[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13384-13391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6652]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[MO 061-1061; IL187-1; FRL-6311-8]
Clean Air Reclassification and Notice of Potential Eligibility
for Attainment Date Extension, Missouri and Illinois; St. Louis
Nonattainment Area; Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the St. Louis nonattainment area
[[Page 13385]]
(hereinafter referred to as the St. Louis area) has failed to attain
the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
standard) by November 15, 1996, the date set forth in the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for moderate nonattainment areas. If EPA takes final
action on the finding as proposed, the St. Louis area would be
reclassified as a serious nonattainment area.
EPA is also issuing 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 extension policy)
(Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation) issued July 16, 1998. The extension policy applies where
pollution from upwind areas interferes with the ability of a downwind
area to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard by the
dates prescribed in the CAA. EPA proposes to finalize the
reclassification of the St. Louis area only after the area has had an
opportunity to qualify for an attainment date extension under the
extension policy.
As an alternative to reclassification for areas affected by
transport, the extension policy provides that an area, such as St.
Louis, is eligible for an attainment date extension if it can make
submissions that meet certain conditions. Missouri and Illinois are
working together to comply with the conditions for receiving an
extension so that the St. Louis area can avoid reclassification. If
Missouri and Illinois make submittals in response to the extension
policy, EPA will address the adequacy of those submittals in a
subsequent rulemaking action. If the submittals meet the provisions for
an extension, the attainment date for the St. Louis area would be
extended, and the area would not be reclassified.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Aaron J. Worstell, Air
Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101; or to J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604.
Copies of the St. Louis area monitored air quality data analyses,
guidance on extension of attainment dates in downwind transport areas,
state submittals requesting attainment date extension, and other
relevant documents used in support of this proposal are available at
the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507;
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron J. Worstell, EPA Region VII,
(913) 551-7787 or Jay Bortzer, EPA Region V, (312) 886-1430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
Since the CAA's inception in 1970, EPA has set NAAQS for six common
air pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The CAA requires these
standards be set at levels that protect public health and welfare with
an adequate margin of safety. These standards present state and local
governments with the air quality levels they must meet to achieve clean
air. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess whether
or not the air quality in their communities is healthful.
What is the NAAQS for ozone?
The NAAQS for ozone is expressed in two forms which are referred to
as the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Table 1 summarizes the ozone
standards.
Table 1.--Summary of Ozone Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Value Type Method of Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour................ 0.12 ppm.............. Primary and secondary... Must not be exceeded on average more
than one day per year over any 3-year
period.
8-hour................ 0.08 ppm.............. Primary and secondary... The 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration measured
at each monitor within an area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm has existed since 1979 and
was included with the 1990 CAA amendments. The 8-hour ozone standard,
which replaces the 1-hour standard, was recently adopted by EPA on July
18, 1997 (62 FR 38856). However, the 1-hour ozone standard continues to
apply for existing nonattainment areas until such time as EPA
determines that an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR
50.9(b)). It is the classification of the St. Louis area relative to
the 1-hour ozone standard that is addressed in this document.
What is the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area?
The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is an interstate area which
includes cities and counties in both Missouri and Illinois as follows:
Madison County, Monroe County, and St. Clair County in Illinois; and
Franklin County, Jefferson County, St. Charles County, St. Louis City,
and St. Louis County in Missouri.
Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each ozone area designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to enactment of the
1990 CAA amendments, such as the St. Louis area, was designated
nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990
amendments. Under section 181(a) of the Act, each ozone area designated
nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of
law as ``marginal,'' ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' or
``extreme,'' depending on the severity of the area's air quality
problem. The design value for an area, which characterizes the severity
of the air quality problem, is represented by the highest design value
at any individual ozone monitoring site (i.e., the highest of the
fourth highest 1-hour daily maximums in a given three-year period with
complete monitoring data). Table 2 provides the design value ranges for
each nonattainment classification. Ozone nonattainment areas with
design values between 0.138 and 0.160 ppm, such as the St. Louis area
(which had a
[[Page 13386]]
design value of 0.156 ppm in 1989), were classified as moderate. These
nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR
Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991).
Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Classifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area class Design value (ppm) Attainment date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marginal................................ 0.121 up to 0.138............... November 15, 1993.
Moderate................................ 0.138 up to 0.160............... November 15, 1996.
