[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15578-15590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6621]



[[Page 15577]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 81



Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 1996, and 
Reclassification of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area; States of 
Missouri and Illinois; Final Rule; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 15578]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[MO 061-0161a; IL 187-2; FRL-6955-4]


Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 1996, and 
Reclassification of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area; States of 
Missouri and Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its finding that the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the St. Louis area) 
failed to attain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS or standard) by November 15, 1996, the attainment date for 
moderate nonattainment areas set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act). By operation of law, the St. Louis area is to be reclassified 
from a moderate to a serious nonattainment area on the effective date 
of this rule. In addition, EPA is requiring Missouri and Illinois to 
submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions addressing the CAA's 
pollution control requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas 
within 12 months of the effective date of this rule and establishing 
November 15, 2004, as the date by which the St. Louis area must attain 
the ozone NAAQS. In a separate document entitled ``Proposed Effective 
Date Modification for Determination of Nonattainment as of November 15, 
1996, and Reclassification of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area; 
States of Missouri and Illinois,'' published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, EPA is proposing to delay the effective date of this 
rule until June 29, 2001. In that document, EPA also sets forth its 
intent to propose to withdraw this final determination and 
reclassification, if EPA grants the states an attainment date extension 
before the effective date of this reclassification rule.
    Missouri and Illinois are in the concluding stage of a process that 
could culminate in EPA final action on an attainment date extension. 
This extension, if granted, would allow the area to remain classified 
as a moderate nonattainment area. EPA is continuing to work to complete 
action on the extension request by June 29, 2001. If EPA takes final 
action to extend the attainment date during the pre-effective period of 
this rule, EPA intends to withdraw this final determination and 
reclassification prior to the time that they become effective.
    In an Order issued January 29, 2001, and amended on February 14, 
2001, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
directed EPA to determine, by March 12, 2001, whether the St. Louis 
area had attained the applicable ozone standard under the CAA, and 
ordered EPA to publish the required notice, if any, that results from 
its determination by March 20, 2001. Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 98-
2733. The rulemaking issued today is intended to comply with the 
Court's Order. EPA informed the Court, in a Motion filed on March 8, 
2001, of its proposed course of action to comply with the Order, 
including EPA's proposal to postpone the effective date of the 
determination until June 29, 2001, and EPA's intent to withdraw the 
determination if it approves an attainment date extension within the 
pre-effective period. 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 its determination by March 12, 
and publishing notice by March 20, would comply with the Court's Order. 
The Court observed that it was without jurisdiction to assess the 
propriety of the remainder of EPA's planned course of action.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the St. Louis area monitored air quality data 
analyses and other relevant materials are available for public 
inspection during normal business hours at the following addresses: 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 
(please telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the 
Region 5 office); United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
7, Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royan W. Teter, EPA Region 7, (913) 
551-7609; or Edward Doty, EPA Region 5, (312) 886-6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we, us, 
or our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional 
information by addressing the following questions:

What are the national ambient air quality standards?
What is the NAAQS for ozone?
What is a SIP?
What is the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area?
What does this action do?
What does the CAA say about determinations of nonattainment and 
reclassifications, and how does it apply to the St. Louis area?
Why did EPA defer making a determination regarding the St. Louis 
area's attainment status beyond the time frame prescribed by the 
CAA?
Why is this action necessary?
What progress have Missouri and Illinois made toward meeting the 
requirements of the attainment date extension policy?
What other actions have Illinois and Missouri taken to improve air 
quality in the St. Louis area?
What is the area's new classification?
What is the new attainment date for the St. Louis area?
When must Missouri and Illinois submit SIP revisions fulfilling the 
requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas?
What comments were received on the proposed determination of 
nonattainment and reclassification, and how has EPA responded?

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 that 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.

[[Page 15579]]



                                      Table 1.--Summary of Ozone Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Standard                        Value                  Type a              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 three-
                                                                                      year period at any monitor
                                                                                      within an area
8-hour.............................  0.08..................  Primary and secondary.  The average of the annual
                                                                                      fourth highest daily
                                                                                      maximum 8-hour average
                                                                                      ozone concentration
                                                                                      measured at each monitor
                                                                                      over any three-year period
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Primary standards are designed to protect public health and secondary standards are designed to protect public
  welfare and the environment.

    The 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) was 
promulgated in 1979. The 1-hour ozone standard continues to apply to 
St. Louis and it is the classification of the St. Louis area with 
respect to the 1-hour ozone standard that is addressed in this 
document.

What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality 
meets the NAAQS established by EPA. These ambient standards are 
established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address 
six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 
lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to 
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by 
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be 
extensive. They may contain state regulations or other enforceable 
documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, 
monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What Is the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area?

    The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is an interstate area which 
includes Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties in Illinois; and 
Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis Counties and the City of 
St. Louis 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. In addition, under section 181(a) of the Act, each area 
designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was classified as 
``marginal,'' ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' or ``extreme,'' 
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. The design 
value for an area, i.e., the highest of the fourth highest 1-hour daily 
maximums in a given three-year period, characterizes the severity of 
the air quality problem. 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 design value of 0.156 ppm in 1989), were classified as 
moderate. These nonattainment designations and classifications were 
initially codified in 40 CFR Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 
1991).

              Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Classifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Design value
           Area class                    (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 SIPs to provide for certain air pollution controls, 
to show progress toward attainment of the ozone standard through 
incremental emissions reductions, and to provide for attainment of the 
ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 
November 15, 1996. SIP requirements for moderate areas are listed 
primarily in section 182(b) of the CAA.

What Does This Action Do?

