx in Illinois' ozone maintenance plan

for the purposes of transportation

conformity; and

4. EPA is approving an exemption

(waiver) from NOx RACT requirements

for the Metro-East St. Louis area.

C. Effective Date of These Actions

EPA finds that there is good cause for

this redesignation to attainment, SIP

revision, and exemption from NOx

RACT requirements to become effective

immediately upon publication because a

delayed effective date is unnecessary

due to the nature of a redesignation to

attainment which relieves the area from

certain Clean Air Act requirements that

would otherwise apply to it. The

immediate effective date for this action

is authorized under both 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1), which provides that

rulemaking actions may become

effective less than 30 days after

publication if the rule "grants or

recognizes an exemption or relieves a

restriction" and section 553(d)(3) which

allows an effective date less than 30

days after publication "as otherwise

provided by the agency for good cause

found and published with the rule". As

indicated above, in the January 30, 2003

final rule, EPA reclassified 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 of this rule, the State of Illinois will

be relieved of the obligation to develop

and submit these SIP revisions. In

addition, the Illinois rules adopted to

meet the requirements of title V of the

CAA, provide that in a "serious" area,

stationary sources with potential

emissions of VOC and NOx 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 V permit

applications within twelve months of

January 30, 2003. Upon the effective

date of this rule, stationary sources

which are newly subject to the title V

permitting program as a result of the

January 30, 2003 reclassification of the

St. Louis area to a serious

nonattainment area will be relieved of

the requirement to submit title V permit

applications to the State of Illinois. EPA

finds that good cause exists for this final

rule being immediately effective since it

relieves the State of Illinois as well as

stationary sources of certain

requirements established as a result 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 published in today's Federal

Register, that the St. Louis area has

attained the 1-hour ozone standard. In

25444

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25444 2003
Federal 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 of the CAA for

redesignation of an area from

nonattainment to attainment for ozone.

In addition, EPA believes that the State

of Illinois has demonstrated that the

area has attained, and that the criteria

for redesignation have been met.

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule

at 68 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 that the 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 that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the 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 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 of the Act.

EPA has determined that the St. Louis

area has attained the applicable

NAAQS. EPA has fully approved the

applicable implementation plan for the

Illinois portion of the 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 of the

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 of the area as meeting

the requirements of section 175A.

Illinois has met all requirements

applicable to the Metro-East St. Louis

area under section 110 and part D of the

Act.

By finding that the maintenance plan

provides for maintenance of the NAAQS

through 2014, EPA is hereby finding

adequate and approving the 2014 VOC

and NOx 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

stated in this rulemaking and the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule found at

68 FR 4847.

IV. What Are the Effects of These

Actions?

In a separate rule published in today's

Federal Register, EPA has determined

that the St. Louis area attained the 1-

hour ozone standard and that certain

attainment demonstration requirements

(section 172(c)(1) of the Act) along with

certain other related requirements of

part D of title I of the Act, specifically

the section 172(c)(9) contingency

measure requirement (measures needed

to mitigate a state's failure to achieve

reasonable further progress toward, and

attainment of, a NAAQS), 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 is likely to be

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour

ozone standard, and would be subject to

any additional requirements as a result

of such designation. EPA also notes that

it is not revoking the one-hour standard

for the St. Louis area.

Approval of the Illinois redesignation

request changes the official designation

for the one-hour ozone NAAQS found at

40 CFR part 81 for the Illinois portion

of the St. Louis area, including Madison,

Monroe, and St. Clair Counties, from

nonattainment to attainment. It also

incorporates into the Illinois SIP a plan

for maintaining the one-hour ozone

NAAQS through 2014. The plan

includes contingency measures to

remedy any future violations of the onehour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC

and NOx MVEBs for 2014 for the Illinois

portion of the 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 submit NOx RACT

regulations for applicable NOx

stationary sources. This also means that

the Illinois SIP can be judged to be

complete despite the lack of such

regulations in the Metro-East St. Louis

area.

V. What Comments Did We Receive and

What Are Our Responses?

We received 5 letters containing

comments regarding the January 30,

2003 proposed rule. Four of the letters

supported the proposed rulemaking

action. Two of the four letters in support

of the proposed rulemaking action

raised issues to which we are

responding in this section. One of the

five letters contained adverse comments

and opposed the proposed rulemaking

actions. A summary of the comments

and EPA's responses to them are

provided below. This discussion

addresses comments relating to the St.

Louis area as a whole and comments

specifically relating to the Illinois

portion of the area. Comments relating

specifically to the Missouri portion of

the area are addressed in a separate final

rule for Missouri also published today.

A. Comments Related to Meeting the

Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

Comment 1: The St. Louis area has

failed to meet any of the five criteria

specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

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, EPA has

found that the area has met all five of

the criteria specified in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for

redesignation to attainment. Below are

specific comments and responses raised

by the commenter regarding each

criterion. It should be noted that,

although the commenter generally

directed comments at issues for both

States, Illinois and Missouri, this final

rulemaking focuses on the Illinois

portion of St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. To that extent, most

responses given here focus on that

portion of the nonattainment area. For

our responses relative to the Missouri

portion of the area, please refer to the

separate final rulemakings for the State

of Missouri also published in today's

Federal Register.

B. Comments Related to Criterion 1: The

Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour

Ozone NAAQS

Comment 2: Monitoring data are not

representative of air 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.

Response 2: See the response to

comment 2 in the separate rule in

today's Federal Register regarding the

determination of attainment for the St.

Louis area. See also the responses to

comments 18 and 19 below.

Comment 3: Monitored data run

directly counter to air quality modeling.

25445

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25445 2003
Federal 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 other than the success of the

pollution control measures. In addition,

based on a 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 may be necessary to

determine the representativeness of the

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.

Response 3: See the response to

comment 3 in the separate rule in

today's Federal Register regarding the

determination of attainment for the St.

Louis area. See also the responses to

comments 19, 21, 23, and 24 below.

Comment 4: The monitored data do

not support a conclusion of continued

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, if the same number of ozone

standard exceedances that occurred in

2002 occur in 2003 or 2004, the area

will again violate the one-hour ozone

standard.

Response 4: See the response to

comment 4 in the separate rule in

today's Federal Register regarding the

determination of attainment for the St.

Louis area. See also the response to

comment 20 below.

Comment 5: 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 of the states'

quality-assurance plans. In addition, the

commenter questions whether the ozone

data relied on for the attainment

determination were quality-assured

since they were entered into AIRS faster

than usual.

Response 5: See the response to

comment 5 in the separate rule in

today's Federal Register regarding the

determination of attainment for the St.

Louis area. See also the response to

comment 2 in the separate rule

concerning EPA's actions taken to

insure the proper monitoring and

quality-assurance of ozone data.

C. Comments Related to Criterion 2: The

Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP

Under Section 11 O(k)

Comment 6: The serious area SIP

requirements of the 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 by EPA for reducing the

stringency of the control measures by

requiring them to become part of the

contingency plan. The states have not

done these procedures.

Response 6: The SIP, which is

required to be "fully approved" under

criterion 2, is the "applicable"

implementation plan (section

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). This section requires

that the SIP must be "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 that the "serious"

area requirements are applicable to its

consideration of the redesignation

request for the area. However, the Act is

not as prescriptive as the commenter

assumes. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d

426,438 (6th Cir. 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 a policy to

provide guidance in determining how to

apply the statutory criterion with

respect to this issue. As stated in the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR

4851), the Calcagni Memo describes

EPA's interpretation of the section

107(d)(3)(E) requirement. Under this

interpretation, states requesting

redesignation to attainment must meet

the relevant CAA requirements that

come due prior 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 of a 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 on January 30,

2004. Since these emission control

measures and plans are not yet due, the

Illinois SIP is not deficient. EPA policy

and a reasonable application of sections

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) allow for an area

to be redesignated without the area

adopting measures which are not yet

due. EPA has consistently applied this

policy and interpretation in other

redesignations, including the DetroitAnn Arbor redisgnation discussed at 60

FR 12465-12466.

In addition, there is no 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 of the 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 it established a deadline for

submission of the serious area

requirements which has not yet passed.

Thus, Illinois is not required to include

in its request a "claim" that the State

cannot complete the serious area

requirements.

Finally, the Calcagni Memo (pages

12-13) discusses the statutory

requirement that the State must

implement all measures included in its

SIP prior to redesignation. (In our

response to comment 26 below, we

discuss how this requirement has been

met.) This requirement does not expand

the universe of requirements 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 and Illinois, the

guidance in the Calcagni Memo relating

to mechanisms for converting part D

measures into contingency measures is

not applicable for the purposes of this

redesignation and assessment of Illinois'

ozone maintenance plan.

Comment 7: The January 30, 2003

proposed rule suggests that a SIP

meeting the serious area requirements

need not be fully approved because

such a plan is not yet due. The

commenter believes that the CAA does

not make an exception for SIP revisions

that have or have not become due. In

fact, the serious area requirements have,

as a matter of law, become due. The

plans were due by June 14, 1998, and no

later than May 18, 2002 pursuant to

previous EPA and Court actions. The

commenter stated that the May 18, 2002

date was set by EPA in a March 19, 2001

rulemaking, and that the effect of a

25446

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

decision by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit was to reinstate this

submission due date.

