[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17647-17657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8019]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IL 196-2; MO 097-1097a; FRL-6961-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois and 
Missouri; One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations, Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Budgets, Attainment Date Extension, and Withdrawal of 
Nonattainment Determination and Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 17, 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposed to approve or, in the alternative, disapprove the Illinois and 
Missouri 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation 
Plans (SIP) for the St. Louis moderate ozone nonattainment area. This 
proposed rule supplements the proposed rule published on April 17, 
2000, for this ozone nonattainment area. This proposed rule addresses 
supplemental state submittals relating to corrections to the 1996 
emissions inventory and the Missouri transportation conformity budget 
called for in the April 17, 2000, proposed rule, and additional 
submissions by the states relevant to the modeled attainment 
demonstration and motor vehicle emissions budgets. This proposal also 
proposes to extend the attainment date for the St. Louis nonattainment 
area to November 15, 2004. Finally, EPA is proposing to withdraw its 
March 19, 2001, Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification if 
EPA approves an attainment date extension prior to the effective date 
of the Determination of Nonattainment.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Jay Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604; or Wayne Leidwanger, Chief, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Copies of the states' submittals addressed in this supplemental 
proposed rule, and other relevant materials are available for public 
inspection during normal business hours at the following addresses: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (please 
telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5 
office); or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air, 
Radiation, and Toxics Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
Telephone Number (312) 886-6057, E-Mail Address: [email protected]; 
or Royan Teter, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101, Telephone Number (913) 551-7609, E-Mail Address: 
[email protected].

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 and 
topics:

Background and Submittal Information

What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule?

    On April 17, 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposed to approve or, in the alternative, disapprove the Illinois and 
Missouri 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation 
Plans (SIP) for the St. Louis moderate ozone nonattainment

[[Page 17648]]

area. In that proposal, EPA stated that it proposed to disapprove the 
attainment demonstration if the states did not make the following 
submissions: (1) Revisions to the attainment demonstration modeling and 
analyses to incorporate corrections to the 1996 base year emissions 
inventory and a demonstration of attainment based on the revisions; (2) 
regional Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) emission control 
regulations for Electric Generating Units (EGU) as needed for the 
attainment demonstration; and (3) a transportation conformity motor 
vehicle emissions budget for the Missouri portion of the nonattainment 
area. The proposal also stated that EPA was proposing to approve an 
extension of the ozone attainment date for the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area to November 15, 2003, while retaining the area's 
current classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, if EPA 
takes final action to approve the attainment demonstration.
    This proposed rule supplements the proposed rule published on April 
17, 2000, for this ozone nonattainment area. This proposed rule 
addresses supplemental state submittals relating to items (1) and (3) 
above (corrections to the 1996 emissions inventory and the Missouri 
transportation conformity budget) called for in the April 17, 2000, 
proposed rule, and additional submissions by the states relevant to the 
modeled attainment demonstration and motor vehicle emissions budgets. 
Missouri has submitted finally adopted revisions to its attainment 
demonstration and an adopted transportation conformity budget. Illinois 
has submitted proposed revisions covering these items and plans to 
submit final revisions in the near future.
    With respect to item (2), the regional NOX rules, 
Missouri has submitted and EPA has approved a statewide NOX 
rule applicable to Missouri called for in the St. Louis attainment 
demonstration. In a separate action published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, EPA is proposing to approve a proposed statewide 
NOX rule which will be applicable in Illinois. If, as 
expected, Illinois submits final revisions to the attainment 
demonstration and budgets as specified in this proposal, and a finally 
adopted NOX rule as specified in the separate notice, EPA 
believes that the contingencies specified in the April 17, 2000, 
proposal will have been met, and that EPA can take final action to 
approve the attainment demonstration for the St. Louis nonattainment 
area. In addition to proposing to approve the ozone attainment 
demonstration SIPs, EPA is proposing to approve the transportation 
conformity motor vehicle emission budgets submitted by Illinois and 
Missouri for their respective portions of the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area. This proposal also proposes to extend the 
attainment date for the St. Louis nonattainment area to November 15, 
2004. Finally, EPA is proposing to withdraw its March 19, 2001, 
Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification if EPA approves an 
attainment date extension prior to the effective date of the 
Determination of Nonattainment.
    In this proposal, EPA specifically requests comments on the 
supplemental submissions of the states relating to the revisions to the 
attainment demonstration and the motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA 
also requests comments on its proposal to extend the attainment date to 
November 15, 2004 (rather than November 15, 2003, as proposed in the 
April 17, 2000, action). EPA has previously received comments on other 
aspects of its April 17, 2000, proposal, and will address those 
comments prior to final action on the attainment demonstration and 
attainment date extension. In the final action, EPA will also address 
comments on the Guidance ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind 
Transport Areas,'' published March 25, 1999, in the Federal Register.

    What actions or circumstances led to this proposed rule?
    Have the states' attainment demonstration SIPs been adopted 
after proper notice and hearing?
    How did the states address the deficiencies identified in our 
April 17, 2000, proposed rule?
    How did the states address the change of the attainment date 
from November 15, 2003, to November 15, 2004?
    Do the analyses support attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 
by November 15, 2004?
    How do the revised attainment demonstrations address the 
transportation conformity requirements for motor vehicle emission 
budgets?
    What is the status of emission control regulations for which the 
attainment demonstration accounts?
    What is the Status of the States' Efforts to Qualify for an 
Attainment Date Extension?
    What is EPA proposing regarding the Determination of 
Nonattainment as of November 15, 1996, and Reclassification, 
published on March 19, 2001.

