33996 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Tracking No. MO–0132–1132, IL 196–3;

FRL–7001–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; States of Illinois

and Missouri; 1-Hour Ozone

Attainment Demonstrations, Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budgets,

Reasonably Available Control

Measures, Contingency Measures,

Attainment Date Extension, and

Withdrawal of Nonattainment

Determination and Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

(Act), EPA is approving the Illinois and

Missouri 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration State Implementation

Plans (SIP) for the St. Louis moderate

ozone nonattainment area. In

conjunction with its approval of the

attainment demonstration, EPA is:

extending the ozone attainment date for

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area

to November 15, 2004, while retaining

the area’s current classification as a

moderate ozone nonattainment area;

withdrawing EPA’s March 19, 2001,

rulemaking determining nonattainment

and reclassification of the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area; finding that

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area

meets the reasonably available control

measures (RACM) requirements of the

Act; finding that the contingency

measures identified by the states of

Illinois and Missouri are adequate;

approving the Illinois and Missouri

motor vehicle emissions budgets

(MVEB); and approving an exemption

from the oxides of nitrogen ( NOX)

emission control requirements for

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) and disapproving an exemption

from the NOX new source review (NSR)

and NOX conformity requirements for

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area.

DATES: This rule is effective

immediately June 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

addresses: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; or

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 7, Air, RCRA, and Toxics

Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101. Please make

arrangements prior to visiting the

Regional Offices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Doty, EPA Region 5, (312) 886–

6057; or Lynn M. Slugantz, EPA Region

7, (913) 551–7883.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean

EPA.

Background

A notice of proposed rulemaking was

published on this action on April 17,

2000 (65 FR 20404), and notices of

supplemental proposed rulemakings

were published on April 3, 2001 (66 FR

17647), and April 19, 2001 (66 FR

20122). In a related Federal Register in

March 1999 (64 FR 13384), EPA has also

published a notice regarding the St.

Louis area’s potential eligibility for an

attainment date extension. EPA received

comments on these proposals. EPA has

also received comments on a related

notice: the ‘‘Extension of Attainment

Dates for Downwind Transport Areas,’’

64 FR 12221 (March 25, 1999). In this

final rule, EPA responds to adverse

comments on these proposed

rulemakings and notices. For details on

the SIP submittals and the EPA analysis

of the submittals, refer to the notices of

proposed rules referenced above in this

paragraph, and the technical support

document for the April 17, 2000,

proposal.

EPA is making this final rulemaking

effective immediately. Section 553(d) of

the Administrative Procedure Act

generally provides that rules may not

take effect earlier than 30 days after they

are published in the Federal Register.

However, if an Agency identifies a good

cause, section 553(d)(3) allows a rule to

take effect earlier, provided that the

Agency publishes its reasoning in the

final rule. EPA is making this action

effective immediately because the

effective date of the nonattainment

determination and reclassification

(which is being withdrawn as a result of

this final rule) is imminent. In addition,

EPA finds good cause for making this

action effective immediately because, in

part, it relieves a restriction that would

otherwise go into effect.

Information

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

I. What Illinois and Missouri SIP revisions

are the topic of this action?

II. What previous actions have been taken

regarding the St. Louis area attainment

demonstrations and attainment dates?

III. What MVEBs are we approving?

IV. How did Illinois fulfill the

requirements for an exemption from NOX

emission control requirements for RACT for

the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area?

V. What Contingency Measures are we

approving for the St. Louis area?

VI. Implementation of RACM.

VII. What are the requirements for full

approval of the attainment demonstration?

VIII. Did Illinois and Missouri fulfill these

requirements for full approval?

IX. What are the requirements for an

attainment date extension?

X. How did Illinois and Missouri satisfy

the criteria for an extension?

XI. What action is EPA taking regarding the

Determination of Nonattainment as of

November 15, 1996, and Reclassification

published on March 19, 2001?

XII. What comments were received on the

proposals covered by this final action, and on

the March 25, 1999, publication of the

attainment date extension policy, and how

has EPA responded to those?

XIII. What action is EPA taking regarding

the state submittals addressed by this final

rule?

I. What Illinois and Missouri SIP

Revisions Are the Topic of This Action?

The St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area encompasses the interstate area of

Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair

Counties in Illinois; and Franklin,

Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis

Counties, and the City of St. Louis in

Missouri. The states of Illinois and

Missouri made several submittals to us

relating to the ozone attainment

demonstration and their request for an

extension of the attainment date for the

St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. The

submittals listed below relate directly to

EPA’s final action described in this

document.

1. In November 1994, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) submitted a 15% Rate-OfProgress Plan (ROPP) for the control of

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions in the Illinois portion of the

St. Louis area. This 15% ROPP, as

supplemented on January 31, 1995, was

approved by EPA in a final rulemaking

on July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37494);

2. In October 1997, the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) submitted to EPA the

contingency measures rules for the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. This contingency

measures SIP, as supplemented on April

5, 2001, is being approved as a part of

this final rulemaking;

3. In a submission dated November

10, 1999, MDNR submitted an ozone

attainment demonstration along with

several additional SIP revisions. The

attainment demonstration, as

supplemented on November 2, 2000, is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33997

being approved today. Those additional

SIP revisions submitted on November

10, 1999, include:

i. Regulations and associated

documentation for the control of VOC

emissions from various industries and

existing major sources. These VOC

RACT rules were approved by EPA in a

final rulemaking on May 18, 2000 (65

FR 31489);

ii. Regulations and associated

documentation for the control of NOX

emissions intended to meet NOX RACT

requirements of the Act in the Missouri

portion of the St. Louis nonattainment

area. This NOX RACT rule was

approved by EPA in a final rulemaking

on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31482);

iii. A 15% ROPP for the control of

VOC emissions in the Missouri portion

of the St. Louis nonattainment area. EPA

approved Missouri’s 15% ROPP on May

18, 2000 (65 FR 31485); and

iv. An improved vehicle inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program. EPA

approved Missouri’s vehicle I/M

program on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31480).

4. On November 15, 1999, IEPA

submitted a letter outlining the ozone

attainment strategy for the St. Louis area

and the state’s emission control

commitments. As explained in the

March 18, 1999, notice, Illinois had

previously submitted a number of

control measures for its portion of the

St. Louis area (64 FR 13384, 13388–

13389).

5. On February 10, 2000, IEPA

submitted its adopted ozone attainment

demonstration SIP. This SIP revision

includes a petition for an exemption

from NOX RACT, NOX NSR, and certain

conformity NOX requirements for the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area. This SIP revision

also reflects the emission modifications

and attainment demonstration revisions

resulting from the emission controls

contained in a January 19, 2000,

submittal from MDNR. EPA is taking

final action on this SIP revision in

today’s rulemaking;

6. On November 2, 2000, MDNR

submitted an adopted attainment

demonstration revision. EPA is taking

final action on this SIP revision in

today’s rulemaking;

7. On November 15, 2000, MDNR

submitted adopted regulations for NOX

emission controls for electricity

generating units (EGU) within the state.

EPA approved those regulations in a

final rulemaking on December 28, 2000

(65 FR 82285);

8. On February 28, 2001, and April

13, 2001, respectively, Missouri and

Illinois submitted comparisons of

estimated 2004 VOC and NOX emissions

for the St. Louis area with their

previously submitted 2003 emission

estimates for all source sectors. The

states also accounted for expected

changes in the 2003 and 2004 EGU NOX

emissions inventories for the states of

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and

Tennessee. In addition, Missouri’s 2004

EGU NOX emissions were analyzed with

respect to both the current statewide

NOX control regulations and the

anticipated impacts of compliance with

EPA’s NOX SIP call. The current

Missouri NOX rules and anticipated

potential revisions to the Missouri NOX

rules are explained in our April 3, 2001,

supplemental proposed rulemaking (66

FR 17653). The February 28, 2001, and

April 13, 2001, attainment

demonstration SIPs are being approved

as a part of today’s rulemaking;

9. On February 28, 2001, and April

13, 2001, respectively, Missouri and

Illinois submitted emissions inventory

and transportation conformity budgets

in final form, revised to reflect an

attainment date of 2004. EPA is

approving these emission budgets in

today’s rulemaking;

10. On March 7, 2001, and April 30,

2001, respectively, Missouri and Illinois

committed to revise and resubmit their

MVEBs within two years of the release

of MOBILE6. EPA is approving these

supplemental commitments as a part of

the states’ SIPs in today’s rulemaking;

and

11. On May 8, 2001, IEPA submitted

a final NOX rule for EGUs needed to

support the ozone attainment

demonstration for the St. Louis area. On

June 8, 2001, EPA signed a final rule

approving the Illinois NOX EGU

regulations.

II. What Previous Actions Have Been

Taken Regarding the St. Louis Area

Attainment Demonstrations and

Attainment Dates?

On March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13384),

EPA proposed in the Federal Register to

find that the St. Louis ozone

nonattainment area had not attained the

1-hour ozone national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) by the

attainment date (November 15, 1996) for

moderate nonattainment areas. Also in

that notice, EPA issued a notice of the

St. Louis area’s potential eligibility for

an attainment date extension, pursuant

to EPA’s, ‘‘Guidance on Extension of Air

Quality Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas’’ (hereinafter referred to

as the attainment date extension policy)

(Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation)

issued on July 16, 1998. In the March

18, 1999, Federal Register, EPA

proposed to finalize the reclassification

of the St. Louis nonattainment area only

after the area had an opportunity to

qualify for an attainment date extension

under the attainment date extension

policy.

On April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20404), EPA

proposed to approve, or in the

alternative, disapprove, Illinois’ and

Missouri’s 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration SIPs for the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area. In that

notice, we stated that we would

disapprove the attainment

demonstration if the states did not

submit specific revisions to the

attainment demonstration and other

associated documents. These revisions

and documents were necessary to

provide or support fully approvable

ozone attainment demonstrations SIPs

and to meet the criteria of EPA’s

attainment date extension policy. Also,

in that notice we proposed to approve

an extension of the ozone attainment

date for the St. Louis area to November

15, 2003, while retaining the area’s

classification as a moderate ozone

nonattainment area, if EPA took final

action to approve the states’ ozone

attainment demonstrations. EPA also

proposed other related actions in the

April 17, 2000, proposal.

Subsequent to the April 17, 2000,

proposed rulemaking, relevant court

decisions affecting the proposed

extended attainment date for the St.

Louis area were issued. First, on August

30, 2000, the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit issued an Order (Michigan v.

EPA, No. 98–1497, August 30, 2000),

extending the source compliance date

for the state rules resulting from the

NOX SIP call from May 1, 2003, to May

31, 2004. The effect of this ruling is that

the regional NOX emission reductions

relied on in the attainment

demonstration cannot be assumed to

occur before the Court-ordered

compliance date. As such, EPA

requested that Illinois and Missouri

consider the impacts of this ruling on

the St. Louis area ozone attainment

demonstrations.

Second, on January 29, 2001, the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia ordered EPA to

make a determination, no later than

March 12, 2001, to be published not

later than March 20, 2001, as to whether

the St. Louis area attained the requisite

1-hour ozone standard. (Sierra Club v.

Browner, 130 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C.

2001)). In compliance with the Court’s

Order, on March 19, 2001 (66 FR

15578), we published in the Federal

Register our determination that the St.