Response 7: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of

the Act requires that the applicable SIP

for the area must be fully approved

under section 110(k) of the Act as one

of the criteria for redesignation to

attainment. As discussed in comments 6

above and 8 below, the applicable SIP

for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis

area is fully approved, and the serious

area emission control measure and plan

requirements are not yet due. In making

this determination, EPA is not creating

an "exception" to the 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) of the Act (for purposes of assessing

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

a June 26, 2001 final rule extending the

St. Louis area's attainment date to

November 15, 2004, and remanded to

EPA for "entry of a final rule that

reclassifies St Louis as a serious

nonattainment area effective

immediately * * *" (Sierra Club and

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)).

In response to the Court's order, and in

accordance with section 181(b)(2) of the

Act, EPA reinstated the nonattainment

determination and reclassification

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 of this rule.

With respect to the commenter's

assertion that the serious area

requirements should have been due by

June 14, 1998, this is based on an

argument made by the commenter in the

U.S. District Court and in the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia that

the reclassification of the St. Louis area

to serious should have been made

retroactive to 1997, with the serious area

measures due in 1998. This argument is

not only outside of the scope of this

rulemaking as explained previously, but

it was also rejected by the Court. (See,

Sierra Club v. 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 to this redesignation is

consistent with the Act, with the

January 30, 2003 final rule, with

applicable EPA policy, and with

relevant judicial decisions.

Additionally, note that the decision

made by the Court on November 25,

2002 required the EPA to rulemake to

reclassify the St. Louis area to serious

nonattainment effective immediately on

the date of the rulemaking. The Court

did not order the EPA to reinstate the

reclassification with an effective date

contained in the March 19, 2001

rulemaking, and the Court did not order

the EPA to reinstate the May 18, 2002

State plan due date set forth in the

March 19, 2001 rulemaking.

Comment 8: There is no "fully

approved" or even partially approved

SIP because the June 26, 2001 rule was

vacated by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit.

Response 8: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. In this rule, EPA

is providing a response regarding only

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area.

See the separate rule in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule

at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA

described the actions taken by EPA in

the June 26, 2001 rule which were

vacated by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit. Also, in the January 30,

2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850

through 4856, EPA reproposed to

approve some requirements, 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 vacated by the

Court which are no longer applicable

include the contingency measure

requirements of section 172(c),

additional RACM requirements of

section 172(c)(1) and section 182(b), and

the attainment demonstration

requirements of section 182(b)(1). That

discussion is incorporated by reference

herein. See also the discussion in

section II.A of the separate rulemaking

in today's Federal Register concerning

the inapplicability of certain

requirements.

In the June 26, 2001 rule, EPA took

the following applicable actions:

approved Missouri's and Illinois' 1-hour

ozone attainment demonstration; found

that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area met the reasonably available

control measures (RACM) requirements

of the Act; found that the 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.

EPA has determined, for the reasons

stated in the proposed rule, that the

attainment demonstration, and RACM

requirements, are no longer applicable

requirements since the area has attained

the NAAQS. In this final rule, EPA is

approving contingency measures as part

of Illinois' maintenance plan, granting

an exemption from the NO, RACT

emission control requirements, and

approving MVEBs for 2014, for the

Illinois portion of the area.

To be considered fully approved

pursuant to section 110(k), the SIP must

not have partial approval, disapproval,

or conditional approval of submittals.

EPA is not partially approving,

disapproving, nor conditionally

approving any of the SIP actions

contained in the June 26, 2001 rule

vacated by the Court. EPA is fully

approving the measures submitted by

Illinois which are applicable for

purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), and

is determining that the other

submissions are not applicable.

Therefore, the Illinois SIP is "fully

approved" for all applicable

requirements.

Comment 9: EPA attempted to assert

that the Illinois and Missouri SIPs "can

be considered to be approved". This is

a "pseudo-approval" and an attempt by

EPA to escape the simple

straightforward statutory requirement

for a fully approved SIP. This effort by

EPA fails because of the clear language

of the CAA, and because EPA must do

a rulemaking to approve the SIPs. EPA

is also avoiding the requirement for

judicial review of its actions.

Response 9: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. In this rule, EPA

is providing a response regarding only

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area.

See the separate rule in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

The use of the phrase "can be

considered to be approved" (See the

25447

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25447 2003
Federal 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" if EPA

approves certain plan elements,

described in the proposed rulemakings.

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule,

EPA proposed to grant an exemption to

the State of Illinois from the NOx RACT

requirements in the Illinois portion of

the St. Louis area under section 182(f)

of the Act. In today's final rule, EPA is

taking final action exempting the State

of Illinois from the NOx RACT

requirements in the Metro-East St. Louis

area. By taking this action, EPA now

concludes that the Illinois SIP is fully

approved. The use of the quoted phrase

was not intended to escape a statutory

requirement. In fact, it recognized EPA's

obligation to complete rulemaking in

order to approve the SIP, and it

recognized that EPA could not

determine that the SIP was fully

approved and complete the

redesignation of the Illinois portion of

the St. Louis area to attainment of the

one-hour ozone NAAQS until it took

final action to approve the remaining

SIP element (an exemption from a RACT

requirement, as approved today,

eliminates the CAA requirement for

NOx RACT and moots this SIP element).

All of the SIP elements which are

applicable to the Metro-East St. Louis

area for purposes of redesignation have

either been approved in previous

rulemakings or are approved in today's

rule.

The proposed rule at 68 FR 4851

states that on November 25, 2002, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit (Court) issued a decision in

Sierra Club and Missouri Coalition for

the Environment v. EPA, 311 F.3d. 853

(7th Cir. 2002) ("Sierra Club"). In this

decision, the Court vacated the June 26,

2001 final rule and remanded to EPA for

entry of a 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 its rationale 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 to the Metro-East St. Louis

area, and is today determining that

others are not applicable. This is not a "psuedo-approval" of the SIP elements,

but a determination that because certain

requirements are not applicable (e.g.,

the ozone attainment demonstration and

RACM), they need not be 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

(the ozone 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 are not applicable

has been subject to notice and comment

rulemaking and is subject to judicial

review. The public has had full

opportunity to comment on all of our

actions, as evidenced by the numerous

comments submitted by the commenter.

Therefore, EPA has not avoided any

requirement for public 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. EPA has already

taken final action to approve all

required SIP elements or is approving

them in conjunction with this final

action on the 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 of SIP elements and

redesignation to attainment to occur

simultaneously, and EPA has 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 of the

NAAQS; modeling shows that the plan

does not provide for attainment until

2004.

Response 10: EPA finds that the

Illinois SIP meets the section 110

requirements. See the January 30, 2003

proposed rule and responses to

comments 8 and 9 for further

discussion. See the responses to

comments 19, 21, 23, and 24 below. See

also the response to comment 3 in the

separate rule published in today's

Federal Register with regard to the

redesignation of the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area.

Comment 11: The SIP fails to meet the

part D requirements of the CAA. EPA

asserts that certain requirements of part

D are not applicable because monitoring

data show that the area has attained.

EPA relies on the case of Sierra Club v.

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 of the "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.

Response 11: See section II.A of the

separate rule published in today's

Federal Register with regard to the

redesignation of the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area for a discussion of the

rationale for EPA's determination of

attainment and suspension of certain

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 as the

applicable requirements of subpart 2.

The section 172(c) requirements include

General Plan Requirements which, to

the extent applicable, must provide for

the implementation of all RACM as

expeditiously as practicable (at a

minimum, this requires RACT for

stationary sources), Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP), emissions inventories,

identification and quantification of

allowable emissions for major new or

modified stationary sources, permits for

new and modified major stationary

source, other emission control measures

needed to assure attainment of the

NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) requirements,

and contingency measures. Section

110(a)(2) requirements include:

submittal of a SIP that has been adopted

by the state after reasonable public

notice and hearing; provisions for

establishment and operation of

appropriate apparatus, methods,

systems, and procedures needed to

monitor ambient air quality;

implementation of a source permit

program; provisions for the

implementation of part C requirements

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)); provisions for the

implementation of part D requirements

(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 and local

agency participation in planning and

emission control rule development.

25448

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25448 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

Subpart 2 requirements 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 the response to comment

8 above, Illinois' SIP meets all

applicable requirements, including

section 110 and part D requirements. As

stated in the January 30, 2003 proposed

rule at 68 FR 4852 and 4853, EPA has

approved Illinois' RFP plan, permitting

programs, and VOC RACT rules as

meeting the requirements of part D.

Illinois' SIP has regulations requiring

annual emission statements from major

sources. Illinois has submitted complete

emission inventories, which have been

approved by the 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 of the 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 also the

final rule for Missouri published in

today's Federal Register describing how

the Missouri portion of the area has met

the applicable requirements.