EPA's Preliminary Conclusions

    Have the states corrected the deficiencies identified in the 
April 17, 2000, proposed rulemaking?
    What is EPA's assessment of the ozone attainment demonstration 
for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area?
    What is EPA's assessment of the transportation conformity 
emission budgets for the Illinois and Missouri portions of the St. 
Louis ozone nonattainment area?
    When will EPA address public comments received regarding the 
April 17, 2000, proposed rulemaking?
    What actions are we proposing today?

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 13045
C. Executive Order 13084
D. Executive Order 13132
E. Regulatory Flexibility
F. Unfunded Mandates

Background and Submittal Information

What Actions or Circumstances Led to the State Submittals Reviewed in 
This Supplemental Proposed Rule?

    On April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20404), EPA proposed several actions with 
respect to Illinois' and Missouri's 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration SIPs for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. EPA 
proposed to: (1) Approve the attainment demonstration SIPs; (2) approve 
an exemption from NOX emission control requirements for RACT 
for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area; (3) 
approve the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budget 
submitted by Illinois for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area; and (4) extend the ozone attainment date for the 
entire St. Louis ozone nonattainment area to November 15, 2003, while 
retaining the area's classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment 
area.
    Alternatively, EPA proposed to disapprove the states' attainment 
demonstration SIPs if: (1) Illinois and Missouri did not revise the 
attainment demonstration modeling and analyses to incorporate 
corrections to the 1996 base year emissions inventory and successfully 
demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard based on the 
revised modeling; (2) Illinois and Missouri did not submit proposed 
regional NOX emission control regulations for EGUs by June 
2000 and final adopted regional NOX emission control 
regulations for EGUs by December 2000; or (3) Missouri did not submit a 
proposed motor vehicle emissions budget by June 30, 2000.
    Final approval of the attainment date extension for the St. Louis 
nonattainment area and the NOX RACT exemption for the 
Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area were to be 
contingent on the final approval of the ozone attainment demonstration 
SIPs. The proposed new attainment date (November 15, 2003) was premised 
on EPA's October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), NOX SIP call,

[[Page 17649]]

which at the time required the implementation of source emission 
controls by May 1, 2003.
    Subsequent to the April 17, 2000, proposed rulemaking, several 
Court decisions affecting the proposed extended attainment date for the 
St. Louis nonattainment area have been issued. First, on August 30, 
2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit issued an Order (Michigan v. EPA, No. 98-1497, August 30, 
2000), extending the compliance date for the NOX SIP call 
from May 1, 2003, to May 31, 2004. The effect of this ruling is that 
the regional NOX emission reductions relied on in the 
attainment demonstration cannot be assumed to occur before the Court-
ordered compliance date. As such, EPA requested that Illinois and 
Missouri consider the impacts of this ruling on the St. Louis 
attainment demonstration.
    Second, on January 29, 2001, the United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia ordered EPA to make a determination, no later 
than March 12, 2001, as to whether the St. Louis nonattainment area 
attained the requisite 1-hour ozone standard. (Sierra Club v. Whitman, 
No. 98-2733 CKK.) On March 8, 2001, EPA informed the Court of the 
actions that EPA intends to take in response to its Order. While the 
Court's Order did not directly affect the contents of the attainment 
demonstrations considered in this proposed rule, its ruling has been 
considered in the actions which EPA plans to take with regard to them, 
as later discussed. The state submittals addressed in today's proposed 
rule were designed to meet the contingencies set forth in our April 17, 
2000, proposed rulemaking and account for the additional revisions 
necessitated by the Court decision in Michigan v. EPA discussed above.

Have the States' Attainment Demonstration SIPs Been Adopted After 
Proper Notice and Hearing?

    The states submitted the various components of their attainment 
demonstration SIPs in segments, following key events. In response to 
our April 17, 2000, proposed rule, Missouri submitted draft 
transportation conformity budgets via letter dated June 19, 2000. Both 
Missouri and Illinois transmitted draft revisions (hereafter referred 
to as the addendum) to their attainment demonstration SIPs on June 29, 
2000. Missouri held public hearings on its draft conformity budgets and 
attainment demonstration revisions on August 31, 2000. They were 
adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) on September 
21, 2000, and submitted to EPA in final form on November 2, 2000. 
Illinois did not hold a separate public hearing on the state's 
analogous revisions, but referenced them and made them available to the 
public in association with the revisions that were the subject of 
public hearings held on February 27, 2001.
    On November 2 and 8, 2000, respectively, EPA notified Missouri and 
Illinois that further revisions to their attainment demonstration SIPs 
were necessary in light of the August 30, 2000, United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Order, extending the 
compliance date for the NOX SIP call from May 1, 2003, to 
May 31, 2004. In the same correspondence, EPA, in part, requested that 
the states revise their attainment year emissions inventories and 
transportation conformity budgets to reflect emissions in 2004, since 
their previous submittals gave consideration to 2003. Both states 
submitted draft responses on November 15, 2000. The MACC held public 
hearings on these materials on February 6, 2001, and adopted them on 
February 26, 2001. EPA received Missouri's revised emissions inventory 
and transportation conformity budgets in final form on March 5, 2001. 
Illinois held public hearings on its revised emissions inventory and 
transportation conformity budgets on February 27, 2001. In a March 1, 
2001, submittal of the same items, the Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency (IEPA) requested that EPA parallel process its draft 
revisions. IEPA is expected to submit them in final form shortly after 
the close of the public comment period which ends on March 29, 2001.