Louis ozone nonattainment area did not

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by

November 15, 1996. By operation of

33998 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

law, that determination would result in

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area

being reclassified from a moderate to a

serious nonattainment area on the

effective date of that rule, which was

originally May 18, 2001, but which was

subsequently modified to June 29, 2001,

66 FR 27036 (May 16, 2001). In the

March 19, 2001, rulemaking, EPA also

set forth its intent to withdraw the final

determination and reclassification, if

EPA granted the states an attainment

date extension before the effective date

of the determination and reclassification

rule.

The Sierra Club and Missouri

Coalition for the Environment filed a

Petition for a Writ of Prohibition in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

D.C. Circuit (No. 01–1141) to prevent

EPA from granting an attainment date

extension to the St. Louis area and from

withdrawing EPA’s determination of

nonattainment. EPA filed an opposition

to this petition, and the Court, in an

Order filed June 8, 2001, denied the

petition. In addition, three separate

appeals by the Sierra Club and Missouri

Coalition for the Environment, the state

of Illinois, and the state of Missouri, of

the Court’s Order issued January 29,

2001, as modified on February 15, 2001

(130 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2001) have

been consolidated in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Sierra Club

v. Whitman (D.C. Cir. No. 01–5123, 01–

5061, 01–5063).

Finally, Illinois and Missouri

petitioned for review of EPA’s final

agency action published March 19, 2001

(66 FR 15578). Missouri filed its petition

in the 8th Circuit (No. 01–2162) and

Illinois filed in the 7th Circuit Illinois v.

EPA, No. 01–2257. EPA has moved to

transfer the Illinois petition to the 8th

Circuit. EPA and the states have also

filed a joint motion to stay proceedings

in the 8th Circuit pending EPA’s

rulemaking with respect to withdrawal

of the nonattainment determination and

reclassification.

On April 3, 2001 (66 FR 17647), EPA

published in the Federal Register a

supplement to our April 17, 2000,

proposed rule. In that supplemental

notice, EPA addressed supplemental

state submittals relating to corrections to

the 1996 emissions inventory and the

Missouri transportation conformity

budget called for in the April 17, 2000,

proposed rule, and additional

submissions by the states relevant to the

modeled attainment demonstration and

MVEBs. Also, in our April 3, 2001,

supplemental notice, we proposed to

extend the attainment date for the St.

Louis area to November 15, 2004, and to

withdraw the March 19, 2001,

Determination of Nonattainment and

Reclassification if EPA approved an

attainment date extension prior to the

effective date of the Determination of

Nonattainment. At the time the initial

attainment demonstrations were

prepared and submitted for the St. Louis

area, the states were using an attainment

date of 2003 based on the October 1998

NOX SIP call (62 FR 60318), consistent

with the attainment date extension

policy. As noted above, a subsequent

August 30, 2000, decision in Michigan

v. EPA, delayed the NOX SIP call source

compliance date to May 31, 2004.

Because the attainment demonstration

for the St. Louis area relies on the

upwind, NOX emission reductions

resulting from the NOX SIP call, the

attainment deadline cannot be earlier

than the date by which upwind states

must have controls in place to address

NOX emissions. (See, 66 FR 17647,

17649, April 3, 2001.)

On April 19, 2001 (66 FR 20122), EPA

published a supplemental notice in

which we proposed to find that

Missouri and Illinois have met the

RACM requirements of the Act and that

the contingency measures identified by

the states are adequate to meet the

requirements of the Act. Finally, on May

16, 2001, EPA published a final rule

delaying the effective date of the

nonattainment determination and

reclassification (66 FR 27036).

EPA has received comments on

portions of our March 18, 1999; April

17, 2000; April 3, 2001; and April 19,

2001, proposed rules. The Sierra Club

and the Missouri Coalition for the

Environment jointly submitted adverse

comments on portions of the March 18,

1999; April 17, 2000; and April 3, 2001,

proposed rules. EPA received no

adverse comments on the April 19,

2001, proposal. EPA also received no

adverse comments on its April 3, 2001,

proposed withdrawal of the March 19

rulemaking if it granted an extension of

the attainment date. All other comments

on the proposals supported EPA’s

proposed actions. In this final rule, EPA

responds to the adverse comments

received in response to the relevant

proposals. EPA also responds to the

relevant adverse comments on its March

25, 1999, notice of interpretation

regarding the attainment date extension

policy (64 FR 12221).

III. What MVEBs Are We Approving?

Illinois and Missouri have submitted

MVEBs for the 2004 attainment year for

their respective portions of the St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area. The

emissions budgets are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—ST. LOUIS AREA 2004

ATTAINMENT MVEB

State Pollutant

2004

tons/

day

Missouri .... VOC ............................. 43.74

NOX ............................. 91.90

Illinois ........ VOC ............................. 26.62

NOX ............................. 35.52

EPA did not receive any adverse

comments on the proposal to approve

the emissions budgets. EPA is approving

these MVEBs because they are

consistent with the control measures in

the SIPs, and the SIPs as a whole

demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard. The rationale for our

approval is detailed in the April 3, 2001,

supplemental proposal (66 FR 17647,

17652) and in the April 17, 2000,

proposal (65 FR 20404, 20416). Missouri

has committed to revise its 2004 MVEBs

within two years after the release of

MOBILE6. Missouri has committed that

if it does not revise its budgets within

the first year after release of MOBILE6,

no conformity determinations will be

made during the second year unless

adequate MOBILE6 derived budgets are

in place. Illinois has committed to

revise its 2004 MVEBs within two years

of the release of MOBILE6. No

conformity determinations may be made

in either Missouri or Illinois during the

second year unless adequate MOBILE6

derived budgets are in place.

All states whose attainment

demonstrations include the effects of

the Tier 2/sulfur program must commit

to revise and resubmit their MVEBs after

EPA releases MOBILE6. If a state fails to

meet its commitment to submit revised

budgets using MOBILE6, EPA could

make a finding of failure to implement

the SIP, which would start a sanctions

clock under section 179 of the Act.

The final approval action we are

taking today will be effective for

conformity purposes only until revised

MVEBs are submitted and we have

found them adequate. In other words,

the budgets we are approving today will

apply for conformity purposes only

until there are new, adequate budgets

consistent with the states’ commitments

to revise the budgets. The new budgets

will apply for conformity purposes after

we find them adequate.

We are limiting the duration of our

approval in this manner because we are

only approving the attainment

demonstrations and their budgets

because the states have committed to

revise them. Therefore, once we have

confirmed that the revised budgets are

adequate, they will be more appropriate

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33999

than the budgets we are approving for

conformity purposes now.

If the revised budgets raise issues

about the sufficiency of the attainment

demonstration, EPA will work with

states on a case-by-case basis. If the

revised budgets show that motor vehicle

emissions are lower than the budgets we

are approving today, a reassessment of

the attainment demonstration’s analysis

will be necessary before reallocating the

emission reductions or assigning them

to the MVEB as a safety margin. In other

words, the states must assess how their

original attainment demonstration is

impacted by using MOBILE6 vs.

MOBILE5 before they reallocate any

apparent motor vehicle emission

reductions resulting from the use of

MOBILE6.

IV. How Did Illinois Fulfill the

Requirements for an Exemption From

NOX Emission Control Requirements

for RACT for the Illinois Portion of the

St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area?

On February 10, 2000, IEPA

submitted its adopted ozone attainment

demonstration SIP. This SIP revision

submittal included a petition for an

exemption from NOX RACT, NOX NSR,

and certain conformity NOX

requirements for the Illinois portion of

the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.

This petition is based on Illinois’

conclusion that it has demonstrated

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

without the need to implement these

additional NOX emission controls.

Accordingly, under section 182(f)(2),

these additional NOX emission

reductions may be considered ‘‘in

excess’’ of reductions needed to attain

the 1-hour ozone standard. The NOX

emission reductions in the attainment

demonstration and control strategy

submitted by Illinois are limited to NOX

emission reductions from EGUs needed

to support the ozone attainment

demonstration or other Act-required

emission controls not included in their

exemption petition. The ozone impacts

in the St. Louis area resulting from NOX

emissions are dominated by the impacts

of regional NOX emissions from EGUs,

and further controlling local NOX

emissions for other source categories in

the Illinois portion of the nonattainment

area would not significantly impact

ozone levels or advance the attainment

date.

The ozone attainment demonstration

shows that application of the specific

section 182(f)(1) NOX control

requirements in the Illinois portion of

the nonattainment area would not be

required to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard by May 31, 2004. (See 65 FR

20402, 20419, April 17, 2000.) In

addition, as explained in EPA’s

proposed rule relating to RACM and

contingency measures (66 FR 20122,

20124–20125), sensitivity analyses

performed by both states show that

substantial local NOX reductions would

not accelerate attainment. In our April

17, 2000, document, EPA proposed to

approve Illinois’ petition with regard to

an exemption from NOX RACT, but to

deny their petition for an exemption

from NOX NSR and NOX conformity.

The attainment demonstration indicated

that additional NOX emission

reductions that could be expected to

result from the implementation of RACT

were not needed to achieve the ozone

standard. The attainment

demonstration, however, failed to

demonstrate that attainment would also

occur even if NOX emissions

significantly increased (the type of

demonstration needed to support a

waiver for NOX NSR and NOX

conformity requirements). Our reasons

for denying parts of Illinois’ petition are

explained in more detail in the April 17,

2000, proposed rule (see, 65 FR 20404,

20409–20410). We received no adverse

comments with regard to this particular

part of our proposal.

We are granting Illinois’ request for an

exemption from the NOX RACT

requirements, pursuant to section

182(f)(2) of the Act, for Madison,

Monroe, and St. Clair Counties. We are

denying Illinois’ request for an

exemption from the NOX NSR and

certain NOX conformity requirements.

Illinois has an approved NSR program

covering, in part, NOX, and has, as

noted elsewhere in this rulemaking,

submitted a motor vehicle NOX

emissions budget for the Illinois portion

of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment

area. Therefore, our denial of the Illinois

request with respect to NOX NSR and

conformity does not result in any SIP

deficiencies.

V. What Contingency Measures Are We

Approving for the St. Louis Area?

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires

that SIPs contain additional measures

that will take effect without further

action by the state or EPA if an area fails

to attain the standard by the applicable

date. In our April 19, 2001, Federal

Register, we provide our interpretation

of this requirement of the Act (66 FR

20122, 20125). According to EPA

guidance referenced in that Federal

Register, we indicate that states with

moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas should include

sufficient contingency measures so that,

upon implementation of such measures,

additional emissions reductions of up to

3 percent of the emissions in the

adjusted base year inventory (or such

lesser percentage that will cure the

identified failure) would be achieved in

the year following the year in which the

failure has been identified. As explained

in the April 19, 2001, proposal, EPA has

also determined that Federal measures

can be used to analyze whether the

contingency measure requirements of

section 179(c)(9) have been met. While

these Federal measures are not SIPapproved contingency measures which

would apply if an area fails to attain,

EPA believes that existing Federally

enforceable measures can be used to

provide the necessary substantive relief.

Therefore, Federal measures may be

used in the analysis, to the extent that

the attainment demonstration does not

rely on them or take credit for them.

Missouri’s 1990 adjusted base year

inventory of VOC emissions is 315.70

tons per day (TPD). Per EPA’s guidance,

Missouri’s contingency measures must

achieve VOC reductions equivalent to 3

percent of the adjusted base year

inventory, or 9.47 TPD. Implementation

of Missouri’s solvent cleaning rule, 10

CSR 10–5.300, will provide for VOC

emissions reductions of 8.36 TPD, and

implementation of the Federal Tier 2/

Low Sulfur Gasoline rule will provide

for VOC emissions reductions of 1.59

TPD, for a combined emissions

reduction of 9.95 TPD, which exceeds

the required reductions of 9.47 TPD.