Neither Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act

nor EPA policy referenced by the

commenter require modeling as a

prerequisite to redesignation of an

ozone nonattainment area. In addition,

no modeling was conducted as part of

the redesignation requests submitted by

Missouri or Illinois. Thus, there is no

modeling basis for EPA to make any

conclusions regarding the necessity for

the Part D requirements. (Modeling is

not a required element of a

redesignation request. See, 65 FR

37879-Cincinnati redesignation for

additional discussion of this issue. (See,

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d. 426 upholding

this interpretation.) However, the

monitoring data collected over the 2000

through 2002 period show that the 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 that the Tenth Circuit Court of

Appeals Sierra Club v. USEPA case is

not applicable because it is not a "redesignation" case, the commenter

misses the point of the case as it relates

to St. Louis. The Tenth Circuit's

endorsement of the interpretation of the

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 of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995

(Seitz Memo), that certain "statutory"

requirements relating to attainment are

not applicable to an area which has

attained the standard, was not

dependent on the fact that the area was

not being redesignated. The case

involved a determination by EPA that

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 that the area could be

redesignated without having met those

requirements, even though the action at

issue there was an attainment

determination and not a redesignation.

The Court stated: "Recall that the

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." (Sierra Club v. USEPA, 99

F.3d. 1551, 1558 (10th Cir.1996)) (See

also, 66 FR 53095 for EPA's

redesignation of the Pittsburgh area.)

The Court did not say, as the 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 it did in the Utah

Counties, in which EPA redesignated

those Counties without requiring that

they meet the suspended requirements,

EPA is here determining that the St.

Louis area is attaining the standard and

that certain CAA requirements do not

apply. The basis for this determination

and the suspension of certain

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 on the 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 and redesignating an area,

which is what this rulemaking

accomplishes. EPA has taken this dual

action in a number 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 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 of section 172(c)(1)

need not be adopted because the area

has attained the NAAQS, thus, these

measures would not accelerate

attainment. This is confoundingly

circular reasoning which erases the

"fully approved" requirements of the

CAA. EPA's assertion is not relevant

here.

Response 12: The April 16, 1992

General Preamble (57 FR 13560) states

that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1)

such that the RACM requirements are a "component" of an area's attainment

demonstration. Thus, since the

attainment demonstration is not 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 of this

interpretation.

EPA believes that its 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 a NAAQS that they have already

attained. Similarly, states need not

adopt additional RACM as necessary 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), only with respect to the

"applicable" requirements of section

110 and part D, as addressed in section

107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act. If

requirements are not "applicable" with

respect to those sections, they need not

be fully approved.

Comment 13: The RACM and RACT

requirements of the CAA are not tied to

reasonable further progress but are

required by the CAA to be implemented

as expeditiously as practicable. This is

supported by H.R. Rep. No. 101-490,

Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 223;

Sierra Club v. USEPA, 99 F.3d 1551,

1557 (10th Cir. 1996); Wall v. 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 of the

CAA.

Response 13: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and the Illinois

25449

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25449 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is

hereby providing a response regarding

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area.

See the separate rulemaking in today's

Federal Register regarding the

redesignation of the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area for EPA's response to

this comment as it pertains to the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.

The RFP requirement under section

172(c)(2) of the Act is defined via

section 171(1) of the 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 of the applicable standard

(here the one-hour ozone standard) by

the applicable date. Section 182(b)(1)(A)

sets forth the specific requirements for

RFP for a moderate nonattainment area

which includes a reduction in VOC

emissions of at 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 as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology and shall provide for

attainment of the 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 of VOC covered by

Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs)

and at all other major sources of VOC.

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 the provisions of section

182(f), the EPA is exempting the Illinois

portion of the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area from the

requirements for NOx RACT in this

rulemaking. With the granting of this

exemption, Illinois has met all

applicable RACT requirements.

The commenter states that H.R. Rep.

No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d

Sess. at p. 223 does not tie RACM and

RACT measures to RFP. This document

is a recitation of the statute, but does not

address tying RACM and RACT to RFP.

With respect to the commenter's

contention that EPA's position regarding

additional RACM and RACT measures

being rejected in the Tenth Circuit

Sierra Club case and in Wall v. EPA, the

commenter is incorrect. The Wall case

involved VOC RACT, which is not an

issue here, because, as discussed

previously, and in 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 of RACM at all. The

commenter's Seventh Circuit brief,

which it relies on to support its position

that RACM requirements must be met

for an area to be redesignated, argued

that EPA's interpretation of the RACM

requirement (that section 172(c)(1)

requires only implementation of all

RACM which would expedite

attainment) is an improper reading of

the CAA. That issue was not addressed

or decided by the Seventh Circuit.

However, the issue of EPA's

interpretation of the RACM requirement

was raised and upheld in the 5th Circuit

(Sierra Club 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 that EPA's

interpretation that the statute only

required implementation of RACM

measures that would advance

attainment was reasonable.

Comment 14: The rulemaking should

identify each VOC RACT rule

implemented by the states and identify

whether the states have met the VOC

RACT requirements.

Response 14: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and the Illinois

portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is

here providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

The January 30, 2003 proposed rule

states at 68 FR 4855 that both States

have adopted and implemented all

required VOC RACT rules. In addition,

the proposed rule provided the

following Web site which contains the

content of Illinois rules: http://

www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm.

The Illinois VOC RACT rules for the

Metro-East St. Louis area listed on this

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 Of Organic 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; Asphalt Materials

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 Dry Cleaners

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 that EPA's

waiver of the NOx RACT requirements

for the Illinois portion of the

nonattainment area was vacated by the

Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit. Therefore, the Illinois SIP is not

approvable because it fails to meet the

NOx RACT requirements of the Act.

Response 15: As proposed in the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR

4847 and as finalized in this

rulemaking, the EPA is exempting the

Metro-East St. Louis area from the NOx

RACT requirements under section 182(f)

of the Act. This NOx RACT exemption

25450

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25450 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

is based on the St. Louis area attaining

the one-hour ozone NAAQS without the

implementation of these NOx RACT

emission controls. Section 182(f), and in

particular section 182(f)(2)(B)(i), of the

Act, provides for such an exemption

since NOx RACT emission reductions in

this area would be in excess of those

emission reductions needed to attain the

standard, as evidenced by EPA's

determination of attainment finalized in

a separate rulemaking for Missouri also

published in today's Federal Register.

The rationale for the exemption is not

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 on a modeled attainment

demonstration indicating that additional

NOx emission reductions in this area

would not be needed to attain the onehour ozone standard. The EPA is not

relying on the exemption basis

expressed in that earlier, vacated final

rule, but rather on a new determination,

based on monitored air quality.

Attainment of the one-hour standard

without the implementation of NOx

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 NOx RACT

exemption under section 182(f)(2)(B)(i)

of the Act.

Comment 16: As the EPA concedes in

the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, the

Illinois SIP does not include

transportation conformity procedures as

required by the Act. EPA has no

authority to waive this mandatory

requirement for SIPs. Therefore, Illinois'

SIP is incomplete.

Response 16: Section 176(c) of the Act

provides that state conformity

provisions must be consistent with

Federal transportation conformity

regulations that the 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 of the Federal transportation

conformity rule, requiring EPA to revise

those sections of the Federal rule.

Illinois submitted transportation

conformity rules on September 23, 1998.

The SIP revision was submitted by

Illinois in response to the August 1997

changes to the 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 EPA has

completed the revisions to the 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 of evaluating

Illinois' ozone redesignation request

under section 107(d) of the Act. The

rationale for this is based on a

combination of two factors. First, the

requirement to submit SIP revisions to

comply with the conformity provisions

of the 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 of conformity analyses in

the absence of Federally approved state

rules. Therefore, because areas are

subject to the conformity requirements

regardless of whether they are

redesignated to attainment and must

implement conformity under Federal

rules if state rules are not yet approved,

EPA believes it is reasonable to view

these requirements as not applying for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. EPA has explained its rationale

and has applied this interpretation in a

number of redesignation 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

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently

upheld this interpretation in Wall v.

EPA, No. 00-4010, Slip Op. at 21-24

(6th Cir. September 11, 2001). The Court

upheld EPA's view that failure to

submit a revision 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

of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area to attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard notwithstanding the lack of

fully approved transportation

conformity rules in Illinois' SIP.

D. Comments Related to Criterion 3: The

Improvement in Air Quality Must Be

Due to Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

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

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

As described in the 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 of previous

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

not yet due, the SIP is not 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

from the question of the requirements

applicable to the area. Illinois'

December 26, 2002 submission contains

a detailed analysis of the air quality

improvements in the St. Louis area and

their relation to the emission reductions

resulting from the permanent and

enforceable emission control measures

which are in place in the 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 of the applicable SIP. Thus, the

commenter is incorrect in its assertion

that there is no applicable SIP.