    On March 18, 1999, EPA proposed (64 FR 13384) its finding that the 
St. Louis area did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 
1996, as required by the CAA. The proposed finding was based on 1994-
1996 air quality data which indicated the area's air quality violated 
the standard and the area did not qualify for an attainment date 
extension under the provisions of section 181(a)(5).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 181(a)(5) specifies that a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the area was not eligible for an attainment date extension 
under section 181(a)(5), our March 18, 1999, proposal included a notice 
of the St. Louis area's potential eligibility for an attainment date 
extension, pursuant to EPA's July 16, 1998, ``Guidance on Extension of 
Air Quality Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' 
(hereinafter referred to as the extension policy), signed by Richard D. 
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The 
extension policy, published in a March 25, 1999, Federal Register 
notice (64 FR 14441), applies where pollution from upwind areas 
interferes with the ability of a downwind area to attain the 1-hour 
ozone standard by its attainment date. EPA proposed to finalize its 
action on the determination of nonattainment and

[[Page 15580]]

reclassification of the St. Louis area only after the area had received 
an opportunity to qualify for an attainment date extension under the 
extension policy. On January 29, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia ordered EPA to make a determination, no later than 
March 12, 2001, whether the St. Louis nonattainment area attained the 
requisite ozone standards. (Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 98-2733 (CKK)). 
Given the Court's Order and the current status of certain submissions 
from the states, EPA is unable to grant an attainment date extension 
under this policy at this time.
    This action finalizes our finding that the St. Louis area failed to 
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1996, as prescribed in 
section 181 of the CAA, and fulfills EPA's nondiscretionary duty 
pursuant to section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition, this action 
sets the dates by which Missouri and Illinois must submit SIP revisions 
addressing the CAA's pollution control requirements for serious ozone 
nonattainment areas and attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's 
rulemaking actions are to be effective 60 days from publication of this 
rule, unless the effective date is delayed as set forth below.
    In a separate document entitled ``Proposed Effective Date 
Modification for the Determination of Nonattainment and 
Reclassification of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area; States of 
Missouri and Illinois,'' published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register, EPA is proposing to delay the effective date of this rule 
until June 29, 2001. EPA believes that, if St. Louis is reclassified, 
the proposed additional extension is necessary to allow regulated 
entities in St. Louis time to prepare for the new requirements that 
would become applicable in the area upon the effective date of the 
nonattainment determination and reclassification. During the period 
prior to the delayed effective date, EPA and the states would also 
continue to work towards completing a separate rulemaking on the issue 
of whether St. Louis should be granted an extension of its attainment 
date pursuant to EPA's Guidance on ``Extension of Air Quality 
Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas,'' published March 25, 
1999 (64 FR 14441). In its proposed action to modify the effective date 
of the determination and reclassification, EPA also states its intent 
to withdraw this final determination and reclassification, if EPA 
grants the states an attainment date extension before the effective 
date of the determination of nonattainment and reclassification. On 
March 8, 2001, EPA informed the District Court in Sierra Club, supra., 
of the actions that EPA intends to take, in response to the Court's 
Order, which included reaching a final determination on whether the 
area had attained by November 15, 1996, as required by the Court's 
Order, but proposing to postpone the date on which the determination 
(and consequent reclassification) would take effect until June 29, 
2001. EPA also advised the Court that, if it approved an attainment 
date extension within the pre-effective period, it would withdraw 
today's determination and reclassification.
    In an Order dated March 9, 2001, the Court, indicating that its 
review was limited to whether EPA's planned course of action would 
contravene the Court's January 29 Order, as amended, noted that ``EPA 
is required to reach a final determination by March 12, 2001, and to 
publish notice, if necessary under the CAA, by March 20, 2001. Under 
its alternative proposal, EPA will comply with these two elements.''
    Thus, EPA is today fully complying with the Court's Order while 
continuing to work with Missouri and Illinois to make progress towards 
final rulemaking action on an attainment date extension request for the 
St. Louis area. The states and EPA are in the final stages of 
completing the actions necessary for a final rule, and EPA believes 
that it is in the public interest to move forward to complete that 
rulemaking. Completion of the rulemaking prior to the effective date of 
today's action would allow EPA to assess and take into consideration 
the role of transported pollution in St. Louis' nonattainment problems, 
and to provide for an equitable distribution of responsibility for 
achieving attainment of the ozone standard in the area. In addition, 
concluding a rulemaking on the attainment date extension would allow 
EPA to make available to the St. Louis area the attainment date 
extension policy that EPA has applied in other areas affected by 
transport. Recently EPA issued three final rulemakings granting 
requests for attainment date extensions based on its policy in three 
ozone nonattainment areas: Washington, D.C., Greater Connecticut, and 
Springfield, Massachusetts. 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001); 66 FR 634 
(January 3 2001); 66 FR 666 (January 3, 2001). In addition, EPA has 
proposed granting attainment date extensions to Louisville, Kentucky, 
and Beaumont, Texas. 64 FR 27734 (May 21, 1999); 64 FR 12,854 (April 
16, 1999); 65 FR 81,786 (December 27, 2000). Thus, EPA's rulemaking 
actions today should be viewed in the context of complying with the 
Court's Order in Sierra Club v. Whitman while continuing to conduct 
rulemaking on its nationwide program to address the role of transported 
air pollutants in ozone nonattainment areas.

What Does the CAA Say About Determinations of Nonattainment and 
Reclassifications, and How Does it Apply to the St. Louis Area?

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act specifies 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).

Pursuant to section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, a state may request, and EPA 
may grant, up to two one-year attainment date extensions 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.

[[Page 15581]]



         Table 3.--Ozone Exceedances in the St. Louis Area--1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Site ID a              Site Type b          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-     SLAMS..........  June 28, 1996..    0.147
     1004.
    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-     SLAMS..........  June 13, 1996..    0.135
     3007.
    Alton--17-119-0008.......  SLAMS..........  June 13, 1996..    0.128
    Alton--17-119-0008.......  SLAMS..........  June 14, 1996..   0.127
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The sequence of numbers in this column denote the monitoring sites'
  identification numbers within the Aerometric Information Retrieval
  System (AIRS).
b SPM stands for Special Purpose Monitor. NAMS stands for National Air
  Monitoring Station. SLAMS stands for State and Local Air Monitoring
  Station.