The total amount of reduction needed

for Illinois to meet the contingency

measure requirement in the Metro-East

St. Louis nonattainment area is 3

percent of the adjusted base year

emissions inventory or 4.96 TPD.

Illinois has identified emissions

reductions of 6.54 TPD from the Federal

rules regarding On-Board Diagnostics,

Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline, Non-Road

Engine Standards, and other mobile

source measures which exceed the

required reductions of 4.96 TPD. EPA

did not receive any adverse comments

on our proposal to approve the states’

contingency measures. EPA finds that

the measures identified in Table 2

below meet the requirements in section

172(c)(9). EPA is also hereby approving

the contingency measures element of

Missouri’s SIP, as submitted in October

1997 and supplemented by a letter

dated April 5, 2001.

TABLE 2.—ST. LOUIS AREA APPROVED

CONTINGENCY MEASURES

State Control measures

Missouri .... Solvent Metal Cleaning Rule 10

CSR 10–5.300.

Tier 2/Low Sulfur Fuel Program.

Illinois ........ Mobile Source Measures.

34000 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1On page 17651, the narrative incorrectly cites

the ozone standard at 124 parts per million and

predicted ozone design values at or below 124 parts

per million. The correct values are 124 parts per

billion.

TABLE 2.—ST. LOUIS AREA APPROVED

CONTINGENCY MEASURES—Continued

State Control measures

Tier 2/Low Sulfur Fuel Program.

On-Board Diagnostics.

Non-Road Engine Standards.

VI. Implementation of RACM

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires

that SIPs provide for the

implementation of all RACM as

expeditiously as practicable. EPA has

previously provided guidance

interpreting the RACM requirements of

172(c)(1). (See 57 FR 13498, 13560.) We

also discussed the RACM requirements

in our April 19, 2001, Federal Register

proposal. EPA has reviewed the states’

submitted sensitivity analyses, the

process used by the metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) to review

and select transportation control

measures, the states’ evaluation of

potential stationary source control

measures, and the attainment year

emissions inventories for the St. Louis

area. While the Act requires

nonattainment areas to implement

available RACM measures, EPA does

not believe that section 172(c)(1)

requires implementation of potential

RACM measures that either require

costly implementation efforts or that

produce relatively small emissions

reductions that will not accelerate

attainment of the ozone standard.

Sensitivity modeling for the St. Louis

area indicates that the ozone benefits

expected to be achieved from regional

NOX reductions (such as the NOX SIP

call) are far greater than the ozone

benefit that could be achieved by local

implementation of the measures which

have been rejected as possible RACM.

Therefore, EPA believes that the

reductions from such measures would

not accelerate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS.

EPA did not receive any adverse

comments on our proposed finding that

the states had satisfied the RACM

requirements of the Act. Based upon the

above, and upon the explanation

provided in our April 19, 2001,

proposed rule (66 FR 20122, 20123–

20125), EPA is finding that the St. Louis

nonattainment area SIPs adequately

provide for RACM.

VII. What Are the Requirements for

Full Approval of the Attainment

Demonstration?

The attainment demonstration SIP

must meet applicable criteria as detailed

in the Act. The specific requirements of

the Act for moderate ozone

nonattainment areas are found in

section 182(b)(1), and requirements for

attainment demonstrations in multistate

areas are found in section 182(j)(1)(B).

Section 172 provides the general

requirements for nonattainment plans.

Refer to 65 FR 20404, 20406 in our April

17, 2000, proposal for further details of

requirements for attainment

demonstrations.

VIII. Did Illinois and Missouri Fulfill

These Requirements for Full Approval?

EPA guidance published in 1996

suggests that states may rely on a

modeled attainment demonstration

supplemented with additional weight of

evidence (WOE) to demonstrate

attainment (‘‘Guidance on the Use of

Modeled Results to Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,’’

EPA–454/B–95–007, June 1996). In our

April 17, 2000, Federal Register we

listed documents containing EPA’s

guidelines affecting the content and

review of ozone attainment

demonstration submittals. (65 FR at

20406–20407.) In that notice, we also

described in detail the modeling

requirements for an attainment

demonstration as well as the additional

analyses that may be considered when

the deterministic approach, as described

in EPA guidance, does not show

attainment. (65 FR at 20407–20408.) In

our April 3, 2001, Federal Register

document, EPA details the statistical

and modeling data presented in the

states’ attainment demonstration, as

well as additional graphical and

statistical data the states have provided

to support the validity of the ozone

modeling results and the adequacy of

the adopted ozone attainment strategies.

See, 66 FR at 17649–17652.1 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. EPA

also finds that the appropriate

attainment date is November 15, 2004,

based on the attainment demonstrations.

EPA received adverse comments

regarding the states’ modeled attainment

demonstrations, but no comments were

received on the WOE analysis by the

states and EPA. These comments and

our responses are summarized

elsewhere in this notice.

IX. What Are the Criteria for an

Attainment Date Extension?

EPA’s policy regarding an extension

of the ozone attainment date for the St.

Louis area was set forth in EPA’s initial

notice of proposed rulemaking dated

March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13384, 13387–

13388). On July 16, 1998, a guidance

memorandum entitled ‘‘Extension of

Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas’’ was issued by EPA

and was published in a notice of

interpretation on March 25, 1999 (64 FR

12221). In it, EPA set forth its

interpretation of the Act regarding the

extension of attainment dates for ozone

nonattainment areas that have been

classified as moderate or serious for the

1-hour ozone standard, and which are

downwind of areas that have interfered

with the moderate and serious

nonattainment areas’s attainment of the

ozone standard by dates prescribed in

the Act. EPA stated that it will consider

extending the attainment date for an

area or a state that:

1. Has been identified as a downwind

area affected by transport from either an

upwind area in the same state with a

later attainment date or an upwind area

in another state that significantly

contributes to downwind ozone

nonattainment;

2. Has submitted an approvable

attainment demonstration with any

necessary, adopted local measures, and

with an attainment date that shows it

will attain the 1-hour standard no later

than the date that the emission

reductions are expected from upwind

areas in the final NOX SIP call and/or

the statutory attainment date for upwind

nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the

boundary conditions reflecting those

upwind emission reductions;

3. Has adopted all applicable local

measures required under the area’s

current ozone classification and any

additional emission control measures

demonstrated to be necessary to achieve

attainment, assuming the emission

reductions occur as required in the

upwind areas; and

4. Has provided that it will implement

all adopted measures as expeditiously

as practicable, but no later than the date

by which the upwind reductions needed

for attainment will be achieved.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34001

2EPA is extending the attainment date for the St.

Louis area to November 15, 2004, to allow the

reductions in transport to occur before attainment

is required. This does not affect the states’

obligations to implement the remaining local

measures as expeditiously as practicable.

X. How Did Illinois and Missouri

Satisfy the Criteria for an Extension?

The states of Illinois and Missouri

satisfied the criteria for an attainment

date extension as follows:

1. The states have cited EPA’s NOX

SIP call modeling and analyses

documented in the Ozone Transport

Assessment Group (OTAG) process to

demonstrate that the St. Louis area is

affected by an upwind area in another

state that significantly contributes to

ozone nonattainment in the St. Louis

area. In our April 17, 2000, notice (65

FR 20404), we explained how the OTAG

modeling and the attainment

demonstration for the St. Louis area

submitted by Missouri and Illinois show

the impacts of transport, specifically

noting that the sources in Kentucky

make significant contributions to the St.

Louis nonattainment area. On this basis,

EPA finds that this criterion of the

attainment date extension policy has

been met;

2. As explained elsewhere in this

notice, the states of Illinois and

Missouri have submitted approvable

attainment demonstrations.

Furthermore, all of the control measures

needed for attainment have been

adopted. These measures include all

moderate area requirements under

section 182(b) and the statewide NOX

controls for EGUs discussed in this final

rule and the April 3, 2001, proposal (66

FR 17647, 17653–17655).

3. Both Missouri and Illinois have

adopted local measures required by the

Act for the area’s current classification

as a moderate nonattainment area. (See,

66 FR 17647, 17654 (April 3, 2001) and

references cited therein for a discussion

of the local measures adopted by the

states.) Elsewhere in today’s notice, EPA

explains why we are approving an

exemption from the NOX RACT

requirements for the state of Illinois

which exempts Illinois from the

obligation to adopt the NOX RACT

requirements for the metro-East portion

of the St. Louis area; and

4. With respect to implementation of

all adopted measures as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than the time

upwind controls are expected, Missouri

and Illinois have demonstrated that all

control measures would be in place by

the start of the ozone season in 2003,

which at the time of our April 17, 2000,

proposal was the compliance date for

the NOX SIP call. The attainment

demonstration also relies on reductions

from the NOX SIP call to reduce

transported ozone precursors, and the

source compliance date for the NOX SIP

call has been extended to May 31,

2004.2 Since the local measures adopted

by Illinois and Missouri necessary for

attainment will be implemented no later

than 2003, the states have shown that

this element of the attainment date

extension policy has been met.

Therefore, EPA concludes that,

consistent with the attainment date

extension policy, the states have met the

criteria for an attainment date extension.

EPA received comments regarding the

basis for and application of the

extension policy in granting the St.

Louis ozone nonattainment area an

attainment date extension. Those

comments and our responses to

comments are summarized elsewhere in

this document.

XI. What Action Is EPA Taking

Regarding the Determination of

Nonattainment as of November 15,

1996, and Reclassification Published on

March 19, 2001?

On January 29, 2001, the United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia ordered EPA to make a

determination, no later than March 12,

2001, as to whether the St. Louis

nonattainment area attained the

requisite 1-hour ozone standard. (Sierra

Club v. Browner, cited previously.) On

March 8, 2001, EPA informed the Court

of the actions that EPA intended to take

in response to its Order. The Court, in

a limited review to determine whether

EPA’s planned course of action would

contravene the Court’s Order, indicated

that EPA, by signing a determination by

March 12, 2001, and publishing the

required document by March 20, would

comply with the Court’s Order. The

Court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to

assess the propriety of the remainder of

EPA’s planned course of action.

(Memorandum Opinion and Order,

March 9, 2001.)

On March 19, 2001, EPA published its

‘‘Determination of Nonattainment as of

November 15, 1996, and Reclassification

of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area; States of Missouri and Illinois;

Final Rule’’ (66 FR 15578). The effective

date of that Determination and

Reclassification was initially set at May

18, 2001. However, in a separate notice

the same day (66 FR 15591), EPA

proposed to delay the effective date of

the Determination and Reclassification

until June 29, 2001. On May 16, 2001

(66 FR 27036), EPA finalized the

modification of the effective date of the

Determination of Nonattainment as of

November 15, 1996, and Reclassification

of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area, extending it until June 29, 2001.

In our April 3, 2001, Federal Register

document (66 FR 17647), EPA proposed

to withdraw the Notice of Determination

of Nonattainment and Reclassification if

we approved an attainment date

extension prior to the effective date of

the Determination of Nonattainment.

EPA did not receive any adverse

comments relating to our proposal to

withdraw the nonattainment

determination and consequent

reclassification in the event we granted

an attainment date extension. Since we

are today granting an extension until

November 15, 2004, for attainment of

the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA’s

obligation to determine attainment is

thereby shifted into the future. As a

result, we are hereby withdrawing the

published nonattainment determination

and the consequent reclassification,

which have not yet gone into effect.