Comment 18: It is 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

of exceedances per year averaged over

three years is 1.0 or less at all

monitoring sites in the area. EPA

25451

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25451 2003
Federal 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

or three day period in this three year

time period does not render the air

quality monitoring data

unrepresentative of the 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 emission

control measures which are in place

(e.g. I/M programs, RACT on VOC

stationary sources).

In the event that some sources did

voluntarily reduce emissions over this

two or three day period, EPA has no

basis to conclude that these voluntary

reductions had a significant 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, on how many

people decide to drive on a given day

or weekend). However, the State's

demonstration that air quality

improvements are due to permanent and

enforceable emission reductions is

based on its analysis of emission

reductions over a ten-year period (see

response to comment 19), consistent

with the guidance in the Calcagni Memo

at page 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) of the

Act, that communities and states, acting

to protect the health of their residents,

should be ineligible for redesignation

merely because they encourage

voluntary ozone precursor emission

reductions during periods when ozone

concentrations may be high.

Comment 19: EPA cannot

demonstrate that permanent 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 is pure

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

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

EPA's response to this and other

comments on the 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 of modeling in

demonstrating maintenance of the

NAAQS.

Neither section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the

Act nor the Calcagni Memo referenced

by the commenter require modeling as

a prerequisite to redesignation of an

ozone nonattainment area. Thus,

modeling is not a necessary prerequisite

for demonstrating that the improvement

in air quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions. See the General

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title

I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, (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 of the 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 due to permanent and

enforceable emissions reductions from

when the area was not monitoring

attainment of the 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 Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has

recently upheld EPA's interpretation in

Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435).

In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule

at 68 FR 4856-4858, EPA explains the

basis for concluding that the observed

air quality improvements are due to the

implementation of permanent 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

of days conductive to forming high

ozone concentrations showed no

significant trend between 1989 and

2002; and an assessment of emissions in

1990 and 2000 which has shown a

substantial decrease in emissions of

VOC 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, and little or no

precipitation) have shown no noticeable

trend up or down, only relatively

random year-to-year variations. The

annual number of ozone conducive days

have stayed between 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 a total of 11 in the three

year period of 2000 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, as the annual number

of conducive days fluctuated from yearto-year with no significant long term

trend, the number of exceedances

demonstrated a significant long term

downward trend. This indicates 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 our response 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 in the St. Louis area

were also significantly decreasing in a

downward trend. The following tables

list VOC and NOx emissions in 1990

and 2000 for the Missouri and Illinois

portions of the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. Both sections of the

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 due to 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:

P o in t S o u rc e s ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 .9 7 3 4 7 .6 1

A re a S o u rc e s .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 7 .7 4 2 9 .4 7

O n-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 135.421 135.00

O ff-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 64.30 114.32

1 9 9 0 T o ta ls ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 6 9 .4 3 6 2 6 .4 0

2000:

P o in t S o u rc e s ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 6 .5 9 1 6 5 .9 6

A re a S o u rc e s .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 7 .3 8 3 2 .2 7

O n-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 103.79 181.75

O ff-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 40.59 73.16

2 0 0 0 T o ta ls ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 4 8 .3 5 4 5 3 .1 4

1990 AND 2000 METRO-EAST AREA VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS

[Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]

Source category VOC NOx

1990:

P o in t S o u rc e s ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 4 .0 5 9 5 .8 5

A re a S o u rc e s .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 .8 4 1 .6 6

O n-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 43.27 45.13

O ff-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 23.49 23.99

1 9 9 0 T o ta ls ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 7 4 .6 5 1 1 6 6 .6 3

2000:

P o in t S o u rc e s ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 7 .9 1 6 1 .9 1

A re a S o u rc e s .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 8 .3 2 1 .1 8

O n-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 26.57 54.71

O ff-Road M obile Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 21.31 23.85

2 0 0 0 T o ta ls ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 4 .1 1 1 4 1 .6 4

Reductions in VOC and NOx

emissions have brought many areas

across the Country into attainment. EPA

has approved many ozone

redesignations showing decreases in

ozone precursor emissions resulting in

attainment of the 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), South Bend-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), and Monterey Bay (62

FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most of the

areas that have been redesignated to

attainment of the 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 and NOx 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 of low volatility gasoline,

more stringent Tier I motor vehicle

emission standards, implementation of a

more stringent vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program, controls on

area sources, adoption of tighter

emissions limits on existing stationary

sources, and requirements for the use of

reformulated and low RVP gasoline in

motor vehicles. Some of the 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 (low Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP)) Gasoline

* Tightened Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) Standards

for Some Source Categories

25453

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25453 2003
Federal 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 of NOx 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 of ozone precursor

emission reductions occurred. In other

metropolitan areas, other levels of VOC

and NOx reductions have also resulted

in attainment. See the redesignation

rules listed above in the first part of this

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 of ozone. In fact, the

available data (as discussed in the

January 30, 2003 proposed rule) for the

St. Louis area prove just the opposite.

Decreases in VOC and NOx 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 cause just the opposite effect.

Therefore, it is appropriate for the EPA

to assume that future reductions in VOC

and NOx emissions will lead 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 of the various

technical analyses conducted by the

States and described above. EPA

believes it is reasonable not to require

photochemical grid modeling. Threeyear averaging of annual exceedance

rates addresses variations in

meteorological conditions. Analysis of

meteorological conditions showed no

significant trend in the number of days

conducive to ozone formation, and the

commenter has presented no evidence

that the three year attainment period

was unusually favorable. It is important

to note that, redesignation is not

intended as an absolute guarantee that

the area will never monitor future

standard violations. This is what

maintenance plan contingency measures

are designed to address and correct. See

Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879,

37886-37889) (June 19, 2000) and the

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 53094)

(October 19, 2001).

Comment 20: If improvements in St.

Louis air quality were due to permanent

and enforceable emission reductions,

the trend in monitored concentrations

would be to go down. However,

exceedances tripled from 2000 to 2001

and more than doubled from 2001 to

2002.

Response 20: A violation of the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS occurs when the

estimated number of exceedances per

year averaged over three years is greater

than 1.0 at any monitoring site in 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 as between 2001 and

2002, year-to-year trends in exceedances

are not used to determine attainment,

but rather an average over three years at

each monitoring site is used. As noted

in a separate rulemaking published in

today's Federal Register, EPA has

determined that the 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 of expected

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

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

A lto n ................................................................ M a d iso n , IL ........................... ............. . ..... .... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

M aryville .......................................................... M adison, IL ........................... ......................... 0.0 0.0 1.0 0 .3

E dw ardsville .................................................... M ad ison , IL ............................. ..................... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

W ood R ive r ..................................................... M ad ison , IL ............................. ..................... 0 .0 1.0 0 .0 0 .3

H o usto n ........................................................... R a ndo lp h , IL ............................ .................... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

E a st S t. Lo u is ................................................. S t. C la ir, IL .................................................... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

A rno ld .............................................................. Je ffe rso n , M O ........................... .... ............... 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

W est A lton ...................................................... S t. C ha rles, M O ............................................ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

O rchard Farm ................................................. St. C harles, M O ............................................ 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 .7

Bonne T erre .................................................... St. G enevieve , M O ........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0

S outh Lindbergh ............................................. St. Louis, M O ................................................ 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 .7

Q ue e ny ........................................................... S t. Lo uis, M O ................................................ 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

H u nte r ............................................................. S t. Lo u is , M O ................................................ 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

Flo V a lley ........................................................ S t. Lo uis, M O ................................................ 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

S t. A nn (o ld ) .................................................... S t. Lo uis, M O ................................................ 0 .0 n/a n/a 1 0 .0

S t. A nn (new ) .................................................. S t. Lo uis, M O ................................................ n/a 0 .0 0 .0 1 n/a

B roadw ay ........................................................ St. Louis C ity, M O ......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0

C lark ................................................................ St. Louis C ity, M O ..................... .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0

M argaretta ....................................................... St. Louis C ity, 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. In addition, 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 2003
Federal 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, if the area were to violate

the 1-hour ozone standard, then the

contingency measures in the

maintenance plan would be 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 of exceedances

will result in the number of exceedances

being at least doubled. Thus, citing a

doubling or tripling of exceedances is

not necessarily an indicator of

significant changes in air quality.

The one-hour ozone NAAQS is based

on a three-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 a three-year period

without causing a violation of the

standard. The fourth-highest monitored

level at a monitor over a three-year

period can be used as an indicator of

potential violations of the NAAQS.

(Note that since other factors, such as

missing data, can affect the calculation

of the estimated number of exceedances,

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 of how the number

of estimated 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

of the 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 that the 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 that the

observed air quality improvements are

due to the implementation of permanent

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 trend in the reduction of ozone

from 1989 to the present while the

number of days conducive to forming

ozone showed no significant trend, and

an assessment of emissions in 1990 and

2000 which have shown substantial

decreases in emissions of VOCs and

NOx.

Finally, it is noted that the commenter

errs in totalling the exceedance numbers

from many monitors for each year and

concluding, on the basis of the

exceedance totals that a worsening

ozone trend has occurred. Referring to

Table 1 in 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

South Lindbergh monitoring sites,

although implying a worsening ozone

trend, simply point to the instability of

considering year-to-year changes within

a small time period.