    Once EPA determines an area has failed to attain the NAAQS and is 
not eligible for an attainment date extension under the provisions of 
section 181(a)(5), section 181(b)(2)(B) of the Act stipulates:

    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).

    Table 4 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)(A) of the CAA, EPA is 
here making a final determination that the St. Louis area did not 
attain the 1-hour standard by the November 15, 1996, deadline. Note the 
air quality data in Table 4 were available for comment in our March 18, 
1999, proposed finding of the area's failure to attain the ozone NAAQS. 
We received no comments pertaining to the accuracy of these data.

                    Table 4.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the St. Louis Area (1994-1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Average number
                                                                   expected days    of expected     Site design
                              Site                                 over standard    exceedance     value  (ppm)
                                                                    (1994-1996)    days per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Sites:
    Arnold--29-099-0012.........................................             5.0            a1.7           0.126
    West Alton--29-183-1002.....................................             9.9            a3.3          b0.136
    Orchard Farms--29-183-1004..................................             3.6            a1.2           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            a1.3           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            a1.3           0.125
    East St. Louis--17-163-0010.................................             1.0             0.3          0.108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, 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.

Why Did EPA Defer Making a Determination Regarding the St. Louis Area's 
Attainment Status Beyond the Timeframe Prescribed by the CAA?

    For some time, EPA has recognized that pollutant transport can 
impair an area's ability to meet air quality standards. In March 1995 a 
collaborative, Federal-state process to assess the ozone transport 
problem began. Through a two-year effort known as the Ozone Transport 
Assessment 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

[[Page 15582]]

transport of ozone and ozone-forming pollutants across state 
boundaries.
    On November 7, 1997, EPA acted on OTAG's recommendations and issued 
a proposal (the proposed oxides of nitrogen (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 an attainment date 
extension policy. Under this policy, the attainment date for an area 
may be extended provided that the following criteria are met: (1) The 
area is 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 is submitted along with any necessary, adopted 
local measures and with an attainment date that shows that the area 
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; and (4) the area 
provides 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 (64 FR 14441, March 25, 1999).
    EPA contemplated that when it acted to approve such an area's 
attainment demonstration, it would, 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. As a result, 
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).
    EPA's final NOX SIP call specifically noted that St. 
Louis' ability to meet the 1-hour ozone standard is impaired by 
pollutants transported from upwind areas. Therefore, EPA believes that 
the first of the transport criteria has been satisfied. However, before 
the St. Louis area could qualify for an attainment date extension under 
the extension policy, the remainder of the criteria specified in the 
extension policy would have to 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 letters 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.)
    As previously noted, on March 18, 1999, EPA proposed (64 FR 13384) 
its finding that the St. Louis area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS by its attainment date and announced the area's potential 
eligibility for an attainment date extension under the extension 
policy. The area's eligibility was dependent in part, on EPA's approval 
of an attainment demonstration.
    On April 17, 2000, EPA proposed two alternative actions (65 FR 
20404) with respect to the Illinois and Missouri 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration SIPs for the St. Louis area. Our proposed 
actions described the conditions that EPA anticipated would lead to 
final action on both alternatives.
    EPA proposed to approve the plans, with final approval contingent 
upon the states making certain additional submissions in accordance 
with a specified schedule. If these additional submissions were 
approved after further notice and comment, EPA would extend the St. 
Louis area's attainment date to a date consistent with the approved 
attainment demonstration. Under these circumstances, the area would 
retain its moderate nonattainment status. In other words, EPA proposed 
to defer the attainment determination required under section 
181(b)(2)(B) of the Act until such time as the new, extended attainment 
date had passed.
    Alternatively, EPA proposed to disapprove the attainment 
demonstration SIPs if Illinois and Missouri did not make certain 
additional submissions in accordance with the specified schedule or 
such submissions were deemed unapprovable after notice and comment.

Why Is This Action Necessary?

    In November 1998, the Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for 
the Environment filed a complaint in the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia against EPA (Sierra Club v. Browner (now 
Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 98-2733 (CKK)) alleging that EPA failed to 
publish notice of the reclassification of the St. Louis area to 
``serious'' nonattainment, and alleging failure of EPA to act on a 
number of SIP revisions submitted by Missouri to control ozone 
precursors. The states of Missouri and Illinois and a group of Missouri 
industry associations intervened in the litigation.
    With respect to the reclassification issue, EPA acknowledged that 
it had a duty to make a determination on the attainment status of the 
area by May 15, 1997, and that it had not made a determination. EPA 
asked the Court for a schedule for a final resolution of the 
reclassification which would allow the states to make the necessary 
submissions, and for EPA to determine whether the area could qualify 
for an attainment date extension.
    The Court dismissed all of the claims relating to failure of EPA to 
act on the Missouri SIP revisions. On the reclassification issue, the 
Court in an opinion and Order filed January 29, 2001, rejected the 
Sierra Club request that the Court order EPA to publish a particular 
determination (that the area failed to attain the standard) and 
rejected Sierra Club's request to make the determination retroactive to 
May 1997. However, the Court noted that the Act required that EPA make 
an attainment determination and that the determination was to have been 
made by May 15, 1997. The Court also noted that a ``determination of 
nonattainment'' would result in a higher classification by operation of 
law.
    The Court stated that it would require EPA to ``reach its 
statutorily required determination promptly,'' and ordered EPA to make 
its determination, no later

[[Page 15583]]

than March 12, 2001, ``whether the St. Louis NAA attained the requisite 
ozone standards.'' It also ordered EPA to publish notice of the 
determination, as required by the Act, by March 12, 2001. EPA 
subsequently requested and the Court granted an extension to March 20, 
2001, for publishing notice. Our final determination and this notice 
are in direct response to the Court's Order.