Therefore, the St. Louis area retains

its classification as a moderate ozone

nonattainment area. (As stated

previously, comments on our proposal

to extend the attainment date are

addressed below.) In today’s action, we

are withdrawing the Notice of

Nonattainment Determination and

Reclassification, prior to their becoming

effective.

XII. What Comments Were Received on

the Proposals Covered by This Final

Action, and on the March 25, 1999,

Publication of the Attainment Date

Extension Policy, and How Has EPA

Responded to Those?

EPA received comments from the

public on the Notices and Supplemental

Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

published on March 19, 1999; April 17,

2000; April 3, 2001; and April 19, 2001,

for the proposed approval of the St.

Louis area’s ozone attainment

demonstration and attainment date

extension. EPA received adverse

comments from the Sierra Club and the

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

(on the March 18, 1999; April 17, 2000;

and April 3, 2001, proposals). EPA also

received comments in support of the

proposals from IEPA and MDNR, and

from various industries and industrial

associations.

EPA sets forth below in this section

our responses to adverse comments

received on these notices which are

relevant to this rulemaking. EPA also

received comments relating to the

proposal to determine that the St. Louis

area did not attain the ozone standard

by November 15, 1996. These comments

relate primarily to the necessity of

making the nonattainment

34002 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

determinations, the appropriate

attainment date if the area were

reclassified, and the SIP submission

date for the area. In EPA’s March 19,

2001, final rule, EPA responded to

adverse comments on the proposed

determination that the area did not

attain the standard by November 15,

1996, and proposed reclassification to

serious nonattainment. (66 FR 15578,

15585–15588.)

Finally, some of the comments

received in Docket A–98–47 on EPA’s

notice regarding ‘‘Extension of

Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas’’ 64 FR 12221 (March

25, 1999), are relevant to this

rulemaking. EPA incorporates its

responses to those comments, set forth

in 66 FR 586, 66 FR 634, 66 FR 666

(January 3, 2001), and 66 FR 26913 (May

15, 2001), insofar as herein relevant.

The following discussion summarizes

and responds to all adverse comments:

I. Comments Received in Response to

the March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13384),

Proposal

Comment 1. The commenter argued

that, although EPA’s March 18, 1999,

notice of proposed rulemaking proposed

to find that the St. Louis area has failed

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by

November 15, 1996, EPA had already

made this ‘‘determination’’ in various

correspondence with the state of

Missouri, in public, and in various

rulemakings. The commenter contends

that, pursuant to section 181(b) of the

Act, the St. Louis area had thus already

been reclassified by operation of law to

a serious ozone nonattainment area, and

that EPA’s notice should report that this

reclassification has already occurred.

The commenter alleges that EPA’s duty

under section 181(b), as EPA

acknowledged in reclassifying the

Phoenix area, ‘‘involves little more than

a rote review of available ambient air

quality data,’’ and the commenter argues

that EPA has no flexibility to deviate

from its duty.

In addition, the commenter argued

that EPA’s proposal was procedurally

flawed because EPA lacked authority to

propose a finding (of nonattainment as

of November 15, 1996) based on the

occurrence of subsequent events

(additional state submissions to qualify

for an attainment date extension).

Response to Comment 1. EPA has

already addressed these arguments

raised in this comment in EPA’s Cross

Motion for Summary Judgment on

Remedy Under Count I, filed in Sierra

Club v. Browner, cited previously, filed

April 28, 1999 (see, e.g., pages 13–20),

and EPA’s reply brief in support of its

Cross Motion, filed June 16, 1999.

Copies of these documents have been

placed in the docket and EPA

incorporates them herein by reference.

For the reasons stated therein, EPA

disagrees with the commenter’s

contention that EPA had previously

issued a determination of failure to

attain within the meaning of section

182(b) of the Act. In addition, the Court

in that case agreed with EPA, and

concluded in its opinion that EPA had

not already made the determination of

failure to attain, and as a consequence

that the area had not, as Sierra Club

contended, been reclassified by

operation of law. See Court Opinion

dated January 29, 2001, Sierra Club v.

Browner 130 F. Supp. 2d 78, 89–94. A

copy of the Court’s opinion has been

placed in the docket, and EPA

incorporates it herein by reference. In its

order of January 29, 2001, as modified

on February 15, 2001, the Court thus

ordered EPA to issue a determination as

part of a final notice-and-comment

rulemaking process. On March 19, 2001,

EPA published its final determination

and notice, with a delayed effective date

(66 FR 15578). That notice is being

withdrawn before it becomes effective,

and thus EPA has not issued any final,

effective determination of

nonattainment requiring the area to be

reclassified as a matter of law.

With respect to the contention that

EPA’s actions are at odds with its

observations in the Phoenix rulemaking,

EPA addressed this issue in its CrossMotion for Summary Judgment, which

explained the complexity of the finding

required for evaluating attainment, as

well as the need for notice-andcomment rulemaking. The comment

made in the Phoenix rulemaking, when

put in context, indicates that the

statement was aimed at distinguishing

between air quality findings and efforts

to adopt controls. The Phoenix

rulemaking itself, which, unlike the St.

Louis area, did not involve issues of

transported pollution, reveals that the

determination was controversial, and

involved issues of whether data from

special purpose monitors should be

included in the data considered in

making the determination. EPA believes

that its position in the St. Louis area is

consistent with the requirements of the

statute and its notice-and-comment

rulemakings in other areas where EPA’s

attainment date extension policy has

applied.

With respect to the comment that

EPA’s proposal was procedurally

flawed, EPA notes that the only

proposed action set forth by EPA in the

March 18, 1999, notice was its proposal

to find that the St. Louis area had not

attained the standard by November 15,

1996, and to determine that if the

finding was finalized, the area would be

reclassified from a moderate to a serious

ozone nonattainment area by operation

of law (64 FR 13384). In terms of the

timing of the final action on the

proposed determination, EPA also

proposed to take final action only after

the states had an opportunity to qualify

for an attainment date extension.

However, EPA was not proposing to

modify a finding based on subsequent

events, but merely providing notice that

if Missouri and Illinois made certain

additional submissions and EPA

determined, through subsequent

rulemaking, to grant an attainment date

extension, the nonattainment

determination would not be finalized

and the area would not be reclassified

(64 FR 13384–13385). EPA explained

that this result follows because once an

attainment date is extended for an area,

the area is no longer subject to

reclassification under section 181(b)(2)

for failure to attain by the original

attainment date (64 FR at 13388). A

more detailed discussion of EPA’s

proposals and final action relating to the

attainment date extension and its

interplay with the requirements of

section 181(b) is contained elsewhere in

this final rule, and in EPA’s response to

comments on the relevant proposals.

Comment 2. The commenter alleges

that EPA has no authority to grant an

attainment date extension, but even

assuming it does have such authority,

EPA’s exercise here is improper and

unlawful. The commenter contends that

in order to grant an extension, the states

must have applied for and obtained an

extension prior to May 15, 1997. EPA is

relying on the mere possibility of an

extension to relieve it of its statutory

duty pursuant to section 181(b)(2). Once

EPA has made a finding, EPA has no

authority to refuse to ‘‘finalize’’ it.

Response to Comment 2. EPA has

now acted, pursuant to Court Order, to

make a determination under section

181(b), but this determination is not yet

effective, and thus EPA still has an

opportunity to grant an attainment date

extension for reasons discussed at

length elsewhere in these responses to

comments. Moreover, EPA is not relying

on the mere possibility of an attainment

date extension in order to withdraw the

determination of nonattainment before

it becomes effective. Rather, EPA is now

granting the extension based on actual,

complete submissions from Missouri

and Illinois demonstrating that the St.

Louis area fully qualifies for the

attainment date extension, a conclusion

EPA has reached in a final rulemaking

action after conducting notice and

comment rulemaking. Once this

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34003

extension is granted, the area’s

attainment date shifts to the future, and

EPA no longer has an extant obligation

to make a determination of attainment.

For reasons set forth elsewhere in these

responses to comments, EPA believes

that it is not too late to grant an

attainment date extension, and that EPA

has ample authority and basis on which

to do so.

Comment 3. The commenter argues

that EPA has no authority to extend

attainment deadlines, except in

circumstances set forth in section

181(a)(5). EPA is prohibited from

granting attainment date extensions by

sections 172(a)(2)(D) and 182(i).

Sections 184, 110, and 126, although

they address interstate pollution

transport, do not provide for attainment

date extensions.

Response to Comment 3. EPA has

authority to grant a transport-based

attainment date extension. The basis for

this policy is set forth in EPA’s

Guidance, and EPA has responded to

the issues raised by this comment in its

rulemaking actions on Washington D.C.,

66 FR 586, 591–600, January 3, 2001;

Greater Connecticut, 66 FR 6314,

January 3, 2001; Springfield,

Massachusetts, 66 FR 666, January 3,

2001; and Beaumont, Texas, 66 FR

26913, 26916–26927, May 15, 2001.

EPA incorporates these responses by

reference.

Comment 4. The commenter asserts

that EPA does not explain how a policy

adopted in 1998 has relevance to events

that occurred in 1996 and 1997. EPA’s

duty to determine whether the area had

attained the standard was to have been

made no later than May 15, 1997. There

is no authority for EPA’s ‘‘retroactive’’

application of EPA’s extension policy’’

(citing Bowen v. Georgetown University

Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988)) and no

statutory basis for that policy.

Response to Comment 4. The

statutory basis for EPA’s attainment date

extension policy has been explained

elsewhere in responses to comments in

this notice and in EPA’s other

rulemaking actions on Washington D.C.,

66 FR 586, January 3, 2001; Greater

Connecticut, 66 FR 6314, January 3,

2001; Springfield, Massachusetts, 66 FR

666, January 3, 2001; and Beaumont,

Texas, 66 FR 26913, 26924–26 May 15,

2001.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s

contention that EPA’s application of the

attainment date extension policy

constitutes unauthorized retroactive

rulemaking. As EPA has explained in

the Beaumont, Texas, rulemaking, the

information and analyses necessary to

formulate EPA’s attainment date

extension policy did not become

available until 1998. At that time, EPA

had not yet acted to make a

determination that would trigger a

reclassification of the St. Louis area.

EPA, before taking action on the

determination, found itself in a position

to consider whether the area qualified

for an attainment date extension based

on being affected by transport. In

contexts such as these, EPA, in taking

rulemaking action, is entitled to take

into account the best possible

information at the time it takes action to

implement Congressional intent.

Consistent with its interpretation of the

Act, EPA also proposed to apply its

policy to other moderate nonattainment

areas with 1996 attainment dates,

including Louisville, Kentucky, and

Beaumont, Texas. The final attainment

date extension for Beaumont was issued

on May 15, 2001 (66 FR 26913). EPA’s

actions with respect to these moderate

areas should not be deemed

‘‘retroactive,’’ but rather as the

application of a current policy

contemporaneous with taking action to

perform its duties under the Act. The

fact that EPA’s actions occurred after the

statutory deadline does not render them

‘‘retroactive.’’ EPA is not precluded

from considering the best available

information and existing legal

interpretations when it acts after a

statutory deadline has passed. To

conclude otherwise would frustrate

Congressional intent and deny the St.

Louis area and its citizens the benefit of

EPA’s and the states’ improved

understanding of the role of transport in

causing nonattainment problems, on the

grounds that they must remain in the

state of ignorance that existed at the

time of the original deadline. As EPA

has noted, its attainment date extension

policy and an adequate understanding

of ozone transport were not developed

until after the attainment date for

moderate areas had passed.