Comment 21: The only modeling

which the commenter is aware of was

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 for the monitored

improvements in air quality.

Response 21: Previous modeling

referenced by the commenter was

conducted as part of the attainment

demonstration approved by EPA in the

June 26, 2001 rulemaking (66 FR 33995).

(This approval was vacated by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit, as explained previously.) This

modeling demonstrated that utilizing

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 of the modeling was

to determine the likelihood of

attainment. EPA's approval of the

States' attainment demonstrations did

not include a determination that

attainment or maintenance of the

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 that the States incorporated

corrections to the 1996 base year

emissions inventory, documented an

assessment of the model's performance

by applying statistical tests, and

discussed assumptions regarding which

states are affected by the NOx SIP call

including NOx limits on facilities.

As discussed in the April 2001 notice,

the States had taken measures to revise

the emissions inventory to reflect the

most current data inputs available. In

addition, an evaluation of the model

was performed as a measure of the

"likelihood" that the standard will be

achieved. The June 26, 2001 rulemaking

at 66 FR 17652 states:

The states conclude, and EPA concurs, that

the revised modeling system performs at an acceptable level because it satisfactorily

reproduces peak ozone concentrations

relative to the monitored 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 days with marginal ozone levels and days with elevated ozone concentrations. Therefore, based on the

revised modeling and WOE results presented

by the states which confirm the adequacy of

the adopted emission control strategy, EPA is

approving the states' attainment

demonstrations.

The conclusions made regarding the

likelihood of attainment based upon the

attainment demonstration modeling

were the best that could be drawn from

the available information. It is likely

that different conclusions regarding

attainment would be drawn if the State's

were required to conduct modeling as

part of the maintenance demonstration.

For example, if a 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. It is highly likely, if not

certain, that the outcome would be a

conclusion that attainment will be

25455

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25455 2003
Federal 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 by the 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 the response 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 of days conducive to

ozone formation while there has been a

significant reduction in monitored

ozone concentrations, and an

assessment of emissions in 1990 and

2000 which have shown decreased

emissions of VOCs and NOx. Thus, the

states have demonstrated that the air

quality improvements in the St. Louis

area are due to permanent and

enforceable emission reductions in the

St. Louis area.

E. Comments Related to Criterion 4: The

Area Must Have a Fully Approved

Maintenance Plan Meeting the

Requirements of Section 175A

Comment 22: Under section 175A(a)

of the Act, the state maintenance plans

must be a SIP revision. Section

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires a SIP to

contain enforceable emission

limitations. The maintenance plan for

each State does not include any

enforceable emission limitations.

Response 22: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding the redesignation of

the Missouri portion of the St. Louis

area for EPA's response to this comment

as it pertains to the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area.

The Act requires the area to have a

fully approved SIP and to have met all

of the applicable requirements of the

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 on to

maintain the one-hour ozone standard

(the emission controls which have been

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 NOx rules, approved

by the EPA on November 8, 2001 (66 FR

56449 and 66 FR 56454). The State must

continue to implement these measures

as provided for in the Federally

approved SIP.

The Act does not require a separate

level of enforcement for a maintenance

plan as a prerequisite to redesignation.

The enforcement program approved for

and applicable to the SIP as a whole

also applies to the 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 of the requirement.

All of the control measures which the

State relied on to attain and maintain

the one-hour ozone standard are SIPapproved measures. EPA cannot

withhold its approval of the

maintenance plan submitted by Illinois

because of concerns that the State may,

at some future time, either submit a SIP

revision to amend or remove a program,

or that 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 such time as

EPA takes action to approve SIP

revisions to amend or remove them.

This can only be done via Federal

rulemaking, which includes procedures

for public comment and review.

Comment 23: 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

sense by proposing to predict

maintenance for ten years without any

modeling. Monitoring is more accurate

to show past concentrations, but

modeling is required to predict future

concentrations. The commenter cites

Ober v. U.S.E.P.A., 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir.

1996) in support of this assertion.

Response 23: EPA disagrees with the

commenter's assertion that the use of

photochemical modeling to demonstrate

maintenance is required by the Act, EPA

policy, or EPA regulations. The EPA is

not overruling Congress or EPA

regulations.

Section 175A requires States to

develop and submit, as a SIP revision,

a plan for maintaining the NAAQS for

at least 10 years after redesignation. The

plan shall contain such additional

measures, if any, 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 all reasonable steps to

coordinate, substantively and

procedurally, the revisions and

implementation of State implementation

plans applicable to the nonattainment

area concerned; and (B) use

photochemical grid modeling or any

other analytical method determined by

the Administrator, in his discretion, to

be at least 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 if the commenter is correct in

the assertion that section 182(j) applies

to maintenance plans, this section does

not necessarily require modeling. EPA

has the discretion to approve the use of

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

of the NAAQS by either showing that

future emissions of a pollutant or its

precursors will not exceed the level of

the attainment inventory, or by

modeling to show that the future mix of

sources and emission rates will not

cause a violation of the NAAQS". By

this policy, EPA has, in effect, expressed

how its discretion will be utilized

regarding the use of emissions 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 that the future

emissions of a 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

cited by 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 at 40 CFR 51.112(a)

requires the SIP to demonstrate that the

measures, rules, and regulations

contained in it are adequate to provide

for the timely attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS. The

regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(b) specifies

25456

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25456 2003
Federal 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 that EPA'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 of a 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 at 68 FR 4858 states that emissions

of NOx in 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 of VOCs 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, they will 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

on past trends of emissions decreases,

peak ozone levels will continue to be

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.

Comment 24: EPA and the States have

stated in testimony provided to courts

and the public that maintenance of the

NAAQS in 2003 is not possible. EPA

and the states have stated that, due to

upwind emissions, attainment with the

NAAQS cannot be achieved until 2004.

Response 24: The commenter uses the

same arguments in this comment to

state that the 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 that the modeling

demonstrated it was impossible to

maintain the standard in 2003. The

evaluation of the modeling is to

determine the likelihood of attainment

by a future attainment deadline (2004 in

this case). EPA's approval of the States'

attainment demonstrations did not

include a determination that attainment

or maintenance of the standard prior to

2004 was impossible.

The commenter references documents

submitted by EPA and the States as well

as language used in various rulemakings

stating, in effect, that reductions in

upwind emissions are necessary for

attainment of the standard and that the

earliest attainment date is November 15,

2004. At the time these documents were

developed, EPA and the States were

basing their conclusions on the

attainment demonstration including the

accompanying modeling. The

statements made were the best

conclusions that could be drawn from

the available information.

The conclusion that the maintenance

plan will provide for maintenance of the

NAAQS for the next ten years as

required by section 175A is based, in

part, on more recent information than

what was relied upon in the attainment

demonstration which included the

modeling referred to by 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 data to 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 that the plan demonstrates

maintenance through 2014.

Comment 25: The SIPs 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. 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 on this observation, the EPA

cannot lawfully find that Illinois has

adequate funding to fully implement its

SIP;

b. EPA cannot lawfully find that the

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 a lack of funding. Illinois

failed to issue all source permits within

three years of receiving interim approval

of its title V permits program by the EPA

on March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12478). At

least 24 of the unpermitted sources are

located in Madison and St. Clair

Counties, Illinois. Illinois has

announced that it will be very difficult

to meet a commitment to issue all

required source permits by the

December 2003 deadline. Illinois is also

violating the requirement to act on all

source permit applications within 18

months of receipt, violating the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7(a)(2). This

is due to a lack of adequate funding; and

d. Illinois is failing to 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 of the Clean Air

Act requirements and to implement its

SIP, including NSR, PSD, and RACT

rules. Therefore, the commenter

believes that EPA should reject Illinois'

statement in the maintenance plan that

Illinois has the necessary resources to

enforce any violations of its rules or

source permit provisions.

Response 25: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding the redesignation of

the Missouri portion of the St. Louis

area for EPA's response to this comment

as it pertains to the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area, and as it relates to the

general assertion that the 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 Illinois I/M program, in the

Metro-East St. Louis area, is currently

funded through a combination of fuel

taxes and Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality (CMAQ) funds. It is EPA's

understanding that Illinois currently has

sufficient funding from CMAQ

previously appropriated and obligated

and from fuel taxes to run this program

through December 2003. Meanwhile,

Illinois officials are seeking alternative

funding sources to replace the expired

CMAQ funding, including continuance

of CMAQ funding through

Congressional reauthorization. The EPA

believes at this time that it is reasonable

to assume that Illinois will continue to

implement this program, for several

reasons. First, Illinois is committed to

continuing implementation of this

program, which it has been operating

since 1986. Second, if Illinois 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 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

equal or greater emissions reductions),

the program remains an enforceable

component of the approved SIP. Finally,

it is noted that this program is

contractor operated, with the contractor

operating under a binding contract

extending through 2005. This contract,

which is on file at EPA as part of the

documentation for this portion of the

SIP, contains penalty clauses insuring

that the State will continue funding the

I/M program through the lifetime of the

contract (in the event that the State

prematurely terminates the contract, the

State would still be obligated to

reimburse the contractor through 2005

for the estimated value of the contract).