How Did the States Address the Deficiencies Identified in Our April 17, 
2000, Proposed Rule?

    As noted above, the April 17, 2000, proposed rule stated that the 
final approval of the ozone attainment demonstration for the St. Louis 
nonattainment area is contingent, in part, upon the states preparing 
revised modeling to incorporate corrections to the 1996 base year 
emissions inventory. The addendum to the attainment demonstration 
presents the results of the revised modeling performed by the IEPA and 
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for the 1996 base 
year. It updates the base year model performance evaluation and 
demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour standard in the St. Louis area by 
November 15, 2003. The attainment date was projected to November 15, 
2004, in subsequent revisions as discussed below.
    The revised modeling analyses were performed using the same ozone 
modeling system, modeling domain, and historically high ozone episodes 
as used by both states in their 1999 and 2000 ozone attainment 
demonstration submittals. For a more complete description of the 
modeling system, domain, and episodes selected for modeling readers may 
refer to EPA's April 17, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR 20404). The major 
change in the analyses conducted for the preparation of the addendum 
was a revision of the base case emissions inputs. All other parameters 
were essentially unchanged from those reflected in previous submittals.
    Pursuant to EPA's comments regarding the Missouri emissions 
inventory, MDNR modified the 1996 area source emissions inventory, 
subsequent to the preparation of the ozone modeling EPA reviewed prior 
to the April 17, 2000, proposal. Modifications were made to the area 
source (VOC) and NOX emissions (both are ozone precursors) 
in response to Missouri's discovery of erroneous data while performing 
additional quality assurance checks. The 2003 emissions inventory 
included in the prior ozone modeling had already been corrected (prior 
to the ozone modeling discussed in the states' 1999 and 2000 
submittals) as result of EPA's comments. This led to a discrepancy in 
the bases for the 1996 emissions and the 2003 emissions used in the 
prior ozone modeling. In turn, this led EPA to question the degree of 
change in ozone concentrations which were predicted to occur between 
1996 and 2003. Illinois and Missouri have since revised the 1996 
emissions used in the ozone modeling to reflect the same bases as the 
2003 emissions and the corresponding estimates of the change in ozone 
concentrations that will result from the implementation of local and 
upwind control measures, consistent with the requirements set forth in 
our April 17, 2000, proposed rule.
    The photochemical model was rerun after revising the 1996 VOC and 
NOX emissions inventories and its performance was 
revalidated. The model performance evaluation is an important and 
required part of the technical analysis process, as it provides EPA 
with a basis for judging the effectiveness of the selected emission 
control strategies and provides a measure of the likelihood that the 
standard will be achieved. Therefore, the revision of the 1996 base 
year

[[Page 17650]]

emissions necessitated the reevaluation of the modeling system 
performance.
    Model performance is assessed by employing statistical tests 
recommended in EPA's ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the 
Urban Airshed Model'' (July 1991, EPA-450/4-91-013). The resulting 
parameters include unpaired peak prediction accuracy [acceptable range 
is  15-20], normalized bias of all data pairs (modeled 
versus observed) for ozone concentrations in excess of 60 parts per 
billion (ppb) [acceptable range is  5-15 percent or less], 
and gross error of all data pairs for ozone concentrations in excess of 
60 ppb [acceptable range is 30-35 percent or less]. The results for 
each ozone episode day were compared to the acceptable ranges as 
specified in our guidance. Table 1 summarizes the base period modeling 
result and performance statistics for the selected statistical 
parameters.

                                                  Table 1.--Final Basecase Model Performance Statistics
                                                             [Entire Grid M Modeling Domain]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        July 1991                                        July 1995
                 Episode day modeled                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          7/16       7/17       7/18       7/19       7/10       7/11       7/12       7/13       7/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed Peak Level (ppb)............................      130        140        170        170        125        140        146        178        150
Modeled Base Peak Level (ppb)........................      136        196        186        155        154        162        171        155        184
Normalized Bias (percent)............................      -22.1      -20.1      -15.2      -13.6      -18.9      -16.7      -10.8       -7.9       +1.7
Gross Error (percent)................................       31.0       34.3       30.1       32.3       27.1       27.5       25.5       24.2       24.2
Unpaired Peak Accuracy (percent).....................       +4.8      +40.6       +9.8       -8.4      +23.5      +15.8      +17.2      -12.6      +23.0 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note that statistics shown in bold are outside of accepted ranges.]


                                                            St. Louis Nonattainment Area Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        July 1991                                        July 1995
                 Episode day modeled                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          7/16       7/17       7/18       7/19       7/10       7/11       7/12       7/13       7/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed Peak Level (ppb)............................      108        140        114        107        125        136        129        154        139
Modeled Base Peak Level ppb).........................      117        133        134        111         91        137        130        136        127
Normalized Bias (percent)............................      -26.0       -7.7       -6.8       +2.8      -44.0       -7.9       -3.0      -16.9       -2.2
Gross Eror (percent).................................       29.2       29.5       25.0       18.7       45.5       32.6       25.9       24.1       22.7
Unpaired Peak Accuracy (percent......................       +8.9       -4.6      +17.9       +3.5      -26.7       +0.7       +1.2      -11.7       -8.1 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note that statistics shown in bold are outside of accepted ranges.]