Nevertheless, EPA believes that to deny

eligibility for the attainment date

extension to moderate areas affected by

transport because the policy was not

available earlier would thwart

Congressional intent and cause an

injustice. Moreover, EPA believes that

applying the policy to these areas is

consistent with the Congressional

approach of applying other types of

attainment date extensions after an area

has been unable to reach attainment.

See, for example, Section 181(a)(5).

Under Section 181(a)(5), EPA may

determine that an area has qualified for

an extension after it has failed to attain

in its attainment year. Section 181(a)(5)

provides that EPA may grant an

extension of one year [‘‘the Extension

Year’’] if in relevant part, ‘‘no more than

1 exceedance of the [ozone standard]

has occurred in the area in the year

preceding the Extension Year.’’ This

procedure presumes that the area did

not attain in its attainment year, and

requires a review of data to determine

the number of exceedances in the

original attainment year prior to the

granting of the extension. Thus,

Congress knew and approved of a

system for granting extensions after an

area had already failed to attain

according to its original schedule. EPA’s

granting of an extension to the St. Louis

area after its original date for attainment

has lapsed is therefore consistent with

Congressional intent and the statutory

scheme that Congress established in the

Act.

In addition, while the deadline in

section 181(b)(2) sets a deadline for EPA

to make a determination, failure to

observe the deadline does not preclude

EPA from extending the attainment date

prior to making the determination. The

six-month deadline, though intended to

spur the Agency to act, does not place

a limit on the Agency’s authority to

consider information and developments

critical to a sound decision. See Brock

v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 260

(1986) (‘‘We would be most reluctant to

conclude that every failure of an agency

to observe a procedural requirement

voids subsequent agency action,

especially when important public rights

are at stake. When, as here, there are

less drastic remedies available for

failure to meet a statutory deadline,

courts should not assume that Congress

intended the agency to lose its power to

act.’’ (Footnote omitted.) Indeed, to take

the contrary view, as the commenter

advocates, and require EPA to disregard

relevant data about the impact of

transport, data that reveal the causes of

an area’s nonattainment problems and

affect the equitable allocation of the

burden of controls, would be an absurd

result. It would be contrary to the public

interest to require EPA to take final

action in a matter that affects the public

interest while compelling it to disregard

the best available information. EPA is

engaged in applying its attainment date

extension policy in areas throughout the

country. It would be contrary to

Congressional intent and a disservice to

the citizens of St. Louis to deny them

the benefits of a policy that became

available after EPA missed a procedural

deadline, but before EPA performs its

statutory duty under the Act. The

Bowen case cited by commenters is

inapposite. It involved a retroactive

application of cost limitations to

hospital expenditures that had occurred

34004 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

in the past. By contrast, EPA’s action is

remedial and curative, and affects future

controls.

Comment 5. The commenter stated

that the notice indicated that documents

relevant to the nonattainment

determination and reclassification

proposal were available for public

inspection at the EPA regional offices

for Region V in Chicago and Region VII

in Kansas City. The commenter stated

that EPA did not indicate whether the

documents supported its belief that the

area might qualify for an attainment

date extension. The commenter further

stated that EPA was ‘‘concealing the

documents’’ in areas ‘‘at great

distances’’ from the St. Louis area, in

violation of its ‘‘duty to encourage

public participation in the

administration of’’ the Act.

Response to Comment 5. As indicated

above in the response to Comment 1, the

March 18, 1999, notice did not propose

to extend the attainment date for the St.

Louis area, so EPA did not include a

detailed discussion of documents

showing how the area qualified for an

attainment date extension. In fact, EPA

stated its belief that Missouri and

Illinois would make subsequent

submissions in an effort to qualify for an

attainment date extension, and EPA

would conduct subsequent rulemaking

on those submissions. (The subsequent

proposals published April 17, 2000, and

April 3, 2001, which are described

elsewhere in this action, and the final

action which is the subject of today’s

action, contain detailed discussion of

the states’ submissions and the

documents on which EPA is relying to

determine that the area qualifies for an

attainment date extension.)

With respect to the comment that EPA

violated a ‘‘duty’’ to provide adequate

opportunity for public participation by

stating in its notice that the documents

would be available for public inspection

at the EPA regional offices, the proposal

specified the locations of the documents

comprising the record for the

rulemaking and names, addresses, and

telephone numbers of individuals to be

contacted for additional information.

This procedure is consistent with the

process which EPA ordinarily uses to

make information available concerning

a proposed rulemaking of this kind. EPA

clearly did not ‘‘conceal’’ any of the

documents relevant to the rulemaking.

The commenter and any other group or

individual had the opportunity to

inspect the record or to contact EPA to

request copies of documents comprising

the record, and to request other

information relating to the proposed

determination and reclassification. The

commenter did not inspect the record or

request additional information or

documents during the comment period.

In the March 18, 1999, proposal, EPA

set out the factual basis for its proposed

finding that the St. Louis area did not

attain the ozone standard, including

tables summarizing the data on which

the proposal was based (64 FR 13386–

13387). As discussed previously, EPA

also stated that subsequent state

submissions relating to the attainment

date extension (which were not the

subject of the March 18, 1999, proposal)

would be, and in fact were, subject to

future notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The commenter did not raise issues

concerning the locations of the docket

for EPA’s initial proposal (and

supplemental proposal) of the

attainment date extension (the April 17,

2000, and April 3, 2001 proposals). EPA

met its obligation to make the basis for

its proposed determination and

supporting documentation available for

public comment during the comment

period.

Comment 6. The commenter stated

that EPA had not shown how the St.

Louis area qualifies for an attainment

date extension. Specifically, the

commenter stated that the proposal did

not show how the area is affected by

transport, that Missouri had not

submitted an approvable attainment

demonstration, and that Missouri had

not adopted all local measures required

under the area’s current moderate

classification. The commenter also

stated that EPA had failed to explain the

basis for the statement in its notice that

Illinois and Missouri would be able to

meet the local measure requirement for

NOX controls (‘‘NOX RACT’’) by meeting

EPA’s NOX SIP call.

Response to Comment 6. As discussed

in response to Comments 1 and 5 above,

the March 18, 1999, proposal did not

include a proposal to extend the

attainment date, and therefore did not

include a detailed analysis of how the

St. Louis area qualifies for an attainment

date extension. EPA stated that the

analysis would be the subject of future

rulemaking after the states made

additional submissions to support their

requests for an attainment date

extension. The March 18, 1999,

proposal listed the submissions which

the states had to make for EPA to

determine whether the area qualified for

an attainment date extension (64 FR at

13388). The analysis of the subsequent

submissions addressing these elements

is contained in the April 17, 2000,

proposal on the attainment

demonstration and attainment date

extension (65 FR 20404) and in the

April 3, 2001, supplemental proposal

(66 FR 17647). EPA’s conclusions with

respect to the state submissions and

how they meet all of the elements of the

attainment date extension policy are

detailed in the proposals and in this

final rulemaking.

With respect to the comment

concerning the local NOX RACT

requirements, EPA did not propose to

find, in the March 18, 1999, proposal on

the attainment determination, that the

states had met the local NOX control

requirements, and therefore was not

obligated to analyze whether the states’

anticipated NOX SIP call rules would

meet the local control requirements. In

the March 1999 notice, EPA merely

stated its belief that the Missouri and

Illinois NOX SIP call rules, when

adopted, could also be used to satisfy

the NOX RACT requirements. (As a

result of the Court’s ruling in Michigan

v. EPA, 215 F. 3d 663 (D. C. Cir. 2000),

Missouri is not currently subject to the

NOX SIP call.) This issue was the

subject of subsequent rulemaking after

the states made their submissions for

the attainment demonstration and

attainment date extension. As noted in

the April 17, 2000, proposal, Missouri

subsequently adopted and EPA

approved specific local NOX RACT

measures for the Missouri portion of the

St. Louis area, and Illinois requested a

waiver of the requirement to impose

additional local NOX controls in the

Illinois portion of the St. Louis area (65

FR at 20417). EPA is taking final action

to approve a portion of the Illinois

waiver request in connection with

today’s final rulemaking. Therefore,

neither state is relying on regional NOX

SIP call controls to meet the local NOX

RACT requirements for the St. Louis

area.

Comment 7. The commenter stated

that EPA’s proposal was ‘‘an attempt to

extend the submittal deadlines’’ for the

required local measures.

Response to Comment 7. The

commenter did not explain how EPA’s

proposal would have the effect of

extending the statutory deadlines for

submittal of local measures. However,

EPA’s proposal to determine that the

area did not attain the standard and its

notice that the area might be able to

qualify for an attainment date extension

had no relationship to the independent

obligations of the states to make

submissions required for the St. Louis

area by the specified statutory

deadlines. Nor did the proposal affect

the consequences, if any applied, to the

states (sanctions for failure to submit

under section 179 of the Act) and to

EPA (obligation to promulgate Federal

plans under section 110(c) of the Act).

Section 179 provides certain sanctions

for state planning failures in connection

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34005

with SIP submissions required under

the Act, including sanctions for failure

to make a required submission. Section

110(c) requires EPA to promulgate a

plan, under specified circumstances,

where a state has failed to make a

required submission or EPA has

disapproved a required submission. If,

for example, a state fails to make a

required submittal by a statutory

deadline and EPA issues a finding of

failure to submit, then, after 18 months,

the state would be subject to mandatory

sanctions until the state makes the

required submittal and EPA finds the

submittal complete. In this example,

within two years of the finding, EPA is

obligated to promulgate a Federal plan

and that obligation can only be lifted by

the state submitting and EPA approving

the plan. EPA has made various findings

of planning failures relating to the St.

Louis area, based on state failures to

submit by the applicable statutory

deadlines SIP revisions required by

section 182(b). EPA imposed section

179(b)(2) offset sanctions in the

Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for

failure of the state to submit NOX RACT

controls by the statutory deadline. (The

sanction was subsequently lifted when

the state corrected the deficiency.)

These actions have not been dependent

on the attainment date for the area.

The proposal did not purport to

establish plan submission deadlines, but

merely noted that the states might be

able to qualify for an extension of their

attainment date and needed to make

certain plan submissions in order to do

so. No other statutory dates were

implicated by the notice. The extension

of an attainment date does not impact

an area’s obligation to meet other

applicable statutory deadlines. In any

event, had EPA’s determination of

nonattainment and reclassification

become effective, the attainment date for

the area would have been November 15,

2004 (see, 66 FR 15578, 15584–15585,

March 19, 2001) which is the same date

as established in this rulemaking for

attainment of the ozone standard. Also,

as noted previously, an attainment date

extension cannot be given unless the

area has submitted, and EPA has

approved, all local measures applicable

to the area under its current

classification.

Comment 8. The commenter asserts

that EPA’s application of its attainment

date extension policy rewards Missouri

for its recalcitrance. EPA has no

authority to allow Missouri to delay

implementation of its local measures.

Response to Comment 8. EPA is not

rewarding Missouri for its recalcitrance,

nor has it ‘‘invented a policy’’ that ‘‘gets

[Missouri] off the hook.’’ The goal of the

attainment date extension policy is to

give effect to Congressional intent and

to equitably distribute the burdens of

controlling pollution according to the

source of that pollution. The

responsibility for controlling local

pollution remains firmly with the states

where that pollution originates; but

EPA’s policy seeks to implement

Congressional intent to redress the

unfairness of requiring a local area to

pay the costs of curing problems created

by pollution transported from outside

the state. EPA’s policy still requires

Missouri and Illinois to implement local

measures as expeditiously as

practicable. As EPA and the states have

demonstrated in qualifying for the

policy, implementing those local

measures sooner would not bring about

attainment. The basis for the timing of

the requirement for implementation of

local measures is further set forth in

EPA’s responses to comments in the

Washington, D.C., Greater Connecticut,

Springfield, Massachusetts, and

Beaumont, Texas, rulemakings.