Illinois has no financial incentive to

discontinue the I/M program;

b. Since, for the reasons described

above, EPA can assume that the 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, it is correct

to conclude that Illinois' mobile source

emissions budgets are acceptable and

are not in jeopardy due to a pending

termination of the I/M program; and

c-d. As evidenced in the December

23, 2003 maintenance plan, Illinois

remains committed to implementing the

SIP after redesignation of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of failure

to implement under section 173(b) of

the Act. Therefore, this comment is not

a basis for disapproving Illinois' ozone

maintenance plan and the EPA

disagrees with the commenter on this

issue.

In addition, it should be 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 of the Act.

Title I of the Act itself does not require

compliance with title V of the Act for

purposes of considering redesignations

to attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore,

even if the commenter were correct in

its assertion that Illinois is not properly

implementing its title V permit program,

this would not be a basis for disapproval

of the redesignation request and

concerns with title 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 of the 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 of the 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 of failure

to implement under section 173(b) of

the Act.

EPA disagrees with the commenter

that this action must include in the

record further evidence of Illinois

resource commitments. Neither this

commenter nor any other person 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.

Comment 26: EPA policy 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,

and NOx RACT to the contingency

plans without a modeling

demonstration showing that these

control measures are not needed for

attainment, contrary to EPA policy.

Response 26: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

Illinois has a commitment on page 26

of the maintenance plan to maintain all

of the emission control measures

implemented in the Metro-East St. Louis

area to ensure maintenance of the 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 shown to be unnecessary

for maintenance or are replaced with

measures that achieve equivalent

reductions".

Section 175A of the Act requires that

maintenance plans shall contain

contingency provisions deemed

necessary to assure that the States will

promptly correct any violation of the

standard which occurs after

redesignation of the area as an

attainment area. These provisions shall

include a requirement that the State will

implement "all measures with respect to

the control of the 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 D New Source Review

(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment" from Mary D. Nichols,

assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, EPA stated its interpretation

that the term "measures" used in

section 175A does not include part D

NSR permitting programs. In accordance

with this interpretation, EPA believes

that LAER and offsets, which are

components of Illinois' part D 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 of the Act to be applicable to

nonattainment areas. Upon

redesignation to attainment, these

requirements are no longer applicable.

Removing the LAER and offsets

provision in the State's permitting

program is not contrary to the above

mentioned policy. Upon redesignation

to attainment, the LAER requirements

included in stationary source permits

and the emissions 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

to the PSD requirements of part C of title

I of the Act. Under these requirements,

the State must ensure that such new

facilities will not cause significant

deterioration of air quality to the extent

that they cause or contribute to peak

ozone levels in excess of the NAAQS

(see section 165 of the 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. This is a more

accurate way of predicting impacts than

25458

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25458 2003
Federal 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 of Illinois' 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 of the standard * * * for

ozone, the State would need to submit

an attainment modeling demonstration

consistent with EPA's current

"Guideline on Air Quality Models."

showing that the control measure is not

needed to maintain the standard". As

stated above, all emission control

measures in place as a result of the

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 is not part of Illinois' existing

SIP. Thus, no modeling is needed to

demonstrate that these measures are not

needed since all are being retained or

are not parts of existing SIPs.

Comment 27: The contingency

provisions of the maintenance plans fall

short of those required. All serious area

requirements of section 182(c) of the

CAA should be included in the

contingency plans and implemented

promptly in case of a violation.

Virtually none of these provisions are

included in the contingency plans and,

thus, the contingency plans cannot be

approved.

Response 27: EPA disagrees with the

commenter's assertion that all of the

serious area requirements of section

182(c) should be included in the

contingency plans and implemented in

case of a violation.

The requirements of section 175A(d)

are the applicable requirements for

contingency measures in maintenance

plans. Section 175A(d) states:

Each plan revision submitted under this

section shall contain such contingency

provisions as the Administrator deems

necessary to assure that the State will

promptly correct any violation of the

standard which occurs after the redesignation

of the area as an attainment area. Such

provisions shall include a requirement that

the State will implement all measures with

respect to the control of the air pollutant

concerned which were contained in the State

implementation plan for the area before

redesignation of the area as an attainment

area.

None of the 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 of the standard which occurs

after the redesignation of the 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 of the 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.

Comment 28:42 U.S.C. 7505a(d)

requires that the states will promptly

correct any violation of the standard

which occurs after redesignation.

However, there is nothing in either

contingency plan which assures prompt

correction of future 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 a violation. This is an

unreasonably long period. The plans

should require adoption in much less

than eighteen months and immediate

implementation.

Response 28: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees that Illinois'

maintenance plan lacks adequate

contingency provisions should the 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 of future one-hour ozone

standard violations, increasing ozone

levels threatening a subsequent

violation of the ozone standard, and

unanticipated increases in ozone

precursor emissions threatening a

subsequent violation of the 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 of the

area to attainment or whether a

subsequent violation of the ozone

standard is threatened on the basis of

increased ozone concentrations

approaching the standard or

unanticipated significant increases in

ozone precursor emissions. Illinois has

also committed to continue to

implement all control measures

included in the SIP prior to

redesignation consistent with section

175A(d) of the Act.

The action trigger levels and planned

corrective actions in each contingency

plan are the following:

A Level I Trigger will be exceeded if:

(1) The monitored ambient ozone levels

exceed 124 parts per billion, 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), 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 5 percent 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

if adverse emissions trends are likely to

continue. If so, the States will determine

what and where emission controls may

be required to avoid a violation of the

one-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall

be completed within nine months of the

determination of the action trigger

exceedance.

A Level II Trigger will be exceeded if

a violation of the one-hour ozone

NAAQS at any monitoring site in the St.

Louis ozone maintenance area is

recorded after the area is redesignated to

attainment of the standard. If this trigger

is exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will

work together to conduct a thorough

analysis to determine appropriate new

emission control measures, from those

25459

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25459 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

listed below, to address the cause of the

ozone standard violation.

The contingency plan for Illinois lists

a number of possible 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

a prior 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 of a violation of the onehour ozone standard based on qualityassured data. The October 1, 2002 draft

maintenance plan was the version of the

maintenance plan reviewed by the

public in the State's public hearing and

during its 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 draft version. With the April 15,

2003 letter, the State of Illinois officially

clarifies its commitment to implement

contingency measures within 18 months

of a determination that a 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

of the December 23, 2002 version of the

State's maintenance plan, consistent

with its clarification.

The list of possible contingency

measures in Illinois' contingency plan

include the following:

Point Source Measures

* NOx SIP call Phase II (non-utility

measures)

* Reinstatement of requirements 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 to be

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 action by 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 are

triggered." Thus, according to this

policy, the plans need not contain

adopted measures.

In order to properly deal with future

ozone standard violations and to

comply with its own internal

rulemaking procedure requirements,

Illinois requires time to evaluate

potential controls and provide public

notice and public 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 by the 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 of the

one-ozone standard after the

redesignation of the 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.

Comment 29: Neither maintenance

plan provides any procedure for

quantifying the reductions needed to

correct violations.

Response 29: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

As indicated above, the maintenance

plans refer to a violation of the NAAQS

as a level II trigger. In the event of a

violation, Illinois and Missouri have

committed to work together to conduct

a thorough analysis to determine

appropriate measures to address the

cause of the ozone standard violation. It

is impossible for a State to determine,

before a violation, what emission

reductions are necessary to correct a

violation. For example, if Illinois would

select tightening RACT for existing

sources as a contingency measure, the

amount of emissions reductions

resulting from implementation of this

measure is dependent upon the number

of sources subject to RACT rules in the

area at the time of the violation. Since

the State has no control over when a

source ceases operating, it is impossible

to determine, at this time, how many

sources will be affected by a tightening

of RACT which may be implemented at

some unspecified time in the future.

Thus, it is impossible to determine

beforehand how much 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 of the emissions reductions

needed to correct an ozone standard

violation, the types of sources for which

emission reductions must be made, and

the mechanisms for achieving the

emissions reductions. The list of

contingency measures includes a

reasonable mix of emission control

measures from which to select the

emission control measures most suited

to address a future ozone standard

violation (a level II trigger), if one

25460

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25460 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

occurs, or to alleviate an unanticipated

worsening of air quality or emissions (a

level I trigger). EPA finds that this is a

reasonable approach which will assure

prompt correction of the air quality

problem. In addition, this approach is

consistent with EPA guidance contained

in the Calcagni Memo.

Comment 30: 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 is included.

Response 30: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees with the commenters

assertion that the 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 a violation.