Serious................................. 0.160 up to 0.180............... November 15, 1999.
Severe.................................. 0.180 up to 0.280............... November 15, 2005.
Extreme................................. 0.280 and above................. November 15, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, under section 182(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, states
containing areas that were classified as moderate nonattainment were
required to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to provide for
certain controls, to show progress toward attainment, and to provide
for attainment of the ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than November 15, 1996. Moderate area SIP requirements are
found primarily in section 182(b) of the CAA.
Why is EPA Proposing To Reclassify the St. Louis Area?
In regard to reclassification for failure to attain, section
182(b)(2)(A) of the Act provides that:
Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including
any extension thereof) for an ozone nonattainment area, the
Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value (as of
the attainment date), whether the area attained the standard by that
date. Except for any Severe or Extreme area, any area that the
Administrator finds has not attained the standard by that date shall be
reclassified by operation of law in accordance with table 1 of
subsection (a) to the higher of--
(i) the next higher classification for the area, or
(ii) the classification applicable to the area's design value as
determined at the time of the notice required under subparagraph (B).
No area shall be reclassified as Extreme under clause (ii).
Furthermore, section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides that:
The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register,
no later than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying each
area that the Administrator has determined under subparagraph (A) as
having failed to attain and identifying the reclassification, if any,
described under subparagraph (A).
In the case of St. Louis, EPA has yet to make the determination
described in section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
Table 3 lists the average number of days when ambient ozone
concentrations exceeded the 1-hour ozone standard at each monitoring
site in the St. Louis area for the period 1994-1996. The ozone design
value for each monitor is also listed for the same period. A complete
listing of the ozone exceedances for each monitoring site, as well as
EPA's calculations of the design values, can be found in the docket
file. The data in Table 3 show that for 1994-1996 seven monitoring
sites in the St. Louis area averaged more than one exceedance day per
year. Therefore, pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA, EPA
proposes to find that the St. Louis area did not attain the 1-hour
standard by the November 15, 1996, deadline.
Table 3.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the St. Louis Area (1994-1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of number of
expected expected Site design
Site days over exceedance value (ppm)
standard days per
(1994-1996) year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Sites:
Arnold--29-099-0012.......... 5.0 a 1.7 0.126
West Alton--29-183-1002...... 9.9 a 3.3 b 0.136
Orchard Farms--29-183-1004... 3.6 a 1.2 0.133
South Lindbergh--29-189-0001. 3.0 1.0 0.124
Queeny Park--29-189-0006..... 6.1 a2.0 0.129
55 Hunter--29-189-3001....... 3.0 1.0 0.123
3400 Pershall--29-189-5001... 3.0 1.0 0.118
Rock Road--29-189-7002....... 5.0 a1.7 0.125
South Broadway--29-510-0007.. 1.0 0.3 0.108
River DesPeres c--29-510-0062 1.0 1.0 0.101
1122 Clark--29-510-0072...... 0.0 0.0 0.089
Newstead--29-510-0080........ 1.0 0.3 0.108
Illinois Sites:
Alton--17-119-0008........... 4.0 a 1.3 0.127
West Division--17-119-1009... 2.0 0.7 0.110
Poag Road--17-119-2007....... 3.1 1.0 0.124
North Walcott--17-119-3007... 4.0 a 1.3 0.125
East St. Louis--17-163-0010.. 1.0 0.3 0.108
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a A violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedances is
greater than 1.05.
b Represents the 1996 design value for the St. Louis area.
c Site discontinued at end of 1995 ozone season.
[[Page 13387]]
As discussed later in this document, because EPA has now
interpreted the CAA to allow for an extension of the attainment date
based on an understanding of transport data not available at the time
of St. Louis' original attainment date, EPA believes it is fair to
allow the states an opportunity to apply and qualify for an attainment
date extension before EPA finalizes its finding and the area is
reclassified.
This proposal details the following reasons which support EPA's
decision to proceed in this manner:
1. The Agency has concluded that this is the best way of
reconciling the Act's provisions with respect to ozone transport with
the provisions governing graduated attainment dates and with the
reclassification provisions. The Act shows congressional intent that
transport be considered when the Agency acts to reclassify an area, and
a reluctance to subject an area to greater controls than necessary to
bring local sources into compliance.
2. St. Louis has been shown to be affected by ozone transport from
upwind areas.