What Progress Have Missouri and Illinois Made Towards Meeting the 
Requirements of the Attainment Date Extension Policy?

    Missouri and Illinois have met most of the requirements of the 
extension policy. Both states submitted and EPA has approved 
regulations or negative declarations fully addressing volatile organic 
compound (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT) controls 
for major VOC sources. Missouri submitted and EPA approved a regulation 
addressing NOX RACT within the Missouri portion of the 
nonattainment area (65 FR 31482) and utility NOX emissions 
across the state (65 FR 82285). Illinois has submitted a draft 
statewide NOX regulation addressing utility emissions and is 
on schedule to submit it in final form in April of this year.\2\ 
Finally, Missouri and Illinois submitted a joint attainment 
demonstration as required. However, an August 31, 2000, decision 
rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 
discussed later in this notice, necessitated further revisions to the 
attainment demonstration. Missouri has submitted its final attainment 
demonstration and Illinois is expected to submit a final attainment 
demonstration by April 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In addition, Illinois is required to comply with the 
NOX SIP call. Missouri is not currently subject to the 
SIP call. The D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the issue of the extent 
to which Missouri should be covered, and EPA has not yet responded 
to that remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Other 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 state's 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 approved 15 percent 
ROPP (65 FR 31485),\3\ 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 chose to participate in the Federal 
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. EPA established an implementation 
date for RFG based on the Governor's request in a Federal Register 
notice published on March 3, 1999 (64 FR 10366). In addition, the state 
of Missouri has implemented an upgraded I/M program for motor vehicles 
which EPA approved on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31480). This program is a 
major part of the 15 percent ROPP and will result in a significant 
reduction in emissions when fully implemented in the coming years. EPA 
also notes that Missouri implemented a Stage II vapor recovery program 
in the 1980s to reduce emissions which occur during the refueling of 
gasoline-powered vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A petition for review of EPA's approval of the 15 percent 
ROPP is currently pending in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 
(Sierra Club, et al. v. USEPA, No. 00-2744).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is 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 
for the St. Louis area for 1994-1996, i.e., the period on which the Act 
prescribes the area's attainment status must be judged, was 0.136 ppm. 
The design value of the St. Louis area at the time of the proposed 
finding of failure to attain was based on air quality monitoring data 
from 1996 through 1998. The design value for the most recent compliance 
period, 1998-2000, is 0.127 ppm. This design value of 0.127 ppm falls 
within the range linked to classification of ``marginal'' 
nonattainment. 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 prescribed by the Act, the area is reclassified to serious 
nonattainment on the effective date of this rule. Refer to Tables 5 and 
6 below.

                    Table 5.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the ST. Louis Area (1996-1998)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average
                                                                     Number of       number of
                              Site                                 expected days     expected       Site design
                                                                   over standard    exceedance      value (ppm)
                                                                    (1996-1998)    days per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Sites:
    Arnold 29-099-0012..........................................             3.0             1.0           0.118
    West Alton 29-183-1002......................................             4.0           a 1.3         b 0.131
    Orchard Farms 29-183-1004...................................             2.1             0.7           0.118
    Bonne Terre c 29-186-0005...................................             1.0             0.3           0.106
    South Lindberg 29-189-0001..................................             3.2           a 1.1           0.119
    Queeny Park 29-189-0006.....................................             1.0             0.3           0.110
    55 Hunter 29-189-3001.......................................             1.0             0.3           0.109
    3400 Pershall 29-189-5001...................................             2.0             0.7           0.117
    Rock Road 29-189-7002.......................................             1.0             0.3           0.116

[[Page 15584]]

 
    South Broadway 29-510-0007..................................             2.0             0.7           0.107
    1122 Clark 29-510-0072......................................             1.0             0.3           0.094
    Newstead 29-510-0080........................................             0.0             0.0           0.107
Illinois Sites:
    Alton 17-119-0008...........................................             2.0             0.7           0.116
    West Division 17-119-1009...................................             0.0             0.0           0.110
    Poag Road 17-119-2007.......................................             1.0             0.3           0.118
    North Walcott 17-119-3007...................................             2.0             0.7           0.117
    East St. Louis 17-163-0010..................................             1.0             0.3          0.101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a A violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedances is greater than 1.05.
b Represents the 1996-1998 design value for the St. Louis Area.
c Site initiated sampling at the beginning of ozone season (April 1) 1996.


                    Table 6.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the ST. Louis Area (1998-2000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average
                                                                     Number of       number of
                              Site                                 expected days     expected       Site design
                                                                   over standard    exceedance      value (ppm)
                                                                    (1998-2000)    days per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Sites:
    Arnold 29-099-0012..........................................             2.0             0.7           0.122
    West Alton 29-183-1002......................................             6.2           a 2.1         b 0.127
    Orchard Farms 29-183-1004...................................             3.1             1.0           0.124
    Bonne Terre 29-186-0005.....................................             0.0             0.0           0.114
    South Lindberg 29-189-0001..................................             1.2             0.4           0.116
    Queeny Park 29-189-0006.....................................             2.0             0.7           0.116
    55 Hunter 29-189-3001.......................................             2.0             0.7           0.110
    3400 Pershall 29-189-5001...................................             2.0             0.7           0.118
    Rock Road 29-189-7002.......................................             2.0             0.7           0.122
    South Broadway 29-510-0007..................................             1.0             0.3           0.107
    1122 Clark 29-510-0072......................................             2.0             0.7           0.105
    Newstead c 29-510-0080......................................             0.0             0.0           0.112
    Margaretta d 29-510-0086....................................             0.0             0.0           0.107
Illinois Sites:
    Alton 17-119-0008...........................................             1.0             0.3           0.112
    West Division 17-119-1009...................................             0.0             0.0           0.113
    Poag Road 17-119-2007.......................................             0.0             0.0           0.114
    North Walcott 17-119-3007...................................             1.0             0.3           0.112
    East St. Louis 17-163-0010..................................             1.0             0.3          0.110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a A violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedances is greater than 1.05.
b Represents the 1998-2000 design value for the St. Louis Area.
c Site discontinued at end of 1999 ozone season.
d Site initiated sampling at the beginning of ozone season (April 1) 2000.