II. Comments Received in Response to

the April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20404),

proposal

Comment 1. The commenter contends

that EPA lacks statutory authority to

approve the request for an attainment

date extension based on EPA’s

attainment date extension policy. The

commenter asserts that the current

classification for the St. Louis area is

‘‘serious’’ and not ‘‘moderate.’’ The

commenter contends that EPA has

already determined that the area failed

to attain the ozone standard within the

meaning of section 181(b)(2)(A) of the

Act, and that, therefore, the St. Louis

area was reclassified by operation of

law, despite EPA’s refusal to

acknowledge this. The commenter

incorporates by reference its arguments

as to the legality of the attainment date

extension policy contained in its briefs

in Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 98–

02733, as well as those submitted in

response to EPA’s March 18, 1999,

notice (64 FR 13384) and in response to

EPA’s proposal to approve Missouri’s

15% ROPP, set forth at 65 FR 8083

(February 17, 2000).

The commenter also argued that

EPA’s proposal to extend the attainment

date for the St. Louis area is

‘‘contingent’’ on approval of the

Missouri 15% ROPP, and stated that it

was also incorporating by reference its

comments on the February 17, 2000,

proposed approval of the 15% Plan (65

FR 8083). In summary, Sierra Club’s

comments on the proposed approval of

the 15% ROPP were: (1) That EPA

should review the ROPP plan against

the serious area requirements of section

182(c) of the Act; (2) that EPA failed to

give notice of its statutory authority to

approve a plan which relies on

reductions occurring after November 15,

1996; (3) that EPA lacks authority to

approve a plan relying on reductions

after 1996; (4) that EPA lacks authority

to approve a plan which does not

contain contingency measures; (5) that

EPA was engaging in unauthorized

retroactive rulemaking in approving a

plan relying on 15% ROPP reductions

after 1996; (6) that the Missouri 15%

ROPP improperly fails to account for

growth in emissions after 1996; and (7)

that EPA should have used actual rather

than projected 1996 emissions in

determining the required reductions.

Response to Comment 1. EPA has

responded to the contentions regarding

the legality of EPA’s attainment date

extension policy in its responses to

comments on the March 18, 1999,

proposed rulemaking. As to the

assertion that the classification of the St.

Louis area is ‘‘serious’’ and not

‘‘moderate,’’ EPA also has responded to

the attainment date in its response to

Comment 1 on the March 18, 1999,

proposal. EPA and the Court agree that

EPA, prior to the Court-ordered

rulemaking published March 19, 2001,

had issued no final rulemaking

determining that the St. Louis area had

not attained the standard by November

1996. Therefore, the St. Louis area was

not reclassified to ‘‘serious.’’ Moreover,

since EPA is today issuing a final

attainment date extension and in a

separate final rulemaking withdrawing

its March 19, 2001, determination prior

to that determination taking effect, the

St. Louis area remains classified as a

moderate area. EPA incorporates by

reference its responses to the comments

submitted on the March 18, 1999,

rulemaking, and those contained in its

briefs in Sierra Club v. Browner. EPA

also incorporates its Response to

Comments on the February 17, 2000,

proposal on the Missouri 15% ROPP,

published in its final rule of May 18,

2000 (65 FR 31485, 31485–31487). With

respect to the contention that EPA’s

action is inconsistent with earlier

reclassifications of Dallas-Fort Worth,

Texas, and Santa Barbara, California,

these rulemakings occurred prior to the

issuance of EPA’s attainment date

extension policy, and therefore do not

undermine EPA’s application of its

policy to the St. Louis area.

With respect to its incorporation by

reference of the comments on the 15%

ROPP, EPA fully responded to all of the

Sierra Club comments on the proposed

approval when it took final action to

approve the 15% ROPP, and

34006 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

incorporates those responses here (65

FR 31485, May 18, 2000). Sierra Club

petitioned for review of EPA’s approval,

primarily arguing that the Plan

improperly failed to consider growth

after 1996, and that it improperly failed

to use actual 1996 emissions to calculate

the required 15% reduction. EPA

responded to the issues raised by Sierra

Club in its brief. (Copies of the briefs are

included in the docket for this

rulemaking.) EPA also identified the

issues which Sierra Club had waived in

the petition for review. Sierra Club’s

petition for review was denied by the

Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

(Sierra Club v. Environmental

Protection Agency (No. 00–2744),

decided June 8, 2001). The issues raised

by the commenter regarding the 15%

Plan approval are not reopened for

consideration by virtue of the

commenter’s incorporation of them in

connection with the current rulemaking.

Moreover, the comment that the

Missouri 15% Plan was deficient

because it lacked contingency measures

(which Sierra Club waived in its 8th

Circuit brief) is also no longer relevant

because, as explained elsewhere, EPA is

approving Missouri’s contingency

measures SIP in this final rulemaking.

Comment 2. The commenter argued

that the St. Louis area has already been

reclassified to serious nonattainment by

operation of law, so that the ‘‘required

components’’ of the attainment

demonstration are those in section

182(c) of the Act, rather than the section

182(b) requirements suggested in EPA’s

proposal. The commenter stated that,

because Missouri’s Plan does not

address the serious area requirements,

the attainment demonstration must be

disapproved.

Response to Comment 2. The

argument that the St. Louis area has

already been reclassified by operation of

law was cited previously in our

response to Comment 1 on the March

18, 1999, proposal and Comment 1 on

the April 17, 2000, proposal. In Sierra

Club v. Browner, Sierra Club requested

that the Court find that a determination

of nonattainment had already been

made, and order EPA to publish the

determination nunc pro tunc as of May

15, 1997. (See also EPA’s Cross Motion

on Summary Judgement and Reply, and

EPA’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgement on Count I.) In

its January 29, 2001, decision, the Court

held that ‘‘EPA has not yet issued the

formal determination that section

7511(b)(2)(A) requires.’’ (130 F. Supp.

2d at 92.) In addition, in rejecting Sierra

Club’s request for retroactive relief, the

Court determined that granting Sierra

Club’s request ‘‘would effectively create

an injustice with regard to the state’’

and the St. Louis nonattainment area, in

part because it would carry with it the

potential to ‘‘expose the State of

Missouri to a variety of sanctions for

failing to comply promptly and

adequately.’’ (130 F. Supp. 2d at 94.)

Therefore, EPA properly used the

applicable requirements in section

182(b) to evaluate the states’ attainment

demonstration.

In addition, although EPA issued a

determination and reclassification

notice published March 19, 2001,

which, if it had become effective, would

have resulted in reclassification of the

area to serious nonattainment, that

determination did not and will not

become effective, and is being

withdrawn in today’s action. For

reasons explained in detail elsewhere in

this final rule, the St. Louis area retains

its current moderate classification, and

the requirements of section 182(b) of the

Act apply.

In any event, with respect to the Act

requirements for the modeling to be

used in an attainment demonstration,

there is no significant difference

between the requirements of section

182(b) and 182(c) as applied to the St.

Louis area. Section 182(c)(2)(A) states

that an attainment demonstration for

serious areas must be based on

photochemical grid modeling or other

modeling determined by EPA to be

equivalent. Although this modeling is

not generally required for moderate area

attainment demonstrations, it is

required for ‘‘multi-State ozone

nonattainment areas’’ (i.e., any single

nonattainment area comprising more

than one state) under section

182(j)(1)(B). Therefore, the St. Louis area

was subject to the same modeling

requirement as serious areas. In any

event, the attainment demonstration for

the area, as described elsewhere, used

photochemical grid modeling, or the

equivalent.

Comment 3. The commenter

questioned EPA’s authority to propose

approval of ‘‘Missouri’s attainment

demonstration’’ contingent on

submission of corrections to the

attainment demonstration submitted

initially in November 1999, which was

the subject of the April 2000 proposal.

The commenter argues that EPA’s

‘‘failure’’ to identify a legal basis for its

authority ‘‘violates’’ section 307(d)(3)(C)

of the Act and section 553 of the

Administrative Procedure Act. The

commenter states that the only authority

for this ‘‘unusual procedure’’ would be

the conditional approval procedure in

section 110(k)(4) of the Act, which

would not, according to its argument, be

available as an appropriate action on an

attainment demonstration.

Response to Comment 3. As a

preliminary matter, EPA notes that this

rulemaking is not subject to the

provisions of section 307(d), because it

does not involve any of the categories of

actions described in section 307(d)(1) to

which the requirements of section

307(d) are applicable. See generally,

Missouri Limestone Producers

Association v. EPA, 165 F.3d 619, 621

(8th Cir. 1999). In addition, contrary to

the commenter’s assertion, there is

nothing unusual about EPA’s contingent

proposal, and EPA routinely proposes

action with final action contingent on

additional state submissions. (See, e.g.,

the discussion of additional measures

which had been necessary for approval

of the Washington, D.C., attainment

demonstration in 66 FR 586, 587–88

(January 3, 2001) for a recent example

of EPA’s use of the same procedure.)

EPA also routinely undertakes

rulemaking on SIP submittals through

‘‘parallel processing,’’ in which it

proposes action based on draft or

proposed state submissions, and takes

final action after the state has adopted,

in final form, plan elements which are

substantially similar to the draft on

which EPA’s proposal is based. (See

generally, Connecticut Fund for the

Environment, Inc. v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998,

1005 (2d Cir. 1982) for a discussion of

EPA’s parallel processing policy, which

is now codified in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V, paragraph 2.3.1.) EPA

stated in the proposal that it would not

take final action to approve the

attainment demonstration until the

states made the submissions called for

in the proposal (and in fact would

disapprove the attainment

demonstration if the submissions were

not made). (65 FR 20404). After the

states made the necessary submissions,

EPA published a supplemental proposal

to allow additional public comment on

the subsequent submissions (66 FR

17647, April 3, 2001) to satisfy the

public participation requirements of

section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act. Therefore, the

commenter’s premise that this was an

‘‘unusual procedure’’ requiring some

express statutory authorization is

incorrect. EPA’s rulemaking on the

attainment demonstration is fully

consistent with the requirements of

section 553 of the APA, and Sierra Club

has not shown any inconsistencies with

those requirements.

With respect to the commenter’s

statement that the conditional approval

provision in section 110(k)(4) of the Act

does not apply to actions on attainment

demonstrations, EPA disagrees with the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34007

comment. However, the comment is not

relevant to this action, because EPA is

fully approving the attainment

demonstration under section 110(k)(3),

and is not relying on its authority in

section 110(k)(4).

Comment 4. The commenter argues

that EPA ‘‘lacks the authority to engage

in retroactive rulemaking.’’ The

commenter states that the attainment

date extension policy was not proposed

until 1998, two years after the St. Louis

area’s attainment date, and that even if

the attainment date extension policy

were legal, EPA ‘‘could only extend a

deadline that had not yet passed.’’ The

commenter characterizes EPA’s

extension of the attainment deadline for

the St. Louis area as ‘‘retroactive

rulemaking.’’ Citing Bowen v.

Georgetown University Hospital, 488

U.S. 204 (1988), the commenter

contends that the Act does not authorize

retroactive rulemaking, and that absent

an express grant of such authority, none

will be implied.