    The model performance statistics for the leading days of ozone 
episodes are generally discounted or ignored. These days are referred 
to as ``ramp-up'' days. They are included to allow the modeling system 
to stabilize before it begins simulating the episode days of concern. 
As such, the modeling system for the St. Louis nonattainment area 
subdomain is performing in an acceptable manner, despite the out-of-
range statistics for July 16, 1991, and July 10, 1995.
    The final 2003 modeled attainment strategy assumes that the 22 
states affected by EPA's NOX SIP call, including the eastern 
one-third of Missouri and all of Illinois, would limit EGU 
NOX emission rates to 0.25 pounds per million British 
thermal units (mmBtu) of heat input by 2003.\1\ The

[[Page 17651]]

EGUs in the remainder of the state of Missouri (in the western two-
thirds of the state) would be limited to a NOX emission rate 
of 0.35 pounds per mmBtu of heat input. The 2003 modeling accounted for 
the implementation of all other emission controls required by the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) within upwind states. Table 2 summarizes the revised 
modeled 1996 and 2003 peak ozone concentrations for the modeled high 
ozone episodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Missouri and Illinois completed the 2003 attainment modeling 
during a time when final control level for the NOX SIP 
call was in litigation. Hence, the modeling considered a level of 
upwind NOX control which was less than that of the 
NOX SIP call. In the April 17, 2000, proposal, EPA 
explained how the NOX SIP call controls were also 
utilized in the attainment demonstration. See 65 FR 20404, 20415-6.

                                                       Table 2.--Modeled Peak Ozone Concentrations
                                                          [Concentrations in parts per billion]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               July 1991                                    July 1995
                Modeled high ozone episode days                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  7/16      7/17      7/18      7/19      7/10      7/11      7/12      7/13      7/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Base Year................................................       117       133       134       111        91       137       130       136       127
2003 Attainment Strategy......................................       106       122       125       105        78       125       124       128       118
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be noted that the modeled 2003 peak ozone concentrations are 
slightly different from those summarized in the April 17, 2000, 
proposed rulemaking (65 FR 20404) because Illinois and Missouri 
modified the Plume-In-Grid procedures used in the modeling system 
subsequent to the modeling summarized in the 1999 and 2000 submittals. 
This procedural change was applied to both the 1996 base year modeling 
and the 2003 attainment strategy modeling to maintain consistency.
    Because the model predicts exceedances of the ozone standard, i.e., 
ozone concentrations above 124 parts per billion, for three of the 
episode days under the 2003 attainment strategy, the states have 
included a ``weight of evidence'' determination to support the adequacy 
of the attainment strategy. The purpose of this determination is to 
show that attainment of ozone standard is more likely than not, if the 
proposed control strategy is implemented. The states' initial weight of 
evidence determination was addressed in the April 17, 2000, proposed 
rule. Only two elements of the weight of evidence determination were 
affected by the revised ozone modeling analysis. These two elements are 
the ``relative reduction attainment test'' and the ``EPA shortfall 
calculation.''
    The relative reduction attainment test uses a ratio of modeled 
attainment strategy ozone concentrations to modeled base year ozone 
concentrations for each monitoring site coupled with the base year 
ozone design value \2\ for each monitoring site to derive future 
(attainment year) ozone design values for the monitoring sites. 
Predicted ozone design values at or below 124 parts per million for all 
monitoring sites adds a weight of evidence that the attainment strategy 
is adequate to result in attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. Table 
3 summarizes the revised relative reduction attainment test results 
obtained by Illinois and Missouri using the revised 1996 base year 
emissions and the revised ozone modeling system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the fourth 
highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentration monitored over a 
three-year period.

                              Table 3.--Relative Reduction Attainment Test Results
                                   [Ozone concentrations in parts per billion]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Derived
                                                                              Ozone                   attainment
                                                                              design      Relative     strategy
                   State                                County                values     reduction      ozone
                                                                            1995-1997      factor       design
                                                                                                        values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois..................................  Madison......................          128         0.94          120
                                            St. Clair....................          108         0.94          101
Missouri..................................  Jefferson....................          125         0.92          115
                                            St. Charles..................          131         0.93          122
                                            St. Louis....................          119         0.92          109
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that the derived ozone design values for all portions of the 
nonattainment area are below the ozone standard (124 part per million).

    EPA shortfall calculation is similar to the relative reduction 
factor approach, but involves calculating the ratio of the averages 
across all episode days to generate a reduction factor for the entire 
ozone nonattainment area coupled with the average monitored ozone 
design value over a four-year period (1995 through 1998 in the Illinois 
and Missouri analysis). Using the revised ozone modeling results and 
the average monitored ozone design value, Illinois and Missouri 
calculated a future ozone design value of 123.3 parts per billion, 
which is below the ozone NAAQS.
    In addition to the statistical and modeling data presented here, 
the states' submittals include additional graphical and statistical 
data to support the validity of the ozone modeling results and the 
adequacy of the adopted ozone attainment strategy. Included in the 
submittal are: daily peak ozone concentration isopleth maps for the 
modeling domain, geographical maps showing the locations and magnitudes 
of daily peak ozone concentrations, daily wind back-trajectories to key 
ozone monitoring sites, daily predicted