What Is the New Attainment Date 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 generally 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 did not 
finalize the determination and reclassification prior to November 15, 
1999. As the Court acknowledged in its opinion, it is too late for the 
area to demonstrate attainment by that date. In our March 18, 1999, 
proposal, we recognized that November 1999, would not be a realistic 
attainment date and expressed our belief that we need to establish an 
appropriate attainment date (later than November 1999) for the area in 
the event of a reclassification. Thus, we discussed and invited comment 
regarding options for establishing a new attainment date. These options 
were based on our belief that the new attainment date should be as 
expeditious as practicable, taking into account any pertinent factors.
    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 ensure consistency for submission of the 
new requirements \4\ applicable to an area which has been reclassified. 
Where an attainment date has already passed and is therefore impossible 
to meet, EPA reasoned that the Administrator may establish an 
attainment date later than the date that has passed since it is 
impossible to achieve attainment by that date. EPA also noted another 
provision of the Act, section 110(k)(5), pertaining to findings of SIP 
inadequacy, which allows the Administrator to adjust attainment dates 
when such dates have passed. Although this latter provision is

[[Page 15585]]

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. When 
making such adjustments, EPA believes that it must establish a new date 
in accordance with the principle that attainment must be achieved as 
expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An area reclassified to serious is required to submit SIP 
revisions addressing the serious area requirements for the 1-hour 
ozone standard listed in section 182(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One option, as discussed in the proposal, is to construct a 
schedule consistent with recent reclassifications of other areas. EPA 
reclassified other moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including 
Phoenix, Arizona; Santa Barbara, California; and Dallas-Fort Worth, 
Texas; on November 6, 1997, December 10, 1997, and February 18, 1998, 
respectively (62 FR 60001, 62 FR 65025, and 63 FR 8128). In these 
cases, the new attainment date was 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 
proposed that an approach consistent with that of the Dallas-Fort Worth 
area might constitute 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 thus suggested, as one option, an attainment date in 
keeping with the time frame allowed for the Dallas-Fort Worth area, 
i.e., 21 months from publication of the final reclassification notice.
    Another option discussed in the proposal allowed for the 
consideration of the impacts of pollutant transport. In other words, 
the new attainment date would coincide with the date set for upwind 
area reductions under the NOX SIP call, which at the time 
was 2003.\5\ In proposing this option, EPA reasoned that Congress did 
not intend to impose on a nonattainment area the entire responsibility 
for the transported pollution the nonattainment area receives. This 
solution imposes more stringent controls on local sources, but allows 
upwind controls to come into place prior to attainment. In the 
NOX SIP call rulemaking, EPA found that, overall, 17 percent 
of the ozone nonattainment in St. Louis comes from emissions in upwind 
states (Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
NOX SIP Call, Docket Item VI-B-11, electronically available 
at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/otag/aqtsd). In terms of individual upwind 
states, EPA found that emissions from Kentucky make a significant 
contribution to 1-hour ozone nonattainment in the St. Louis 
nonattainment area. The magnitude, frequency, and relative amount of 
contributions from Kentucky to St. Louis are described in the TSD for 
each of the two modeling techniques relied on for the NOX 
SIP call rulemaking. As an example, based on source apportionment 
modeling, Kentucky contributes 5 parts per billion (ppb), to 14 percent 
of the 1-hour exceedances predicted in St. Louis. Also, the highest 
daily average 1-hour contribution from Kentucky to St. Louis is 5 ppb 
which is 4 percent of the average 1-hour ozone concentration >=125 ppb 
in St. Louis on that day. Based on independent technique, Kentucky 
contributes at least 2 ppb to 36 percent of the 1-hour exceedances in 
St. Louis with a maximum contribution of 4 ppb. EPA received comments 
on the appropriate attainment date for the area. The comments and EPA's 
responses can be found in a separate section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On August 30, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the D.C. Circuit issued an Order (Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497, 
August 30, 2000) extending the compliance date for the 
NOX SIP call from May 1, 2003, to May 31, 2004. (The 
merits of the NOX SIP call rule were addressed, and the 
rule generally upheld, in Michigan v. EPA, 213F.3d663 (D.C. Cir. 
2000), cert. Den., 532 U.S. __ (2001)). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration of the comments, EPA has decided that an 
attainment date which is as expeditiously as practicable and accounts 
for the upwind reductions associated with the NOX SIP call 
is the most appropriate. Therefore, we are establishing November 15, 
2004, as the next applicable attainment date for the St. Louis area. 
Doing so ensures that the next determination with respect to the area's 
attainment status will be based on air quality data that reflect 
improvements that result both from local control measures and 
implementation of the NOX SIP call, which now has a 
compliance date of May 31, 2004.

When Must Missouri and Illinois Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the 
Requirements for Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas?