Response to Comment 4. EPA has

responded to this argument in its

response to Comment 4 on the March

18, 1999, notice of proposed

rulemaking.

Comment 5. The commenter argues

that EPA’s April 2000 proposal

‘‘unlawfully extends’’ the date by which

the measures called for by section

182(b) are required to be adopted and

implemented ‘‘by the state of Missouri.’’

The commenter states that transported

pollution does not affect the ability of

states to adopt necessary local measures,

and that ‘‘an extension of these

implementation requirements is not

justified.’’

Response to Comment 5. With respect

to the extension of other statutory

deadlines for submittal of required

measures, EPA addressed this issue

generally in response to Comment 7 on

the March 18, 1999, proposal. EPA

explained in that response that an

extension of an attainment date does not

extend other statutory deadlines.

Although the commenter does not

identify the ‘‘implementation

requirements’’ to which it refers, EPA

notes that, as explained in the April 17,

2000, proposal, one of the criteria for

granting an extension of the attainment

date under the attainment date

extension policy is that states must

show that they will implement all

adopted local measures as expeditiously

as practicable, ‘‘but no later than’’ the

date by which the upwind reductions

are expected to be achieved (65 FR at

20409). As EPA further explained in the

April 3, 2001, supplemental proposal,

all of the local measures relied on by

Missouri and Illinois for the attainment

demonstration are to be implemented no

later than 2003 (66 FR at 17654). EPA

catalogued the various moderate area

control measures which the states had

already adopted and implemented in

the March 18, 1999, proposal (64 FR at

13389). The remainder of the local

controls relied on in the attainment

demonstration (for example, the

regional NOX controls for Missouri and

Illinois sources) are to be implemented

by 2003. The new attainment date for

the St. Louis area is November 15, 2004,

which, as explained in more detail

elsewhere in this final rulemaking and

in the April 3, 2001, proposal (66 FR

17647), is based on the implementation

date for the upwind controls necessary

for attainment in the area. The

implementation date for the local

controls is not dependent on the

implementation date for upwind

controls (except that, as stated above, it

cannot be any later than the upwind

controls implementation date).

Therefore, the extension of the

attainment date does not, as argued by

the commenter, extend the date for

submission and implementation of local

controls. (See also EPA’s responses to

comments in the Washington D.C.,

Greater Connecticut, Springfield,

Massachusetts, and Beaumont, Texas,

rulemakings.)

III. Comments Received in Response to

the April 3, 2001 (66 FR 17647),

Proposal

Comment 1. The commenter reiterates

its belief that the proposal to extend the

attainment date would violate the Act,

as pointed out in the briefs filed in

Sierra Club v. Browner, supra.

Response to Comment 1. EPA has

responded to this comment elsewhere in

its Responses to Comments in this

notice, and incorporates by reference

those responses.

Comment 2. The commenter argues

that, if EPA had the authority to extend

attainment dates by eight years, this

proposal would violate the Act, because

it constitutes unlawful retroactive

rulemaking.

Response to Comment 2. EPA has

responded to the commenter’s allegation

of illegal retroactive rulemaking

elsewhere in its Responses to

Comments. (Response 4 to March 18,

1999, proposal and Response 4 to April

17, 2000, proposal.)

Comment 3. The commenter stated

that since final action on the proposal

is dependent on submission by the

states of additional documents, this

deprives the public of the opportunity

to comment on documents relevant to

the final rulemaking.

Response to Comment 3. In the April

3, 2001, proposal, EPA stated that

Missouri had made all final submissions

necessary for EPA to take final action on

the matters proposed in the April 3

notice. EPA also stated that Illinois had

submitted proposed revisions to the

attainment demonstration and MVEB,

and was expected to submit its final

revisions in the near future (66 FR

17647). The Illinois submissions were

processed through the ‘‘parallel

processing’’ procedure described in

response to Comment 3 on the April 17,

2000, proposal. The draft Illinois

submissions were made available to the

public for review during the public

comment period, and the public had an

opportunity to comment on the

adequacy of those documents and on

the adequacy of EPA’s review of those

documents (66 FR 17647). The

documents were also made available to

the public by IEPA during its adoption

process. The final documents submitted

by the state were substantially similar to

the draft documents on which EPA

based its proposal. Therefore, the public

had an adequate opportunity to

comment on the documents relevant to

EPA’s proposal and relevant to this final

rulemaking.

Comment 4. A commenter asserts that

testing an elaborate airshed model on

only three brief episodes cannot

demonstrate that the model is of general

validity. The commenter asserts that a

valid model must predict ambient

concentrations accurately in a much

greater variety of weather conditions.

Response to Comment 4. The

commenter challenges the validity of

the conclusion drawn from the

modeling analyses on grounds that they

are premised on an application that is

too limited. At the outset, it should be

noted that the model, the Urban Airshed

Model, used by Illinois and Missouri

has been successfully applied in many

urban areas for many high ozone days

and over a wide range of meteorological

conditions. The model has undergone

continual development for nearly 30

years. EPA and its peer reviewers have

judged the modeling approach feasible,

practical, and technically sound. As

described in the ‘‘User’s Guide to the

Variable-Grid Urban Airshed Model

(UAM-V),’’ Systems Applications

International, Inc., SYSAPP–96–95/27r,

October 1996, numerous evaluations

have been performed and documented

in scientific literature. The version

applied for the St. Louis attainment

demonstration includes further

enhancements that allow for more

refined analyses.

With respect to the number of

episodes modeled, EPA issued, and

34008 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

3The July 16–19 and June 27–29, 1996, episodes

occurred under conditions controlled by a high

pressure system centered over Pennsylvania, with

similar wind directions in the St. Louis area. The

July 10–14, 1995, episode was more influenced by

stagnation conditions with relatively low wind

speeds and variable wind directions.

Missouri and Illinois correctly applied,

the ‘‘Guideline For Regulatory

Application Of The Urban Airshed

Model,’’ EPA–450/4–91–013, July 1991.

The July 1991 guidance specifically

addresses the selection of high ozone

episodes for the purposes of ozone

modeling and the ozone attainment

demonstration. This guidance does not

require the states to model all high

ozone episode days. In it, EPA

recommends that states model a

minimum of three episode days

covering multiple meteorological

conditions/regimes. This can be

achieved by modeling three

meteorological regimes with each

scenario consisting of one ‘‘primary’’

episode day, or modeling two

meteorological regimes with one

scenario consisting of two ‘‘primary’’

episode days and a second consisting of

one primary episode day. States were

given the flexibility to consider other

episode selection techniques

considering a host of factors including

the availability of air quality, emissions,

and meteorological data bases, the

availability of supporting regional

modeling analyses, the number of

monitors recording daily maximums

greater than the NAAQS, the number of

hours for which ozone in excess of the

NAAQS is observed, the frequency with

which the observed meteorological

conditions correspond with observed

exceedances, and model performance.

In a recent instance, EPA has approved

other states’ reliance on modeling two

episodes in performing the attainment

demonstrations. ‘‘Proposed Rule:

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans,’’ 64 FR

70460, 70470 (December 16, 1999)

(Washington, DC).

The states’ final attainment

demonstrations were based on two

episodes consisting of six ‘‘primary’’

episode days covering two

meteorological regimes, i.e., stagnant

conditions and transport conditions. As

such, the states have met and in some

aspects exceeded our minimum

recommendations.

Comment 5. A commenter notes that

the model did not work in one of the

three episodes modeled, and that the

states and EPA simply discarded the

episode in which they admitted the

model was inadequate. The commenter

believes that a process that simply

discards and ignores the tests that prove

that the model does not work is not a

scientific process.

Response to Comment 5. As noted in

our April 17, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR

20412), the states originally selected a

third high ozone episode, June 27–29,

1996, for ozone modeling. Subsequent

modeling and monitoring data analyses

showed that the modeling results for

this episode failed to comply with the

model’s statistical validation criteria

specified in our July 1991 guidelines

(see ‘‘Guideline For Regulatory

Application Of the Urban Airshed

Model,’’ July 1991, page 57). Illinois and

Missouri conducted many analyses to

determine the causes of the poor model

performance for the June 1996 episode

in an attempt to correct possible

problems with model input data. No

acceptable input data changes could be

found which would allow the modeling

system to perform within acceptable

parameters (consistent with model

performance parameters specified in

EPA’s July 1991 guidance, EPA–450/4–

91–013).

The July 1991 guidance clearly

anticipates that the modeling results for

some episodes will not ultimately pass

recommended statistical tests and

should be rejected or replaced by an

alternate episode. This was the basis for

the rejection of the July 1996 episode.

Since the states were already modeling

an acceptable number of high ozone

days and since the modeled days

represented the highest ozone days

available for consideration under

several meteorological regimes,3 the

states did not replace the rejected July

1996 episode with an alternate episode.

As noted in the April 17, 2000,

proposed rule, EPA accepted this

approach.

Contrary to the assertion of the

commenter, rejection of modeling for

episodes with ‘‘poor’’ modeling results

is not poor science. As explained in the

response to the previous comment,

episode selection is based upon many

factors. The goal of the modeling

process is to identify and focus on those

episodes for which the most robust data

bases exist and for which the model

appropriately simulates historical

observed ozone concentrations and

patterns with emphasis on the

meteorological conditions that most

commonly result in elevated levels of

ozone. This ensures that the final

control strategies will be effective for

the most frequently occurring ozone

episodic conditions.

Comment 6. A commenter notes that

for the two nondiscarded episodes

modeled, the model altogether failed to

predict realistic concentrations. For the

July 1995 episode, the model very

substantially underpredicted the

recorded ozone concentrations on three

of the five days selected. Therefore, the

results summarized in our proposed

rulemaking demonstrate the inadequacy

of the model as a predictive tool.

Response to Comment 6. As noted in

Table 3 of the April 17, 2000, proposed

rule (65 FR 20404, 20413), for two days

(July 13 and 14, 1995), the 1996 base

case modeled peak ozone

concentrations (131 and 125 parts per

billion (ppb), respectively) were lower

than the peak monitored ozone

concentrations (154 and 139 ppb,

respectively) for the ozone modeling

domain. The modeling system did

underestimate the peak ozone

concentrations for these days.

Nonetheless, the modeling statistics for

these days and for the modeled ozone

episodes as a whole met our minimum

ozone model performance statistical

criteria. (See 66 FR 17647, 17650, April

3, 2001.) Therefore, the results for these

days are acceptable for purposes of the

ozone attainment demonstration. The

modeling system performed acceptably

in reproducing the spatial and temporal

patterns observed in the monitored

ozone concentrations.

In addition, it is noted that, as

discussed in our April 17, 2000,

proposed rule (65 FR 20404, 20414), the

states also relied on WOE

determinations to further support the

attainment demonstration. The states

considered the relative impacts of

emission changes on the predicted peak

ozone concentrations (referred to as a

relative reduction factor approach) to

show that future, post-2003 ozone

design values should be below the 1–

hour ozone standard. Considering the

ozone modeling results and ozone

design values for the 1995 through 1997

period, the states determined that the

projected ozone design values for the

attainment year (2003 in the analyses

addressed in the April 17, 2000,

proposed rule) should be substantially

lower than the 1-hour ozone standard.

See Table 4 of the April 17, 2000,

proposed rule. The states and EPA have

concluded that the use of a relative

reduction factor approach is less

sensitive to problems caused by

modeling uncertainty than are the

deterministic and statistical approaches.

The WOE determinations support the

adequacy of the ozone attainment

demonstration.