[[Page 17652]]

peak ozone concentrations for the St. Louis nonattainment area 
subdomain, a number of other statistical performance parameter results 
for the full domain and the St. Louis nonattainment area subdomain for 
each day modeled, observed vs. predicted ozone scatterplots for each 
modeled day, time series of simulated versus observed ozone 
concentrations for the St. Louis nonattainment area monitoring sites, 
and predicted peak ozone concentration isopleths for the St. Louis 
nonattainment subdomain for 2003 after implementation of the final, 
selected emissions control strategy.
    The states conclude, and EPA concurs, that the revised modeling 
system performs at an acceptable level as it satisfactorily reproduces 
peak ozone concentrations relative to the monitored peak ozone 
concentrations. This is particularly true for the St. Louis 
nonattainment area subdomain. Additionally, the modeling system 
adequately simulates the observed magnitude and spatial and temporal 
patterns of ozone. Furthermore, the modeling results accurately 
differentiate between days with marginal ozone levels and days with 
elevated ozone concentrations. As such, EPA believes the revised 
modeling and weight of evidence results confirm the adequacy of the 
adopted emission control strategy.

How Did the States Address the Change of the Attainment Date From 
November 15, 2003, to November 15, 2004?

    As noted above, an August 30, 2000, decision by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has delayed the 
compliance deadline for the NOX SIP call from May 1, 2003, 
to May 31, 2004. This has necessitated that EPA and the states consider 
November 15, 2004, rather than November 15, 2003, as the relevant 
attainment date because Missouri and Illinois relied upon 
NOX SIP call reductions in the attainment demonstration. 
Both Missouri and Illinois have submitted analyses demonstrating that 
emission control measures beyond those already considered in the 
attainment demonstration are not necessary in spite of the delayed 
NOX SIP call compliance deadline. Both states have assessed 
the emissions impacts of the change to the attainment date.
    In their respective February 28, 2001, and March 1, 2001, 
submittals, Missouri and Illinois compared estimated 2004 VOC and 
NOX emissions for the St. Louis nonattainment area for all 
source sectors with their previously submitted 2003 estimates. The 
states also accounted for expected changes in the 2003 and 2004 EGU 
NOX emissions inventories for the states of Illinois, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. In addition, Missouri's 2004 
EGU NOX emissions were analyzed with respect to both the 
current statewide NOX control regulations and anticipated 
impacts of potential revisions to the NOX SIP call.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Missouri currently requires EGUs in the eastern third of the 
state to meet a NOX emission rate limit of 0.25 pounds 
per mmBtu of heat input and EGUs in the western two-thirds of the 
state to meet a NOX emission rate limit of 0.35 pounds 
per mmBtu of heat input. Because of EPA's stated intent to 
repromulgate a NOX SIP call budget for Missouri, the 
state also analyzed an alternate scenario, which assumed that the 
NOX emission control requirements for the EGUs in the 
eastern third of Missouri may have to be adjusted to a 
NOX emission rate limit of 0.15 pounds per mmBtu of heat 
input, but that no NOX emission controls may be required 
(for purposes of the NOX SIP call) for the EGUs in the 
western two-thirds of the state. The 2003 and 2004 emissions in 
Missouri would be affected by this assumed shift in NOX 
emissions controls, and have been considered by Missouri in this 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses, we conclude that the VOC and 
NOX emissions in 2004 will be lower than the 2003 VOC and 
NOX emissions within the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. 
We also conclude that NOX emissions from utilities (EGUs) in 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee will be lower in 2004 
than 2003. This implies that fewer ozone precursor emissions and less 
ozone will be transported into the St. Louis nonattainment area. While 
Missouri's statewide NOX emissions may increase slightly 
(approximately 2.6 tons per day) between 2003 and 2004, NOX 
emissions in upwind areas are expected to decrease by 801.92 tons per 
day. Both states have also accounted for a NOX rule which 
will be implemented in Illinois as part of the attainment strategy. 
Illinois has submitted a draft of this EGU NOX control rule 
and has requested a parallel review by EPA. This draft rule is the 
subject of a separate proposed rule, published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. Illinois has also adopted and submitted 
NOX control rules to meet the requirements of EPA's 
NOX SIP call. These rules are undergoing separate review.

Do the Analyses Support Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard by 
November 15, 2004?

    In light of the local and regional emission changes expected to 
occur between 2003 and 2004 and the revised modeling and weight of 
evidence determinations, we believe that the St. Louis area will attain 
the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2004.

How Do the Revised Attainment Demonstrations Address the Transportation 
Conformity Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets?

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. This 
requirement applies to transportation plans, programs and projects 
developed, funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal 
Transit Act (``transportation conformity''), and to all other Federally 
supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). Section 176(c) 
of the CAA requires transportation conformity. EPA's conformity rule 
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to 
state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP 
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the national ambient air quality standards.
    Attainment demonstrations are required to contain adequate motor 
vehicle emissions budgets derived from the mobile source portion of the 
demonstrated attainment emission inventory. The motor vehicle emissions 
budgets establish caps on mobile source emissions. VOC and 
NOX emissions associated with transportation improvement 
programs and long-range transportation plans cannot exceed these caps. 
The criteria for judging the adequacy of motor vehicle emission budgets 
are detailed in the transportation conformity regulations in 40 CFR 
93.118. Both Illinois and Missouri have revised the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets based on the estimated motor vehicle emissions for 
the 2004 attainment date. The 2001 submittals evaluate the change in 
vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and the change in emission controls from 
the previous 2003 attainment date to the 2004 attainment date. Both 
Illinois and Missouri have submitted mobile source emission budgets for 
VOC and NOX based on the emissions analyses included in 
their 2001 submittals.
    The following outlines the techniques used by each state in 
deriving the resultant VOC and NOX emissions budgets for 
their respective portions of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.