    In addition to establishing a new attainment date, EPA must also 
address the schedule by which Illinois and Missouri are required to 
submit SIP revisions meeting the CAA's pollution control requirements 
for serious areas. An option on which EPA invited comments (64 FR 
13384), is to require that the states submit SIP revisions fulfilling 
all of the serious area requirements, no later than one year after 
final action on the reclassification. The measures required by section 
182(c) of the CAA include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) 
Attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations; (2) enhanced 
vehicle I/M programs; (3) clean-fuel vehicle programs; (4) the major 
source threshold being defined as 50 tons per year; (5) more stringent 
new source review requirements; (6) an enhanced air monitoring program; 
and (7) contingency provisions.
    Illinois submitted a comment supporting a deadline of 12 months for 
submittal of the SIP revisions meeting the CAA's pollution control 
requirements for serious areas and EPA received no adverse comments on 
the 12-month option. EPA believes that a submittal deadline of 12 
months after the effective date of the determination and 
reclassification will give the states adequate time to adopt and submit 
the additional serious area requirements. EPA also notes that the 12-
month deadline is consistent with the time given to other areas (such 
as Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, and Santa Barbara) which were 
reclassified from moderate to serious. Therefore, EPA is requiring 
Missouri and Illinois to submit SIP revisions addressing the Act's 
pollution control requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas 
within 12 months of the effective date of this rule.

What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Determination of 
Nonattainment and Reclassification, and How Has EPA Responded?

    EPA received comments on the proposed Clean Air Reclassification 
and Notice of Potential Eligibility for Attainment Date Extension, 
Missouri and Illinois, dated March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13384). Comments 
were submitted by Lewis C. Green and Douglas R. Williams on behalf of 
the Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, by the 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and by the Missouri 
Department of Natural Resources. EPA also received comments on the 
proposed approval of the Illinois and Missouri attainment demonstration 
and request for attainment date extension dated April 17, 2000 (65 FR 
20404). Comments on the latter notice were submitted by Lewis C. Green 
on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for the 
Environment (which also incorporated comments dated March 20, 2000, 
submitted in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking

[[Page 15586]]

on Missouri's ROPP, 65 FR 8083, February 17, 2000), by the St. Louis 
Regional Chamber and Growth Association, and by the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency. Although the April 17, 2000, proposal 
includes some issues beyond the scope of the March 18, 1999, proposed 
reclassification (and EPA is not acting on that proposal in this 
action), some of the comments are relevant to the March 18, 1999, 
proposal. Therefore, in this action EPA is addressing the relevant 
comments on the March 18, 1999, proposal and the relevant comments on 
the April 17, 2000, proposal. A summary of the comments, and EPA's 
responses to the comments, is provided below.

Comments Relating to Necessity and Scope of a Reclassification

    Comment 1: In a multistate area, EPA should consider severing the 
area for reclassification purposes if one state is attaining the 
standard. In addition, where one state has ``complied with all 
statutory requirements,'' EPA should use the provisions of the Act ``to 
address recalcitrance prior to imposing a reclassification that affects 
compliant states as well as recalcitrant states.''
    Response 1: As required by section 181(b)(2)(A) and consistent with 
the Court's Order (Memorandum Opinion, p. 20, discussing EPA's duty to 
determine whether the St. Louis nonattainment area failed to attain by 
November 15, 1996), EPA must determine the attainment status of the St. 
Louis nonattainment area as of the statutory attainment date, based on 
the air quality data for the area. The provisions of the Act relating 
to failure to attain refer to the ``ozone nonattainment area'' (section 
181(b)(2)(A)) which, for St. Louis, includes geographic areas in 
Missouri and Illinois (see 40 CFR 81.326 and 81.314). The 
reclassification provision is silent with respect to treatment of 
multistate ozone nonattainment areas. As explained in the proposal (p. 
13,386, Table 3), the 1994-1996 data (on which the attainment 
determination for 1996 is based) show violations at area monitors in 
both Missouri and Illinois. Therefore, the data do not support dividing 
the nonattainment area for reclassification, even if there were a 
policy and legal basis for doing so. At this time, EPA does not believe 
there is either a policy or legal basis which justifies dividing a 
nonattainment area for reclassification purposes.
    The commenter did not specify any particular instance of 
``recalcitrance'' or indicate how that factor could be considered in 
making a determination under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act. The Act 
does contain a mechanism, in section 182(j)(2), by which one state in a 
multistate area can be relieved of liability for sanctions under 
section 179 of the Act for failure to demonstrate attainment, if it can 
show that its failure is based on a failure of another state to adopt 
all controls required of the area under section 182. However, the Act 
does not contain any express link between section 182(j)(2) and section 
181(b)(2)(A). Even if there were an implicit link, EPA does not believe 
that allegations of ``recalcitrance'' should influence its attainment 
determination for the St. Louis area, and has not considered that 
factor in its final decision.
    Comment 2: The ``serious'' area controls are unnecessary for 
attainment, unduly burdensome on business and economic growth in the 
area, and will not result in attainment any sooner in the St. Louis 
area.
    Response 2: Under section 181(b)(2)(A), the attainment 
determination is made solely on the basis of air quality data, and any 
reclassification is by operation of law. If an area is reclassified to 
``serious,'' the requirements of 182(c) apply regardless of whether 
some of the requirements are not ``necessary'' for attainment. EPA 
notes that Illinois and Missouri are in the process of developing and 
finalizing their attainment demonstrations, and Illinois is finalizing 
regulations for the attainment demonstration control strategy for the 
area (see 65 FR 8083, April 17, 2000, for a description of the specific 
revisions to the attainment demonstration and control strategy which 
EPA has identified as necessary for a final decision on the attainment 
demonstration). No final determinations have been made by EPA 
concerning whether the currently planned and adopted control measures 
are adequate. Therefore, even if the Act allowed EPA to assess the 
need, or lack thereof, for additional local measures (which it does 
not), it is premature to conclude that the additional ``serious area'' 
control measures are unnecessary for attainment.
    With respect to the perceived burden imposed on industry by the 
serious area requirements, EPA notes that the serious area planning 
requirements are imposed by section 182(c) of the CAA and the economic 
impact of a reclassification is not a consideration in making the 
attainment determination under section 181(b)(2) of the Act. It is, 
however, appropriate for the states to consider specific economic 
impacts in meeting the planning requirements of section 182(c) and in 
developing specific regulatory requirements for specific sources.
    Comment 3: EPA should grant an attainment date extension to the St. 
Louis area, based on EPA's transport-based attainment date extension 
guidance.
    Response 3: EPA was in the process of working with the states of 
Missouri and Illinois to undertake the actions necessary for the area 
to qualify for the attainment date extension when the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia issued its Order in Sierra 
Club v. Whitman, requiring EPA to make a determination of attainment or 
nonattainment by March 12, 2001. EPA's request to the Court for 
additional time to allow the area an opportunity to qualify for the 
attainment date extension was pending when the Court ruled that EPA 
must make its determination of attainment.
    EPA cannot finalize the attainment date extension by the time the 
Court has ordered EPA to act. Despite the efforts of the states and the 
substantial progress made to date, some submissions necessary for 
approval of the attainment date extension, including an approvable 
attainment demonstration, will not be submitted for final EPA approval 
prior to the time that EPA must act pursuant to the Court's Order. 
Because EPA is unable to authorize an attainment date extension that 
meets the criteria set forth in its guidance prior to the deadline set 
by the Court to make a determination of attainment or nonattainment, 
EPA must abide by the existing deadline for attainment in making the 
Court-ordered determination. EPA, in its Court filings, repeatedly 
sought to obtain additional time for the states to qualify for the 
attainment date extension, and regrets that this avenue is not open to 
the states and the Agency prior to the time that EPA must make its 
determination. However, as explained above, in a separate Federal 
Register document EPA is proposing to delay the effective date of 
today's determination of nonattainment and reclassification to June 29, 
2001. EPA today announces its intent to propose to withdraw today's 
determination of nonattainment and reclassification if EPA approves an 
attainment date extension before the effective date of today's action.
    Comment 4: A commenter argued that EPA had previously determined 
that St. Louis failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its 
attainment date of 1996, and that the area has already been 
reclassified ``by operation of law'' to a serious ozone nonattainment 
area pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(a). The commenter also contended 
that EPA