3. St. Louis is now monitoring air quality data that, were it being
newly classified, would entitle it to the classification of a marginal
nonattainment area. However, if it were reclassified, it would be
required to impose the controls which are normally demanded only for an
area with serious levels of air pollution.
4. Missouri and Illinois have committed to submit an attainment
demonstration by November 1999 which includes all the local control
measures required under the Act for moderate nonattainment areas,
demonstrating attainment when upwind controls are expected to be
implemented.
Furthermore, in this proposal EPA's recognition that the area
should be given an opportunity to qualify for an extension is balanced
by EPA's action in moving forward with the process of reclassification
in the event that the states are unsuccessful in demonstrating that
they satisfy the criteria for an extension.
Can an Extension of the Moderate Area Attainment Date Be Granted for
the St. Louis Area?
The attainment date specified in the Act for moderate nonattainment
areas, such as St. Louis, is November 15, 1996. Two separate mechanisms
exist for an area to obtain an extension of this date. First, pursuant
to section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, the state may request, and EPA may
grant, up to two one-year attainment date extensions. EPA may grant an
extension if: (1) the state has complied with the requirements and
commitments pertaining to the applicable implementation plan for the
area, and (2) the area has measured no more than one exceedance of the
ozone standard at any monitoring site in the nonattainment area in the
year in which attainment is required.
On October 2, 1996, Missouri submitted a request for a one-year
extension of the attainment date. However, eight exceedances of the 1-
hour ozone standard occurred in the St. Louis area in 1996 (refer to
Table 4). Two of these exceedances occurred at the Alton monitoring
site in Illinois. Although this was the only monitoring site recording
more than one exceedance in 1996, under section 181(a)(5) of the Act,
the St. Louis area failed to qualify for an attainment date extension
based on 1996 air quality data.
Table 4.--Ozone Exceedances in the St. Louis Area--1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site ID Site type Date PPM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Sites:
Arnold--29-099-0012................. SPM June 20, 1996.............. 0.133
West Alton--29-183-1002............. NAMS June 13, 1996.............. 0.135
Orchard Farms--29-183-1004.......... SLAMS June 28, 1996.............. 0.147
S. Lindbergh--29-189-0001........... SLAMS June 20, 1996.............. 0.130
S. Broadway--29-510-0007............ SLAMS June 20, 1996.............. 0.131
Illinois Sites:
North Walcott--17-119-3007.......... SLAMS June 13, 1996.............. 0.135
Alton--17-119-0008.................. SLAMS June 13, 1996.............. 0.128
Alton--17-119-0008.................. SLAMS June 14, 1996.............. 0.127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There exists, however, another mechanism for obtaining an extension
of the attainment date under the extension policy for areas which are
affected by downwind transport of ozone and ozone precursors. This
extension policy reconciles section 181(b)(2) with other provisions of
the CAA to authorize attainment date extensions for downwind transport
areas that can make appropriate showings. The section that follows
discusses the extension policy in detail.
What is EPA's new policy regarding extension of attainment dates for
downwind transport areas?
A number of areas in the country that have been classified as
``moderate'' or ``serious'' are affected by pollutants that have
traveled downwind from other areas. For these downwind areas, transport
of pollutants from upwind areas has interfered with their ability to
meet the ozone standard by the dates prescribed by the CAA. As a
result, many of these areas, such as the St. Louis area, find
themselves facing the prospect of being reclassified, or ``bumped up,''
to a higher classification (e.g., from ``moderate'' to ``serious'') for
failing to meet the ozone standard by the specified date.
For some time, EPA has recognized that pollutant transport can
impair an area's ability to meet air quality standards. As a result, in
March 1995 a collaborative, Federal-state process to assess the ozone
transport problem was begun. Through a two-year effort known as the
Ozone Transport Assessment
[[Page 13388]]
Group (OTAG), EPA worked in partnership with the 37 easternmost states
and the District of Columbia, industry representatives, academia, and
environmental groups to develop recommended strategies to address
transport of ozone-forming pollutants across state boundaries.
On November 7, 1997, EPA acted on OTAG's recommendations and issued
a proposal (the proposed NOX SIP call, 62 FR 60318)
requiring 22 states and the District of Columbia to submit state plans
addressing the regional transport of ozone. These state plans, or SIPs,
will decrease the transport of ozone across state boundaries in the
eastern half of the United States by reducing emissions of nitrogen
oxides (a precursor to ozone formation known as NOX). EPA
took final action on the NOX SIP call on October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356). EPA expects the final NOX SIP call will
assist many areas in attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.