[[Page 17653]]

Illinois
    VMT growth estimates were provided to the state by the East-West 
Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC) through an interagency 
consultation process involving the Missouri Department of 
Transportation (MDOT) and the Illinois Department of Transportation 
(IDOT). For the 2004 attainment year, an additional year of VMT growth 
was applied to the VMT estimates for 2003. The 2003 emissions were 
increased by 2 percent to account for VMT growth which is expected to 
occur between 2003 and 2004, in the Illinois portion of the 
nonattainment area. The 2004 emissions were then adjusted to reflect 
summer weekday conditions. Emission factors were generated for 2004 
using EPA's MOBILE 5b emission factor model. These emission factors 
were then adjusted to reflect implementation of the Tier II/Low Sulfur 
gasoline program by using an EPA-supplied information sheet since this 
national program will be in place in 2004. The resulting motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for the 2004 attainment year (for the Illinois 
portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area) are 26.62 tons per day of 
VOC and 35.52 tons per day of NOX. Illinois addressed these 
emission budgets during the February 27, 2001, public hearing on the 
revised attainment demonstration. There were no public comments at the 
hearing regarding the revised emission budgets, however, the public 
comment period is open until March 29, 2001.
Missouri
    To estimate VMT For the 2004 attainment year, an additional year of 
growth was applied to VMT estimates for 2003. The VMT growth estimates 
were provided to the state by the EWGCC through an interagency 
consultation process involving the MDOT and the IDOT. Based on 
recommendations from the EWGCC, the VMT growth rate (for Missouri) 
between 2003 and 2004 was assumed to be 2.5 percent.
    The mobile source control measures considered by Missouri in the 
development of the 2004 mobile source emissions budgets included: 
Centralized, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) (St. 
Louis City and Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties); basic 
vehicle I/M (Franklin County only); Federal reformulated gasoline; 
National Low Emission Vehicle program; Tier II/Low Sulfur gasoline 
requirements; and planned transportation control measures.
    The 2004 VMT estimates were applied to emission factors that were 
derived by following the same procedures as those employed by Illinois. 
The 2004 mobile source emission budgets for the Missouri portion of the 
St. Louis ozone nonattainment area are 43.74 tons per day for VOC and 
91.90 tons per day for NOX.
For Both States
    In order for EPA to approve attainment demonstrations, states whose 
attainment demonstrations include the effects of the Tier II/Low Sulfur 
gasoline program need to commit to revise and resubmit their motor 
vehicle emission budgets based on MOBILE 6 after EPA releases the new 
emission factor model, because Tier II reductions cannot be properly 
accounted for using the current version of the model (MOBILE 5b). This 
policy was detailed in the supplemental notice of proposed rule issued 
on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383). Illinois committed to revising its 2004 
motor vehicle emissions budgets within two years of the release of 
MOBILE 6. In addition, no conformity determinations will be made during 
the second year unless adequate, MOBILE 6 derived budgets are in place. 
Missouri committed to revising its 2004 motor vehicle emissions budgets 
within one or two years of the release of MOBILE 6. Missouri has 
committed that if it chooses the two-year option, no conformity 
determinations will be made during the second year unless adequate, 
MOBILE 6 derived budgets are in place. If either of the states fail to 
meet its commitment to submit revised emission budgets using MOBILE 6, 
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP, which would 
start a sanctions clock under section 179 of the CAA.
    Illinois' revised motor vehicle emission budgets have been posted 
on the EPA Web site for the 30-day public comment period (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/traq). The comment period associated with the Web 
posting will close March 28, 2001. EPA is also seeking comments in 
association with this proposed rule and will accept such comments 
provided they are submitted within the 30 days following publication. 
We will address all comments in our final rulemaking on the attainment 
demonstration.
    Missouri's 2004 emissions budgets have also been posted on EPA's 
conformity Web site. Unless an extension is requested, the comment 
period will close on April 12, 2001. EPA is also seeking comments in 
association with this proposed rule and will accept such comments 
provided they are submitted within the 30 days following publication. 
Consistent with the process being used for Illinois, we will address 
all comments in our final rulemaking on the attainment demonstration.
    EPA has reviewed the states' 2004 motor vehicle emission budgets. 
Our review indicates that the revised budgets meet the adequacy 
criteria in section 93.118 of the Transportation Conformity 
Regulations. Thus, EPA is proposing to find them adequate and to 
approve them for conformity purposes.

What Is the Status of Emission Control Regulations for Which the 
Attainment Demonstration Accounts?