[[Page 15587]]

``has no authority to `propose' findings conditional upon the happening 
of other events.''
    Response 4: Commenters presented these arguments in Sierra Club v. 
Whitman, where EPA addressed them in detail in memoranda filed with 
that Court. The Court in its Opinion of January 29, 2001, rejected 
these arguments. The Court ruled, contrary to commenters' contentions, 
that EPA had not previously made a determination of nonattainment, 
cognizable under the statutory provisions regarding reclassification, 
that the area had not previously been reclassified, and that any 
determination made by EPA in the future should not apply retroactively. 
See Slip Opinion at 13-31. The Court further upheld EPA's view that the 
reclassification provisions of the CAA call for public notice and 
comment rulemaking. EPA believes that EPA's public filings and the 
ruling of the Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman address these comments 
and show that the arguments advanced by the commenters do not undermine 
EPA's actions in this rulemaking.
    Comment 5: Sierra Club and the Missouri Coalition for the 
Environment submitted comments on EPA's transport-based attainment date 
extension policy, published March 25, 1999. Many of them were critical 
of the policy and its legal bases.
    Response 5: Because EPA is not applying the attainment date 
extension policy here, EPA need not address those comments. However, 
responses to comments received on the policy can be found in the 
rulemakings approving attainment date extensions for Washington, DC, 
Greater Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts, published January 
3, 2001 (66 FR 586, 66 FR 634, 66 FR 666, respectively).