In addition, in response to comment

28 above, EPA identified the list of

potential contingency measures

contained in Illinois' maintenance plan

along with a schedule of 18 months to

adopt and implement selected

contingency measures in the event of a

violation (a level II trigger) or worsening

air quality (a level I trigger). EPA has

concluded that the maintenance plan

satisfies EPA guidance regarding

adoption and implementation of

contingency measures consistent with

EPA guidance and the Act.

Comment 31: Each maintenance plan

contains inadequate provisions to

respond to anticipated violations of the

NAAQS. Anticipated violations are

based on emissions inventories

exceeding the 2000 inventory or two

exceedances at any monitoring site

during a two- or three-year period.

There is no commitment to adopt any

additional controls to address

anticipated violations.

Response 31: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

As indicated above, a Level I Trigger

will be exceeded if: (1) the monitored

ambient ozone levels exceed 124 parts

per billion, 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), or more than two

exceedances in any two- or three-year

period; or (2) the St. Louis maintenance

area's 2005 or 2008 VOC or NOx

emissions increase more than 5 percent

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 if adverse emissions

trends are likely to continue. If so, the

States will determine what and where

emission controls may be required to

avoid a violation of the one-hour ozone

NAAQS. A study shall be completed

within nine months of the

determination of the 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 as practible.

It is true that Illinois has not specified

implementation deadlines for

implementing new emissions controls

in the event of exceedance of a Level I

trigger. Illinois has only committed to

conduct studies to determine if new

emission controls are needed to avert

possible future ozone standard

violations. These studies could

conclude that no 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 that no 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)

of the Act only requires a state to

implement additional emission controls

in the event of a standard violation after

an area is redesignated to attainment.

Under this section of the Act, States are

not obligated to implement additional

emission controls if an area is

"threatened" with a future ozone

standard violation. Similarly, EPA does

not require such action on the part of

the States. EPA does encourage the

States to take preventative measures to

prevent future ozone standard violations

if at all possible, but does not

definitively require the States to

implement additional emission controls

unless a violation of the standard has

actually occurred. The commitments of

Illinois to respond to Level I triggers go

beyond the minimum requirements of

section 175A(d) and the EPA.

The contingency plan meets the

requirements of section 175A(d) of the

Act and applicable guidance in the

Calcagni Memo. The Administrator has

exercised discretion regarding adoption

and implementation of contingency

measures consistent with EPA guidance

and the Act.

Comment 32: The maintenance plans

contain no commitment to implement

measures in the SIP. EPA cannot

approve the maintenance plan without

this commitment.

Response 32: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

The commenter is incorrect in its

statement that the maintenance plan

does not contain a commitment to

implement emission control measures

in the SIP. Such a commitment was

included in Illinois' maintenance plan.

Section 6.1 of Illinois' 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 of the emission control

measures contained in its SIP prior to

redesignation.

Comment 33: The maintenance plans

do not address expected growth in areas

adjacent to the nonattainment area, such

as Ste. Genevieve County. An

assessment of this 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."

Response 33: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

25461

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25461 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

The commenter's characterization of

the "basic premise" of the 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 in various

source sectors (source categories or

types), and the 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

of predicting specific changes which

will take place on a source-by-source

basis in the emissions inventory.

Specific new source projects, such as

those cited by the commenter, are

addressed through mechanisms other

than maintenance plans. To implement

new source projects, Illinois implements

PSD and NSR permitting regulations

depending on the attainment status and

classification of an area. These

regulations address the air quality

impacts of new sources and expansion

of existing sources both inside and

outside the boundaries of nonattainment

areas. They are designed to prevent new

source construction or existing source

expansion which would adversely affect

an area's ability to attain or maintain a

national standard.

EPA believes that it 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 of the

ozone standard. The new source rules in

Illinois' address potential new sources

both inside and outside of the St. Louis

area.

The anticipated plant referenced by

the commenter is a potential source in

Missouri. See the response to comment

33 in a separate rulemaking in today's

Federal Register regarding

redesignation of the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area for a discussion

regarding this facility.

Comment 34: The emission estimates

in the maintenance plans are unreliable.

A recent study of flares 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. EPA must consider the

significant underestimation of flare

emissions in the emission inventory.

Response 34: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinoi portions of

the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing

a response regarding the Illinois portion

of the St. Louis area. See a separate

rulemaking in today's Federal Register

regarding redesignation of the Missouri

portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's

response to this comment as it pertains

to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis

area.

EPA believes that the States used the

appropriate emission estimates in

developing the emission inventories.

The commenter cites a study of

emissions from flares reported by the

Bay Area Management District which

the commenter alleges shows that the

States greatly underestimated emissions

from flares. EPA does not agree that the

study cited by the 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 all flare systems

in general. The submitted comment

inappropriately extends the

applicability of this draft study

document to flares at barge loading

facilities, steel making operations, and

bulk gasoline storage facilities.

IEPA staff reviewed the flare

operations at the Conoco Phillips Wood

River Refinery, which is the only facility

in the Metro-East St. Louis area that the

AQMD study findings would possibly

apply to, and found a well-designed

emissions recovery and control system.

The flares at the Wood River refinery

function primarily as safety devices and

are provided to avoid discharge of raw

hydrocarbons to the atmosphere both

during upsets and during planned

intermittant maintenance activities.

Process units' hydrocarbon emissions to

flares are kept to a minimum to prevent

product loss. Whenever possible, vent

gasses are recovered, compressed, and

used for firing heaters and boilers rather

than being sent to flares. Seal vessels

and pressure control systems allow

nearly all vent gasses to be recovered by

managing the pressure levels during

normal operations and upsets.

The Conoco Phillips Wood River

Refinery has four refinery flares that the

findings of the AQMD study would

apply to-the distilling flare, the

alkylation flare, the aromatics lowpressure flare, and the aromatics highpressure flare. The AQMD technical

assessment document presented that the

primary concern for the 28 flares

studied was that refinery flares were

being used more often and more

routinely than historic emissions data

indicated. For the Conoco Phillips

Wood River Refinery, this finding is not

valid. The Conoco Phillips refinery

flares are used only as safety devices

and as minimally as possible because

loss of product 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

of the emission inventories developed

by the IEPA for the redesignation

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 that CEs 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's recommended CE of 98 percent

for all flares except in the lube area,

which has a 99 percent CE. Therefore,

any impact of inventory emissions from

overestimation of CE is considered to be

insignificant for the Conoco Phillips

Wood River Refinery.

In regards to the impacts of

crosswinds, the AQMD technical

analyis document references 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 of flares that refineries

normally use could prove difficult. A

referenced study in the AQMD technical

analysis document shows that

crosswinds with a speed of 18 miles per

hour (8 meters per second) are needed

before any impact is seen on CEs for

flares. In the years of 1999 and 2000, no

hourly wind speeds greater than 11

miles per hour 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 of the document has

shown that methane was included in

the emission factor that was used to

25462

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25462 2003
Federal 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 of this pollutant could

significantly alter the preliminary

findings. The study targets the control

efficiencies of the flares and states that

"efficiency drops approximately by the

cube of the speed (wind)". This would

suggest that on high wind event days

that 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

on flare control efficiencies during the

periods of concern.

Lastly, NOx and VOC emissions from

all flares constitute less than one-tenth

of one percent of the total emissions

inventory for the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. Therefore, any

potential changes in calculation

methodology from this source category,

even if changes were warranted based

on this draft study, would still likely

produce an insignificant change to the

St. Louis area total VOC and NOx

emissions.

Comment 35: The Illinois request for

approval of its maintenance plan and

revised motor vehicle emissions budgets

was submitted under the signature of

David Kolaz, Chief, Bureau of Air,

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 IEPA is without

authority to make this commitment on

behalf of the State of Illinois. During the

Illinois public hearing (November 7,

2002), the IEPA stated that it did 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 by the

IEPA if the State is not legally bound to

implement the commitments in the

plan, including contingency measures.

Response 35: Under the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act, the IEPA

has authority to develop and submit for

EPA approval air quality control plans.

Section 4(j) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act states:

"The Agency shall have the duty to

represent the State of Illinois in any and

all matters 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 if triggered

under the contingency plan.

With regard to adoption of specific

emission control measures or rules, the

IEPA has the authority and

responsibility of developing source

emission control regulations, which are

subsequently adopted by the Illinois

Pollution Control Board. Establishment

of a separate rulemaking body is

consistent with the process established

by many states.

The Calcagni Memo suggests that a

procedure for adoption of contingency

measures should be in place. However,

there is no suggestion that a state must

alter or suspend its rulemaking process

in order to commit to implementation of

contingency measures. If the State is

unable to adopt a particular contingency

measure as a result of its rulemaking

process, it will be required to adopt and

implement another equally effective

measure (or group of measures) within

the same 18-month time frame. The

IEPA will continue to be responsible for

ensuring that its commitment is met,

and the commitment remains

enforceable.

Comment 36: EPA cannot conclude

that keeping emissions no higher than

the projected inventory amounts will

ensure maintenance of the ozone

NAAQS.