On July 16, 1998, in consideration of these factors and the
realization that many areas are unable to meet the CAA mandated
attainment dates due to transport, EPA issued the extension policy. In
this policy the attainment date for an area may be extended provided
that the following criteria are met: (1) the area must be 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 nonattainment (by
``affected by transport,'' EPA means an area whose air quality is
affected by transport from an upwind area to a degree that affects the
area's ability to attain); (2) an approvable attainment demonstration
must be submitted with any necessary, adopted local measures and with
an attainment date that shows that it will attain the 1-hour standard
no later than the date that the reductions are expected from upwind
areas under the final NOX SIP call and/or the statutory
attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the
boundary conditions reflecting those upwind reductions; (3) the area
has adopted all applicable local measures required under the area's
current classification and any additional measures necessary to
demonstrate attainment, assuming the reductions occur as required in
the upwind areas; (4) the area must provide 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.
EPA contemplates that when it acts to approve such an area's
attainment demonstration, it will, as necessary, extend that area's
attainment date to a date appropriate for that area in light of the
schedule for achieving the necessary upwind reductions. The area would
no longer be subject to reclassification or ``bump-up'' for failure to
attain by its original attainment date under section 181(b)(2).
Is the St. Louis Area Eligible for an Attainment Date Extension Under
the Extension Policy?
EPA believes that the St. Louis area is affected by upwind
transport. In fact, according to the final NOX SIP call, the
St. Louis area is affected by transport of pollutants from upwind areas
to an extent that the area's ability to meet the 1-hour ozone standard
is impaired. Therefore, EPA believes that the first of the transport
criteria can be satisfied. However, before the St. Louis area can
qualify for an attainment date extension under the extension policy,
the remainder of the criteria specified in the extension policy must be
met.
In October 1998, EPA notified the Governors of Missouri and
Illinois of the availability of the extension policy. EPA also
requested that, if they wished to demonstrate their eligibility for the
extension policy, the Governors respond to EPA with a letter committing
their respective states to meet the requirements necessary to qualify
for an attainment date extension under the policy by November 15, 1999.
On November 23, 1998, Missouri submitted a letter to EPA providing
a commitment to meet the requirements of the extension policy.
Similarly, on December 15, 1998, Illinois submitted a letter to EPA
providing a commitment to meet the requirements of the extension
policy. (EPA's letters notifying the Missouri and Illinois Governors of
the extension policy, and the respective responses are included in the
docket for this rulemaking.)
EPA's review of the Missouri and Illinois SIPs for the St. Louis
area indicates that Missouri and Illinois must submit the following in
order to meet the requirements set forth in the extension policy:
1. A technical analysis establishing the influence of transport on
ozone levels within the St. Louis area. This requirement can be met by
citing the analysis contained in EPA's aforementioned NOX
SIP call.
2. Regulations or negative declarations addressing certain CAA
requirements pertaining to reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for major sources emitting volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Note that this applies only to Missouri since the Illinois SIP has
fully addressed VOC RACT.
3. Regulations addressing the CAA's requirements pertaining to RACT
for major sources of NOX. EPA believes that this requirement
can be met by adopting regulations that will achieve reductions in
NOX emissions consistent with the NOX SIP call.
4. An attainment demonstration meeting the criteria set forth in
the extension policy.
In addition, the states must submit SIP revisions addressing all
other local control measures required for moderate nonattainment areas
and any additional measures necessary for attainment. All measures must
also be implemented in accordance with the time frames set forth in the
extension policy.
What Progress Has Been Made by Missouri and Illinois To Meet the
Extension Policy So That an Attainment Date Extension Can Be Obtained?
Missouri and Illinois have already done extensive work toward
meeting the extension policy. Several major portions of the extension
policy have already been satisfied, and Missouri and Illinois have
already made substantial progress toward compliance with the criteria
for obtaining an attainment date extension.
Regarding the first item, EPA believes that Missouri and Illinois
can establish the influence of transport on ozone levels within the St.
Louis area by citing the analysis contained in EPA's NOX SIP
call.