Comments Relating to the Attainment Date Upon Reclassification

Summary of Proposal
    In the March 18, 1999, proposed reclassification, EPA took comment 
on what the attainment date should be if the area is reclassified. EPA 
noted that the statutory attainment date for serious areas was November 
15, 1999, but explained that, since it would be impossible for the 
states to meet that date, EPA was proposing options for later dates 
(see 64 FR 13390 for a more detailed explanation of this issue). One 
option was to set an attainment date which was 21 months after the 
effective date of the reclassification, based on the amount of time 
provided for attainment in EPA's most recent reclassification of a 
moderate ozone nonattainment area. Another option was to set a date 
based on the recognition that the St. Louis area is affected by 
transport, and establish the attainment date consistent with the 
compliance date for EPA's NOX SIP call rule (which, at the 
time of the March 18, 1999, proposal was 2003). No comments were 
submitted on the impossibility of attaining by 1999 or on the need to 
set an attainment date after 1999 for the reclassified area. Comments 
were received regarding what date after 1999 would be appropriate.
    Comment: Both states submitted comments supporting an attainment 
date which considers transport, stating that the attainment date for 
the reclassified area should be no sooner than the compliance date for 
the NOX SIP call. Both states also commented that the 
alternative attainment date of 21 months was insufficient to allow 
adequate time to adopt and implement the required local measures, and 
also did not allow time for implementation of the controls needed to 
resolve the transport problem. Illinois also recommended an attainment 
date at least three years after implementation of all controls 
(including transport controls) needed for attainment, consistent with 
the three-year averaging period through the attainment year for 
determining attainment of the ozone standard.
    Response: In response to the Illinois recommendation that the 
attainment date should be 2005, or three years after implementation of 
all controls needed for attainment, EPA has decided not to accept the 
recommendation. An attainment date three years after implementation of 
all control measures would not be consistent with past practice of EPA 
in setting attainment dates. Most recently, in establishing attainment 
dates for the Washington D.C., Greater Connecticut, and Springfield, 
Massachusetts, areas (in the January 3, 2001, rules cited above), EPA 
set attainment dates based on when the NOX controls would be 
in place, rather than a later date along the lines recommended by 
Illinois. In addition, section 181(a)(5) provides a mechanism to obtain 
no more than two one-year extensions of the attainment date under 
certain conditions if the area does not have the requisite three years 
of air quality data showing attainment in the attainment year. An 
extension would be available under this provision upon a showing that 
all local SIP controls have been implemented and no more than one 
exceedance of the ozone standard has been recorded in the attainment 
year.
    After considering the comments, EPA has determined that it is 
appropriate to establish an attainment date which takes into account 
the impact of transport on the area. As proposed, this date will 
coincide with the date by which sources will be required to comply with 
the NOX SIP call. In the proposal, EPA indicated that this 
date is in 2003, consistent with the NOX SIP call compliance 
date at the time of the March 1999 proposal. However, subsequent to the 
proposal, the SIP call compliance date was extended by the Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497, D.C. Cir. 
August 30, 2000) to May 31, 2004. Consistent with the rationale in the 
proposal, EPA has determined that the attainment date for the St. Louis 
area should be as expeditious as practicable but no later than November 
15, 2004.\6\ This is also consistent with the District Court's Opinion 
in the Sierra Club case. In its Opinion, the Court noted that a 
retroactive reclassification, ``* * * would carry with it a battery of 
new requirements, * * * including a new inflexible, and expired 
attainment date of November 15, 1999 [citation omitted].'' By possibly 
imposing a new classification that carries with it a deadline that has 
already expired, the Court could potentially expose the state of 
Missouri to a variety of sanctions for failing to comply promptly and 
adequately [citation omitted].'' (Opinion at page 29.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The latest date could extend to November 2004 to allow time 
for the NOX emissions reductions mandated by the 
NOX SIP call to produce their ozone-reducing effect 
during the 2004 summer ozone season before assessing whether 
attainment-level reductions have occurred. Those reductions are 
required to begin no later than May 31, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA is establishing an attainment date which must be as 
expeditious as practicable, but no later than November 15, 2004. If the 
submissions by Missouri and Illinois required as a result of the 
reclassification indicate that the area can practicably attain sooner 
than November 2004, EPA would adjust the date to reflect the earlier 
date, consistent with section 181(a)(1) of the Act.

Comments Relating to the SIP Submission Date

    Comment: One state commenter supported EPA's proposal to set a 
submission date 12 months after the effective date of the 
reclassification. No other comments were submitted regarding this 
issue.
    Response: As previously explained, EPA is establishing a 12-month 
deadline for submission of the serious area requirements because it 
provides a reasonable amount of time for the

[[Page 15588]]

submissions and is consistent with previous reclassifications.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA is 
required to determine whether regulatory actions are significant and 
therefore should be subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
review, economic analysis, and the requirements of the Executive Order. 
The Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one 
that is likely to result in a rule that may meet at least one of the 
four criteria identified in section 3(f), including, under paragraph 
(1), that the rule may ``have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal 
governments or communities.''
    The Agency has determined that the determination of nonattainment 
would result in none of the effects identified in section 3(f) of the 
Executive Order. Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of 
nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations and the 
resulting reclassifications must occur by operation of law. They do 
not, in and of themselves, impose any new requirements on any sectors 
of the economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are 
clearly defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and 
because those requirements are automatically triggered by 
classifications that, in turn, are triggered by air quality values, 
determinations of nonattainment and reclassification cannot be said to 
impose a materially adverse impact on state, local, or tribal 
governments or communities.

B. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 action 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13175

    On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249) entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001, 
and revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal Consultation) as of that 
date. EPA developed this final rule, however, during the period when 
Executive Order 13084 was in effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal 
considerations under Executive Order 13084. Under Executive Order 
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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide 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, Executive Order 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 finding of failure to attain does not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this finding of failure to attain.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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.
    Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification 
of nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of 
the CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. 
Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does 
not directly regulate any entities. See 62 FR 60001, 60007-8, and 60010 
(November 6, 1997) for additional analysis of the RFA implications of 
attainment determinations. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I 
certify that today's final action does not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those 
terms for RFA purposes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 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 the 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.
    EPA believes, as discussed above, that the finding of nonattainment 
is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations and 
that the resulting reclassification of the area must occur by operation 
of law. Thus, the finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as 
defined in section 101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an 
enforceable duty on any entity.

F. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of

[[Page 15589]]

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with 
state and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This determination of nonattainment and the resulting 
reclassification of a nonattainment area by operation of law 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 this action does not, in and of itself, impose any new 
requirements on any sectors of the economy, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order do not apply to these actions.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

H. Submission to Congress and Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the United States Senate, the United States 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: March 12, 2001.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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


    2. Section 81.314 is amended by revising the ozone table entry for 
the St. Louis Area to read as follows:


Sec. 81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                                                            Illinois--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                                              Classification
          Designated area          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\                       Type \2\                       Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
St. Louis Area:
    Madison County................  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
    Monroe County.................  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18 2001...............  Serious
    St. Clair County..............  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
 
                    *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *              *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * * * *

    3. Section 81.326 is amended by revising the ozone table entry for 
the St. Louis area to read as follows:


Sec. 81.326  Missouri.

* * * * * * *

[[Page 15590]]



                                                            Missouri--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                                              Classification
          Designated area          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\                       Type \2\                       Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
St. Louis Area:
    Franklin County...............  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
    Jefferson County..............  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
    St. Charles County............  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
    St. Louis.....................  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
    St. Louis County..............  May 18, 2001..............  Nonattainment...................  May 18, 2001..............  Serious
 
                    *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *              *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-6621 Filed 3-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U