As also discussed in the April 17,

2000, proposal, trends analyses also

support the results of the modeled

ozone attainment demonstration (65 FR

20404, 20415). The trends data and the

anticipated reduction in regional NOX

emissions resulting from EPA’s NOX SIP

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34009

call both support the conclusion of the

adequacy of the states’ ozone attainment

demonstration as modified in the April

3, 2001, supplement (66 FR 17647) to

that proposed rule.

Comment 7. A commenter contends

that, even if the model had predicted

reasonably accurate ozone

concentrations for the 1991 and 1995

episodes selected and had not failed

altogether with respect to the 1996

episode, and even if reasonable

accuracy in two episodes could

demonstrate the validity of the model,

these results would not be persuasive in

this instance. The commenter believes

that emissions have significantly

changed inside and outside of the

nonattainment area since 1995 and

weather patterns have changed, in part

because of global warming. As such, the

commenter asserts that weather patterns

of six and ten years ago have little, if

any, relevance to what is experienced

today or will be experienced in 2004.

The commenter suggests that more

recent episodes should have been

analyzed and believes that such work

could easily be developed, but has not

been publicized. The commenter

contends that approval of the modeled

attainment demonstration on the basis

of older evidence is irrational.

Response to Comment 7. The

commenter has provided no emission or

meteorological data to support the

contention that the area’s emissions

have increased since 1995, that

emissions will increase in the future, or

that new, unmodeled meteorological

conditions are (or will be) responsible

for ozone standard exceedances

inadequately addressed by the states’

ozone attainment demonstration.

However, the states have provided

specific evidence to the contrary in their

attainment demonstrations.

With respect to emissions increases,

the states are required to and have

correctly applied acceptable techniques

to account for changes in emissions that

are expected to occur between the dates

of the modeled episodes and the

attainment date. These expected

changes include both emissions

increases and decreases. Emissions data

provided by both states show in their

respective attainment demonstrations a

significant downward trend in the

nonattainment area NOX emissions from

approximately 600 TPD in 1998 to a

projected level of approximately 480

TPD in 2003. The data also show a

significant downward trend in the

nonattainment area VOC emissions from

approximately 440 TPD in 1995 to a

projected level of approximately 360

TPD in 2003. In addition, as addressed

in the April 3, 2001, proposed rule

supplement, the nonattainment area

VOC and NOX emissions will continue

to decline between 2003 and 2004. On

the other hand, statewide NOX

emissions in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee have, in

total, trended significantly upward

between 1990 and 1998. Therefore, local

emissions are trending downward while

regional NOX emissions (emissions from

outside the nonattainment area) have

trended upward (at least through 1998).

However, EPA’s NOX SIP call and other

upwind control measures are designed

to reverse the regional NOX emissions

trend.

In any case, the objective of the

attainment demonstration is to identify

and implement a control strategy that

demonstrates through air quality

modeling and other analyses that the

ozone NAAQS will be attained. The

states have applied acceptable methods

to estimate what future emissions would

be in the absence of a control strategy,

performed numerous sensitivity

analyses to determine the most effective

ozone precursor reduction strategies,

and ultimately identified and adopted a

set of control measures which

demonstrates attainment for the

meteorological conditions that most

frequently result in elevated ozone

levels in the St. Louis area.

With respect to meteorology, the

commenter implies that attainment may

not have been demonstrated had the

states considered more recent episodes

or accounted for alleged changes in

weather patterns. The actual data

provided by both states indicate

otherwise.

The states analyzed the

meteorological conditions associated

with ozone over a 21-year period of time

(1977–1998) and compared the number

of ozone conducive days in the St. Louis

area to the number of days on which the

NAAQS was exceeded. During that

time, the number of ozone conducive

days has oscillated, but remained

between 21 and 47 per year. During the

same time frame, the number of

exceedance days has been trending

steadily downward. The number of days

exceeding the standard has gone from a

peak of over 50 days in 1978 to less than

5 in 1998. While no two ozone episodes

are identical, the data strongly suggest

that weather patterns that result in

elevated ozone in the St. Louis area are

cyclical but consistent over time. This

evidence, in combination with the

states’ evaluation of the recurrence

intervals of the episodes relied upon for

the attainment demonstration,

contradicts the commenter’s assertions.

In short, the historical data indicate that

elevated ozone levels in the St. Louis

area occur under a limited set of

weather patterns. As noted elsewhere,

they include elements of stagnant and

transport conditions. The episodes

relied upon for the attainment

demonstration encompass these

patterns. There is no indication that

weather patterns will change

significantly in the near future, and the

commenter has not provided any such

information. Therefore, the attainment

demonstration modeling has utilized the

meteorological conditions which most

frequently occur in the St. Louis area.

Comment 8. The commenter contends

that the emissions data put into the

model do not adequately reflect the

conditions the St. Louis area will

experience in 2004. For example, they

do not include the ‘‘huge’’ increase in

NOX emissions, and significant

increases in VOC emissions, which are

expected to be brought about by three

new or expanded cement plants on the

southern boundary of the nonattainment

area. Further, the input data do not

include the substantial ‘‘vehicle miles

travelled’’ increase anticipated to result

from the development of a regional

shopping mall in St. Louis County. The

commenter contends that none of these

increases were included in the estimates

furnished by the East-West Gateway

Coordinating Council for the purpose of

this modeling.

Response to Comment 8. As alluded

to in an earlier response, the states are

required to and have applied the

appropriate techniques to estimate and

account for potential emissions changes

in an 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 the

attainment demonstration. Both the

states of Illinois and Missouri

implement Prevention of Significant

Deterioration and NSR permitting

regulations. These regulations address

the air quality impacts of new sources

and existing expanding 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 cement plants

referenced by the commenters are

potential sources in Missouri which are

currently in the process of completing

construction permit applications under

34010 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

state permitting requirements. None of

the cement plant construction and

modification projects have received the

preconstruction permits necessary for

construction and operation. Before any

such projects 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

‘‘[i]nterfere with the attainment or

maintenance of ambient air quality

standards’’ (10 CSR 10–6.010(6)(A)).

(Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10–6.060,

Missouri’s construction permitting rule,

is part of the Federally approved SIP.)

EPA believes that it is the function of

the state’s air permitting rules, rather

than the attainment demonstration, to

ensure that specific potential new

sources do not create emissions which

would interfere with attainment of the

ozone standard.

In addition, the states, in partnership

with the local MPO, are required to

implement the states’ transportation

conformity regulations to ensure that

transportation-related ozone precursor

emissions ‘‘conform’’ to levels

consistent with their respective SIPs.

Specific increases and decreases

associated with transportation-related

projects are evaluated through the

process. The fact that an attainment

demonstration does not specifically

account for possible new sources of

ozone precursors does not render the

attainment demonstration deficient.

Comment 9. The commenter

incorporates by reference the comments

made with respect to the rulemaking of

January 3, 2001, reported at 66 FR 585.

Response to Comment 9. EPA

incorporates by reference the responses

made with respect to the January 3,

2001, rulemaking cited by commenters,

as well as the Beaumont, Texas,

rulemaking (66 FR 26193, May 15,

2001).

XIII. What Action Is EPA Taking

Regarding the State Submittals

Addressed by This Final Rule?

EPA is taking the following actions on

the state submittals address by this final

rule:

1. EPA is approving the ground-level

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration

SIPs for the St. Louis, Missouri, and

Illinois ozone nonattainment area.

2. EPA is granting the states’ requests

for extension, and extending the date for

attaining the 1-hour ozone standard to

November 15, 2004, while retaining the

area’s current classification as a

moderate ozone nonattainment area.

3. EPA is approving the 2004 on-road

MVEBs for both Illinois and Missouri.

Both Illinois and Missouri have

committed to revise their 2004 MVEBs

based on MOBILE6 within two years of

its release. No conformity

determinations will be made during the

second year following the release of

MOBILE6 unless and until the MVEBs

have been recalculated using MOBILE6

and approved by EPA.

4. EPA is finding that the Contingency

Measures identified by both Illinois and

Missouri are adequate to meet the

requirements of the Act. We are also

approving the contingency measures SIP

submitted by Missouri in October 1997,

as supplemented by a letter dated April

5, 2001.

5. EPA finds that the St. Louis area

meets the requirements pertaining to

RACM under the Act.

6. EPA is granting an exemption to the

state of Illinois from the NOX RACT

requirements of the Act and

disapproving the request for an

exemption from the NOX NSR and

certain NOX conformity requirements

for Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair

Counties.

7. EPA is withdrawing our March 19,

2001, rulemaking action entitled

‘‘Determination of Nonattainment as of

November 15, 1996, and

Reclassification.’’

For the reasons stated above in the

‘‘Background’’ portion of this notice,

EPA is making this final action

immediately effective.

Administrative Requirements

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. This

action, in relevant part, 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 preexisting 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). For the same

reason, this rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

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), because, in relevant

part, it 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 Act.

This rule also is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997), because it is not economically

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, our

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Act. In this context, in the absence

of a prior existing requirement for the

state to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), we have 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 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. As required by section 3 of

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,

we have taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the Executive Order. 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. We 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34011

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 Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by August 27, 2001. 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,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Ozone, Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: June 14, 2001.

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]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.726 is amended by

adding paragraph (bb) to read as

follows:

§ 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(bb) Approval—Revisions to the SIP

submitted by Illinois on November 15,

1999; February 10, 2000; April 13, 2001;

and April 30, 2001. The revisions are for

the purpose of satisfying the attainment

demonstration requirements of section

182(c)(2)(A) of the Act for the MetroEast St. Louis area. The revision

establishes an attainment date of

November 15, 2004, for the St. Louis

moderate ozone nonattainment area.

This revision establishes MVEBs for

2004 of 26.62 TPD of VOC and 35.52

TPD of NOX to be used in transportation

conformity in the Metro-East St. Louis

area until revised budgets pursuant to

MOBILE6 are submitted and found

adequate. In the revision, Illinois

commits to revise its VOC and NOX

transportation conformity budgets

within two years of the release of

MOBILE6. No conformity

determinations will be made during the

second year following the release of

MOBILE6 unless and until the MVEBs

have been recalculated using MOBILE6

and found adequate by EPA. EPA is

granting a waiver for the Metro East St.

Louis area to the state of Illinois from

the NOX RACT requirements of the Act

and disapproving the request for a

waiver from the NOX NSR and NOX

general conformity requirements. EPA is

finding that the Contingency Measures

identified by Illinois are adequate to

meet the requirements of the Act. EPA

finds that the Illinois SIP meets the

requirements pertaining to RACM under

the Act for the Metro-East St. Louis area.

Subpart AA—Missouri

4. In § 52.1320(e) the table is amended

under Chapter 6 by adding two entries

at the end of the table as follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGUALTORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP

provision

Applicable geographic or

nonattainment area

State

submittal

date

EPA

approval

date

Explanation

*******

Contingency Plan including

letter of April 5, 2001.

St. Louis ............................ 10/6/97, .............................

4/5/01 ................................

June 26, 2001.

Ozone 1-Hour Standard Attainment Demonstration

Plan for November 2004

including 2004 On-Road

Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets.

St. Louis ............................ 11/10/99, 11/2/00, 2/28/01,

3/7/01.

June 26, 2001.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

2. The amendments to §§ 81.314 and

81.326 which published on March 19,

2001 (66 FR 15578) and were revised on

May 16, 2001 (66 FR 27036) to become

effective on June 29, 2001, are

withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 01–15842 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P