Regarding the second item, Illinois has already submitted
regulations or negative declarations fully addressing VOC RACT controls
for major VOC sources. Missouri has also addressed VOC RACT for most
major VOC sources, but there are some RACT categories for which
Missouri has not yet submitted regulations or negative declarations.
Regarding the third item, EPA believes that Missouri and Illinois
will be able to meet NOX RACT by adopting regulations
consistent with the NOX SIP call. Missouri and Illinois are
currently developing an emissions inventory and drafting regulations in
response to the NOX SIP call.
Regarding the fourth item, Missouri and Illinois are currently
working to develop an approvable attainment demonstration. The states
have initiated the steps leading to a final attainment demonstration
and have committed to completing and submitting the attainment
demonstration by November 15, 1999.
[[Page 13389]]
What Actions Have Illinois and Missouri Taken to Improve Air Quality in
the St. Louis Area?
EPA has approved, and Illinois has implemented, VOC emission
reductions as part of the states' 15 percent rate-of-progress plan
(ROPP or 15 percent plan) (see 62 FR 66279). Illinois has implemented
VOC controls including: (1) requiring the lowering of Reid Vapor
Pressure of gasoline to 7.2 pounds per square inch (decreased
volatility); (2) transportation control measures; (3) automobile
refinishing emission control regulations; (4) marine vessel loading
emission control regulations; (5) tightened RACT standards and emission
cutoffs for various industrial source categories; (6) underground
gasoline storage tank breathing emission controls; (7) organic chemical
batch process RACT regulations; and (8) expansion of basic vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) area coverage. Illinois has
implemented an enhanced vehicle I/M program and cold-cleaner degreasing
regulations, which should further reduce VOC emissions in the Illinois
portion of the St. Louis area. Illinois has adopted and implemented a
contingency plan resulting in additional VOC control measures.
The state of Missouri has also taken a number of actions to improve
air quality in the St. Louis area. As part of its 15 percent ROPP, the
state adopted many of the same VOC RACT regulations as Illinois.
Missouri has also adopted and implemented a contingency plan which
included additional VOC control measures. In July 1998, the Governor of
Missouri requested to opt in to the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
program. EPA proposed to establish an implementation date for RFG based
on the Governor's request in a Federal Register notice published on
September 15, 1998 (see 63 FR 49317). EPA expects to take final action
on the RFG opt-in in the near future. In addition, the state of
Missouri is proceeding with implementation of an upgraded I/M program
for motor vehicles. The state released its request for proposals to
operate the program in October 1998. Based on this request and on the
previous I/M SIP submission, EPA proposed to conditionally approve the
I/M program provided that it begins operation by April 2000 (see 64 FR
9460). This program is a major part of the 15 percent plan and will
result in a significant reduction in emissions when implemented in the
coming years. EPA also notes that St. Louis is an area which
implemented a Stage II vapor recovery program in the 1980s.
If EPA finalizes its proposed rulemaking reclassifying the St. Louis
area, what would be the area's new classification?
Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that, when an area is
reclassified for failure to attain, its reclassification be the higher
of the next higher classification or the classification applicable to
the area's ozone design value at the time the notice of
reclassification is published in the Federal Register. The design value
of the St. Louis area at the time of the proposed finding of failure to
attain is based on air quality monitoring data from 1996 through 1998.
This design value is 0.131 ppm, as derived from the West Alton
monitoring site, and the classification of ``marginal'' nonattainment
would be applicable to it. By contrast, the next higher classification
for the St. Louis area is ``serious'' nonattainment. Since ``serious''
is a higher nonattainment classification than ``marginal,'' under the
statutory scheme the area would be reclassified to serious
nonattainment. Refer to Table 5 below.
Table 5.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the St. Louis Area (1996-1998)e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average number of
Number of expected expected Site design value
Site days over standard exceedance days (ppm)
(1996-1998) per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Sites:
Arnold--29-099-0012............................. 3.2 b 1.1 0.118
West Alton--29-183-1002......................... 4.4 b 1.5 c 0.131
Orchard Farms--29-183-1004...................... 2.3 0.8 0.118
S. Lindbergh-Gravois a--29-189-0001............. 3.5 b 1.2 0.119
Queeny Park--29-189-0006........................ 1.2 0.4 0.110
55 Hunter--29-189-3001.......................... 1.2 0.4 0.109
3400 Pershall--29-189-5001...................... 2.2 0.7 0.117
Rock Road--29-189-7002.......................... 1.2 0.4 0.116
South Broadway--29-510-0007..................... 2.2 0.7 0.107
River DesPeres d--29-510-0062................... .................. .................. ..................