Response 36: As stated in response to

comment 23 above, keeping emissions

no higher than those that occurred in

the attainment period (2000 through

2002) will ensure maintenance of the

NAAQS. The Court of Appeals for 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 that the

future emissions of pollutant's

precursors will not exceed the level that

allowed the area to achieve attainment

in the first place."

Comment 37: Neither maintenance

plan provides a technical analysis

demonstrating that maintenance of the

2000 emission levels will assure

maintenance of the NAAQS. Such a

demonstration requires photochemical

grid modeling.

Response 37: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

EPA disagrees that modeling is

required to demonstrate maintenance of

the NAAQS. EPA reiterates its response

to comment 23 in that the Court of

Appeals for 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 that the future

emissions of a 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 of the

NAAQS based on a comparison of base

year (attainment year) and projected

VOC and NOx emissions. This analysis

meets the maintenance requirements of

the Act and of EPA guidelines.

Comment 38: 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 in the Metro-East St. Louis

area for three years unless EPA

redesignates the area to attainment. On

February 27, 2003, Illinois announced

that it is filing a lawsuit challenging the

NSR changes due, in part, to the fact

that the State lacks the resources to

administer the new NSR rules. On the

basis of this admission, EPA cannot

lawfully make the finding that Illinois

has adequate resources to administer the

new NSR program that will only be

necessary if EPA redesignates the area to

attainment.

Response 38: 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 PSD program, are

required to implement the revisions as

of their effective date. The commenter

does not provide any specific

information that the 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 EPA that

it does not have sufficient resources to

25463

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25463 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 91/Monday, May 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations

administer the PSD program under the

revised regulations.

Even if the State is unable to

administer the PSD program in the

Metro-East St. Louis area, the only

consequences would be that EPA

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

of which 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.

Comment 39: The maintenance plan

must include RACM and RACT, for the

reasons stated in comment 13 above.

Response 39: EPA incorporates its

response to comment 13 in response to

this comment.

F. Comments Related to Criterion 5: The

Area Must Have Met All Applicable

Requirements Under Section 110 and

Part D

Comment 40: Neither State has met all

the requirements applicable to the area.

The serious area requirements of section

182(c) are applicable, but none of these

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 and paragraphs 7, 8, and 10

of section 182(c).

Response 40: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

As stated in the response to comments

6 through 11 above, the Illinois SIP

meets the applicable requirements and

the serious area requirements are not

applicable for purposes of this

redesignation. States requesting

redesignation to attainment must meet

the relevant CAA requirements that

come due prior 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 of a complete

redesignation request. Upon completion

of today's actions, the Illinois SIP is

fully approved for all applicable

regulations. SIP revisions addressing the

serious area requirements are required

to be submitted by January 30, 2004,

after the submittal of Illinois' complete

redesignation request and maintenance

plan.

The commenter errs in the conclusion

that the 50 ton per year emissions

threshold for permitting and

enforcement is not in effect in Illinois.

As of January 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 7 and 8

refer to special rules for modifications of

major sources while paragraph 10 refers

to a 1.2 to 1 offset requirements for

serious nonattainment areas. As stated

in response to comment 7, EPA

established a future date for submission

of the serious area requirements,

including section 182(c)(7), (8), and

(10), and the requirements are not now

applicable for purposes of this

redesignation.

G. Comments Related to

Implementation of Contingency

Measures

Comment 41: A commenter requested

that in the final rule, EPA expressly

state that, in the event of a future

violation of the NAAQS, Illinois and

Missouri will not necessarily be

required to evaluate any particular

contingency measure nor be required to

submit further attainment

demonstrations.

Response 41: As stated above, the

contingency plans delineate the States'

planned actions in the event of future

one-hour ozone standard violations

(Level II trigger in the Illinois and

Missouri ozone maintenance plans),

multiple ozone standard exceedances at

any monitor in a single or two year

period (not a violation based on three

years of data) (Level I trigger in the

Illinois and Missouri ozone

maintenance plans), or unanticipated

emissions increases threatening a

subsequent violation of the one-hour

ozone standard (Level I trigger in the

Illinois and Missouri ozone

maintenance plans). In the event of an

exceedance of a Level I trigger, Illinois

will work with Missouri to evaluate the

situation and to determine if adverse

emissions or air quality trends are likely

to continue and to threatened

maintenance of the 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 of the onehour ozone standard. A study will be

completed within nine months of the

determination of the action trigger

exceedance. If needed to avoid future

ozone standard violations, emission

control measures and regulations will be

adopted within 18 months of the

completion of the study and

implemented as expeditiously as

practicable.

In the event of a Level II trigger (a

determination of a violation of the onehour ozone standard in the St. Louis

area), the States will complete an

analysis of the air quality issue within

six months of the ozone standard

violation determination, and Illinois

will adopt and implement necessary

emission control measures and rules

within 18 months of the ozone standard

violation determination.

EPA expects that, through this

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 that their analyses show are

adequate for maintenance of the

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 leads to the conclusion by

the EPA that Illinois is not obligated to

produce new ozone attainment

demonstrations for the St. Louis area for

purposes of attaining the one-hour

ozone standard. The available qualityassured ozone data for the most recent

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 only be needed for the

purposes of maintaining the ozone

standard in the St. Louis area and for

reducing ozone and ozone precursor

transport into downwind areas.

Therefore, additional ozone modeling to

support a new ozone attainment

demonstration is not needed at this

time.

Following the redesignation of the St.

Louis area to attainment of the one-hour

ozone standard (the subject of this final

rule and that for the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis area also published today),

a violation of the one-hour ozone

25464

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25464 2003
Federal 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 of analyses it deems

necessary to determine the levels and

types of additional 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 is what Congress provided in the

Act.

H. Comments Related to Redesignation

of a Portion of the St. Louis Area

Comment 42: 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

should proceed with the redesignation

for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis

area.

Response 42: In a separate 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 on the

Missouri and Illinois redesignation

requests in separate rulemakings.

L Comments Related to Interstate

Transport

Comment 43: EPA must 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.

Response 43: This comment refers to

both the Missouri and Illinois portions

of the St. Louis area. EPA is here

providing a response regarding the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See

a separate rulemaking in today's Federal

Register regarding redesignation of the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

EPA's response to this comment as it

pertains to the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area.

As stated above, EPA believes that

state obligations under the NOx SIP call

are not applicable requirements for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. The NOx SIP call requirements

are not linked with a particular area's

ozone designation and classification.

EPA believes that the 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 of the designation of

any one particular area in the State.

Thus, we do not believe that the NOx

SIP call submission should be construed

to be an applicable requirement for

purposes of redesignation. 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 at (60 FR 62748, 62741)

(December 7, 1995). See also the

discussion on this issue in the

Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890)

(June 19, 2000).

Illinois has adopted and EPA has

approved statewide NOx rules 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 of the Metro-East St. Louis

area to attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard.

Comment 44: A commenter notes that

the expected NOx emission control

programs and emission reductions for

the St. Louis area should not be

jeopardized due to the absence of

continued Federal enforceability of the

SIPs.

Response 44: The SIPs will remain

Federally enforceable following

redesignation of the St. Louis area to

attainment. In addition, NOx emission

control measures (with the 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 a NOx RACT waiver

for the Metro-East St. Louis area. NOx

RACT has never been part of the Illinois

SIP. This redesignation does not

jeopardize any NOx emission control

regulations expected and part of the SIP

for the Metro-East St. Louis area or for

the State of Illinois.

Comment 45: The redesgination of the

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

have to meet the applicable provisions

of the Act and be approved by the EPA.

Response 45: As noted above, the

redesignation of the St. Louis area to

attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard will have no effect on the

implementation of the statewide NOx

control rules in Illinois. In addition,

irregardless of the attainment status of

the St. Louis area for the one-hour ozone

standard, EPA will proceed with making

its decision as to whether the eastern

portion of Missouri must meet specific

NOx SIP call requirements. EPA will

closely review any proposed changes in

the NOx emission control programs

which are currently in place in the

Metro-East St. Louis area and in Illinois

to ensure that the proposed changes will

not adversely affect the 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 to review

by the Office of Management 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 and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 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 or uniquely 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 will not 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 and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

25465

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 25465 2003
Federal 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 of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, 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 of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule 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 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) of the

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 of the

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 a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 11, 2003.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas, Ozone.

Dated: April 30, 2003.

Thomas V. Skinner,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

* For the reasons stated in the preamble,

chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart 0-Illinois

* 2. Section 52.726 is amended by

adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows:

§52.726 Control strategy: Ozone. * * * * *

(ee) Approval of the Maintenance

Plan for the Illinois Portion of the St.

Louis Area-On December 30, 2002

Illinois submitted Maintenance Plan for

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis

Nonattainment Area. The plan includes

2014 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission

Budget of 10.13 tons per ozone season

weekday of VOCs and 18.72 tons per

ozone season weekday NOx to be used

in transportation conformity.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 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 ...................... Attainm ent

M onroe County .............................................. M ay 12, 2003 ...................... Attainm ent

St. C lair C ounty ............................................. M ay 12, 2003 ...................... Attainm ent

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