    Both states rely, in part, on the implementation of statewide 
NOX emission controls for EGUs to attain the 1-hour ozone 
standard by November 15, 2004. On June 29, 2000, the state of Missouri 
submitted an amendment to Missouri's SIP, rule 10 CSR 10-6.350, 
``Emissions Limitations and Emissions Trading of Oxides of Nitrogen.'' 
This rule requires reductions in NOX emissions by 
establishing NOX emissions limitations for large EGUs with a 
nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts. The rule requires 
compliance by May 1, 2003. This rule limits the NOX emission 
rates for EGUs in the eastern third of the state to 0.25 pounds per 
mmBtu of heat input and the NOX emission rates for EGUs in 
the western two-thirds of the state to 0.35 pounds per mmBtu of heat 
input. The control period for this rule begins on May 1 and ends on 
September 30 of each year beginning in 2003. EPA proposed to approve 
this rule on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51564), and approved this rule in 
final rulemaking on December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82285).
    On October 20, 2000, the state of Illinois submitted a proposed 
amendment to Illinois' emission control regulations, 35 Illinois 
Administrative Code 217, Subpart V (35 IAC 217 Subpart V), ``Electric 
Power Generation.'' This rule will establish a statewide NOX 
emission rate limit of 0.25 pounds per mmBtu of heat input for EGUs, 
effective in 2003, as required by the state's ozone attainment 
demonstration for the St. Louis nonattainment area. The state has 
requested parallel processing of this rule by EPA. This rule is 
currently undergoing separate review by EPA for purposes of parallel 
proposed rulemaking which has also been published in today's Federal 
Register.
    In addition to the 35 IAC 217 Subpart V rule, IEPA has also 
submitted additional statewide NOX control rules to comply 
with EPA's NOX SIP call. These rules will result in 
additional

[[Page 17654]]

 NOX emission reductions in the state of Illinois beginning 
in 2004 which were not considered in the St. Louis attainment 
demonstration modeling, but were accounted for in the states' 2003 to 
2004 emissions analyses. On December 21, 2000, the state of Illinois 
adopted 35 IAC 217 Subpart W, `` NOX Trading Program for 
Electrical Generating Units'' and amendments to 35 IAC 211. These rule 
amendments establish a statewide NOX emission rate limit for 
EGUs of 0.15 pounds per mmBtu of heat input and establish a statewide 
emissions trading program. On October 16, 2000, IEPA filed with the 
Illinois Pollution Control Board proposed rule 35 IAC 217 Subpart U, `` 
NOX Control and Trading Program for Specified NOX 
Generating Units,'' and rule 35 IAC 217 Subpart X, ``Voluntary 
NOX Emissions Reduction Program.'' These rules establish 
NOX emission controls for major non-EGU boilers and allows 
smaller boilers to participate in the trading of NOX 
emission reduction credits. On August 21, 2000, IEPA filed with the 
Illinois Pollution Control Board proposed rule 35 IAC 217 Subpart T, 
``Cement Kilns.'' This rule will limit the NOX emissions 
from major cement kilns. All of these adopted and/or proposed rules are 
under review by EPA and will be considered in future rulemakings.

What Is the Status of the States' Efforts to Qualify for an Attainment 
Date Extension?