1122 Clark--29-510-0072......................... 1.2 0.4 0.094
Newstead--29-510-0080........................... 0.0 0.0 0.107
Illinois Sites:
Alton--17-119-0008.............................. 2.0 0.6 0.116
W. Division--17-119-1009........................ 0.0 0.0 0.110
Poag Road--17-119-2007.......................... 1.0 0.3 0.118
N. Walcott--17-119-3007......................... 2.0 0.6 0.117
E. St. Louis--17-163-0010....................... 1.2 0.4 0.098
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Data from the S. Lindbergh and Gravois monitoring sites have been combined.
b A violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedances is greater than 1.05.
c This value represents the current design value for the St. Louis area.
d Site discontinued at end of 1995 ozone season.
e Note that fourth quarter 1998 air quality data was not available and is not reflected in this table. Any
change in the calculated design values or expected exceedances is insignificant.
What would reclassification mean for the St. Louis area?
Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the new attainment deadline for
moderate ozone nonattainment areas reclassified to serious under
section 181(b)(2) would be as expeditious as practicable but no later
than the date applicable to the new classification, i.e., November 15,
1999. However, for the reasons given above, EPA does not expect to take
final action on this proposed reclassification until
[[Page 13390]]
after November 15, 1999. This will allow the states adequate time to
make a demonstration that an extension of the attainment date, instead
of a reclassification, would be appropriate under the extension policy.
As a practical matter, even if EPA were to reclassify the St. Louis
area immediately, there would likely be insufficient time for the
states to submit new attainment demonstrations and actually demonstrate
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15 of this year. If
the St. Louis area is reclassified, and if EPA does not act to
reclassify the area until after its November submittal, it will plainly
be too late for the area to demonstrate attainment by a date that will
have already passed. EPA believes that the practical impossibility of
meeting the November 1999 deadline for serious areas requires EPA to
establish a new attainment date for the area. Therefore, in this
document EPA discusses options for establishing a new attainment date
in the event that the area is reclassified to serious.
November 1999 is a date that is impossible to set as a date for the
area to attain and for the states to have made SIP submissions. Since
it is impossible, the principles underlying what EPA does for areas
that must submit 15 percent plans after the deadline for submission has
passed should apply here. Consistent with what EPA has done with
respect to setting new applicable deadlines for those plans, EPA
believes that a deadline that is as expeditious as practicable would be
appropriate.
Section 182(i) states that the Administrator may adjust applicable
deadlines (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment
is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency for submission of the
new requirements applicable to an area which has been reclassified. (An
area reclassified to serious is required to submit SIP revisions
addressing the serious area requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard
in section 182(c).) Where an attainment date has already passed or is
otherwise impossible to meet, EPA believes that the Administrator may
also adjust an attainment date to assure fair and equitable treatment
consistent with the provisions in section 182(i), notwithstanding the
parenthetical clause. EPA also notes another provision of the Act in
section 110(k)(5) pertaining to findings of SIP inadequacy that allows
the Administrator to adjust attainment dates when such dates have
passed. Although this latter provision is not directly applicable to a
reclassification, EPA believes that the provision illustrates a
recognition by Congress of limited instances in which it becomes
necessary to adjust attainment dates, particularly where it is
otherwise impossible to meet the statutory date.
One option is to construct a schedule consistent with recent
reclassifications of other areas. EPA has recently reclassified other
moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including Santa Barbara,
California; Phoenix, Arizona; and Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. In these
cases, the new attainment date is November 15, 1999. The most recent
reclassification was for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. EPA published the
notice reclassifying this area on February 18, 1998, thereby providing
approximately 21 months for the area to attain the standard. EPA thus
concluded that 21 months was an adequate period for a moderate
nonattainment area to attain the standard where the new attainment date
had not yet lapsed but where there was less time remaining than the Act
had contemplated. EPA here suggests, as an option, an attainment date
that is in keeping with this time frame and that would allow the area
an opportunity to make submissions to meet the serious area
requirements and implement measures to attain the standard. Applying
this approach to the St. Louis area would result in a new attainment
date 21 months from publication of the final reclassification notice.
Another option would be to set an attainment date that takes into
account the impact of transport on the area, even though the area must
be reclassified because it has failed to meet the criteria for the
attainment date extension policy. This attainment date would coincide
with the date set for upwind area reductions under the NOX
SIP call, or 2003. Although the St. Louis area, if reclassified, would
have to meet the requirements for a serious area, under this option it
would not be held responsible for emission reductions necessary to
compensate for transported pollution. This option would then be
consistent with EPA's approach of allocating responsibility for
pollution fairly among the states. EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of the options discussed above and whether a shorter or
later attainment date would be more appropriate.
If the St. Louis area is reclassified, EPA must also address the
schedule by which Illinois and Missouri are required to submit SIP
revisions meeting the serious area requirements. One option is to
require that the states submit SIP revisions containing all of the
serious area requirements no later than one year after final action on
the reclassification. This submission would include a new attainment
demonstration and all additional measures required by section 182(c) of
the Act. The additional measures include, but are not limited to, the
following: (1) attainment and reasonable further progress
demonstrations; (2) an enhanced vehicle I/M program; (3) clean-fuel
vehicle program; (4) a 50 ton-per-year major source threshold; (5) more
stringent new source review requirements; (6) an enhanced monitoring
program; and (7) contingency provisions. If the submission shows that
the area can attain the standard sooner than the attainment date
established in a final reclassification notice, EPA would adjust the
attainment date to reflect the earlier date, consistent with the
requirement in section 181(a)(1) that the standard be attained as
expeditiously as practicable. EPA solicits comments on the appropriate
schedule for submitting these SIP revisions.
What action is being taken by EPA?
Today EPA is proposing to find that the St. Louis area has failed
to attain the ozone 1-hour air quality standard by the date prescribed
by the CAA for moderate nonattainment areas, or November 15, 1996. If
EPA finalizes this finding, the St. Louis area will be reclassified by
operation of law from moderate nonattainment to serious nonattainment.
If Missouri and Illinois fulfill the requirements of the extension
policy by November 15, 1999, EPA will not finalize the proposed finding
of failure to attain, and consequently, the St. Louis area will not be
reclassified to serious nonattainment. However, if Missouri or Illinois
fail to meet the requirements of the extension policy by November 15,
1999, EPA will finalize the finding of failure to attain, and the St.
Louis area will be reclassified to serious nonattainment at that time.
EPA believes that this approach is reasonable since it (1) ensures
that the local control measures mandated by the CAA for moderate
nonattainment areas, such as VOC and NOx RACT, are achieved;
(2) takes into consideration the transport of pollutants into the St.
Louis area which impair the ability of the area to meet the air quality
standards; and (3) harmonizes the St. Louis area attainment date with
the schedule for emissions reductions in upwind areas associated with
the NOx SIP call.
Finally, if the St. Louis area does attain the 1-hour standard at
some time in the future, then the area would be eligible for revocation
of the 1-hour
[[Page 13391]]
standard, and any classification would no longer be applicable.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
B. E.O. 12875
Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that
creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires
EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposal would not create a mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments. It would not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. The SIP submission requirements are not judicially
enforceable. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O.
12875 do not apply to this proposal.
C. E.O. 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This proposal is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,
and it does not establish a further health or risk-based standard
because it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based
standard.
D. E.O. 13084
Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the
nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue
the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's proposal would not significantly or uniquely affect tribal
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.
13084 do not apply to this proposal.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This proposal will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because a finding of failure to attain under
section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, and the establishment of a SIP submittal
schedule for the reclassified area, do not, in and of themselves,
directly impose any new requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex
Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
(agency's certification need only consider the rule's impact on
entities subject to requirements of the rule). Instead, this proposal
proposes to make a determination and to establish a schedule for states
to submit SIP revisions and does not propose to directly regulate any
entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must, unless otherwise prohibited by law, prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to state,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to today's action because the
proposed determination that the St. Louis area failed to reach
attainment does not, in-and-of-itself, constitute a Federal mandate
because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. In
addition, the CAA does not permit EPA to consider the types of analyses
described in section 202, in determining whether an area has attained
the ozone standard or qualifies for an extension. Finally, section 203
does not apply to today's proposal because the SIP submittal schedule
would affect only the states of Missouri and Illinois, which are not
small governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 5, 1999.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.
Dated: March 10, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.
[FR Doc. 99-6652 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P