    In the March 18, 1999, proposal and the April 17, 2000, proposal, 
EPA described in detail the Guidance ``Extension of Attainment Dates 
for Downwind Transport Areas,'' (64 FR 14441) March 25, 1999. In the 
April 17, 2000, proposal, EPA discussed the submissions made by 
Missouri and Illinois to meet the criteria in the Guidance, and 
proposed to approve an attainment date extension for the area to 
November 15, 2003. The proposal to extend the attainment date, and 
retain the current moderate classification for the St. Louis area, is 
consistent with other actions which EPA is taking for similarly 
situated areas, as discussed below.
    The following discussion summarizes the criteria for obtaining an 
attainment date extension and the prior EPA proposals for the St. Louis 
area relating to the states' request for an attainment date extension. 
It also updates the states' progress in meeting the criteria for an 
attainment date extension, and discusses the new attainment date which 
EPA is proposing in today's action.
    EPA Guidance concerning attainment date extensions states that EPA 
will consider extending the attainment date for an area or a state 
that:
    1. Has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport 
from either an upwind area in the same state with a later attainment 
date or an upwind area in another state that significantly contributes 
to downwind ozone nonattainment;
    2. Has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any 
necessary, adopted local measures and with an attainment date that 
shows it will attain the 1-hour standard no later than the date that 
the emission reductions are expected from upwind areas 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 emission reductions;
    3. Has adopted all applicable local measures required under the 
area's current ozone classification and any additional emission control 
measures demonstrated to be necessary to achieve attainment, assuming 
the emission reductions occur as required in the upwind areas; and
    4. Has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the 
upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved.
    With respect to the showing that the St. Louis area is a downwind 
area affected by transport, the April 17, 2000, proposal noted that the 
Ozone Transport Assessment Group modeling and the attainment 
demonstration for the St. Louis area submitted by Missouri and Illinois 
showed the impacts of transport, specifically noting that sources in 
Kentucky make significant contributions to the St. Louis nonattainment 
area. See 65 FR 20404, 20418. On this basis, EPA proposed to find that 
this criterion of the Guidance had been met.
    With respect to the submittal of an approvable attainment 
demonstration, EPA noted that the submitted attainment demonstration, 
with the revisions specified in the April 17, 2000, proposal, and 
addressed elsewhere in today's proposal, would be adequate to show 
attainment. As stated elsewhere in this proposal, Missouri has now 
submitted a revised attainment demonstration containing the corrections 
and additions requested by EPA, and Illinois has submitted proposed 
revisions with final adoption expected in the near future. The April 
17, 2000, proposal also noted that all of the control measures needed 
for attainment, with the exception of the regional NOX 
emission controls, had been adopted. Id. at p. 20418. Missouri has now 
adopted, and EPA has approved, regional NOX controls needed 
for the attainment demonstration. As discussed elsewhere in this 
proposal, Illinois has submitted proposed regional NOX 
controls, which EPA is proposing to approve separately in today's 
Federal Register. EPA expects Illinois to adopt and submit final 
regional NOX rules in the near future.
    With respect to the adoption of all local measures required under 
the area's ``moderate'' nonattainment classification, the April 17, 
2000, proposal stated that both states had previously adopted all local 
moderate area requirements, with the exception of NOX RACT 
for Illinois sources. On May 18, 2000, EPA took final action to approve 
the following local moderate area measures for Missouri: the 
NOX RACT rule (65 FR 31482); the motor vehicle I/M program 
(65 FR 31480); VOC RACT rules (65 FR 31489); and the 15% Rate-Of-
Progress Plan (65 FR 31485).\4\ On December 28, 2000, EPA also approved 
a statewide NOX rule for Missouri (65 FR 82285).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A petition for review of EPA's approval of the 15% Plan is 
currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 
Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 00-2744.
    \5\ The March 18, 1999, proposal and the April 17, 2000, 
proposal listed the moderate area requirements which had been 
submitted by the states and approved by EPA. These proposals did 
not, however, specifically address how the area meets the following 
moderate area requirements: the requirement to provide for 
implementation of all reasonably available control measures as 
expeditiously as practicable under section 172(c)(1) of the Act; and 
the requirement for contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). 
EPA intends to issue a supplemental proposal in the near future 
addressing these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 17, 2000, proposal, EPA explained that it was also 
proposing to approve an exemption from the NOX RACT 
requirements for the Illinois portion of the nonattainment area under 
section 182(f)(2). EPA also explained that if it took final action to 
approve the exemption and the regional NOX controls for both 
states, the states will have met the requirement to have adopted all 
local measures necessary for the area's current classification. Id.
    With respect to implementation of all adopted measures by the time 
upwind controls are expected, EPA noted that the measures adopted by 
Illinois and Missouri were expected to be implemented by the start of 
the ozone season in 2003, which, at the time of the April 17, 2000, 
proposal, was the compliance date for the NOX SIP call. EPA 
also proposed 2003 as the new attainment year for the area, consistent 
with the attainment date extension policy. Id. EPA continues to believe 
that the measures adopted by Illinois and

[[Page 17655]]

Missouri will be implemented by 2003, and notes that the regional 
NOX controls for both states have a 2003 compliance date. 
However, as explained elsewhere in this proposal, since the attainment 
demonstration relies on reductions from the NOX SIP call to 
reduce transported ozone precursors, and the compliance date for the 
NOX SIP call has been extended to May 31, 2004, EPA believes 
that the attainment date must be extended to November 15, 2004, to 
allow the reductions in transport to occur before attainment is 
required. Therefore, consistent with the attainment date extension 
policy, EPA proposes to extend the attainment date to November 15, 
2004.

What Action Is EPA Proposing Regarding the Determination of 
Nonattainment as of November 15, 1996, and Reclassification published 
on March 19, 2001?

    As noted above, EPA informed the Court on March 8 of its intended 
actions regarding St. Louis. These actions included this proposal and 
the proposal to postpone the effective date of the Determination of 
Nonattainment that was also published on March 19, 2001. EPA also 
informed the Court of its intent to withdraw the nonattainment 
determination and reclassification if EPA approves an attainment date 
extension for the St. Louis area prior to the determination becoming 
effective. The Court, in a limited review to determine whether EPA's 
planned course of action would contravene the Court's Order, indicated 
that EPA, by signing a determination by March 12 and publishing the 
required Notice by March 20, would comply with the Court's Order. The 
Court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to assess the propriety of the 
remainder of EPA's planned course of action.
    EPA is now proposing to withdraw the Notice of Nonattainment and 
Reclassification if EPA approves an attainment date extension prior to 
the effective date of the Notice of Nonattainment. EPA believes this is 
appropriate for the following reasons. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
requires that EPA determine attainment within six months of the 
attainment date. If the attainment date were extended, there would be a 
new deadline for the determination that would arise only in the future. 
See Guidance. Thus, if the attainment date were extended, EPA's 
obligation to determine attainment would not yet have occurred and EPA 
could withdraw the published nonattainment determination and the 
consequent reclassification, which would not yet have gone into effect. 
Such a course would harmonize the need to allow the Agency to fulfill 
its duty to take into account upwind transport, while adhering to a 
fixed and very near-term schedule. It would also allow EPA to apply to 
the St. Louis area the attainment date extension policy which 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 12854 (April 16, 1999); 65 FR 81786 (December 27, 
2000).

Have the States Corrected the Deficiencies Identified in the April 17, 
2000, Proposed Rulemaking?

    Based on the review of the submittals discussed above, EPA believes 
that Missouri has corrected the deficiencies identified in our April 
17, 2000, proposed rulemaking. The state has submitted: (1) 
Documentation of revised base year (1996) and attainment year 
photochemical modeling results incorporating revisions to the 1996 base 
year emissions for the St. Louis nonattainment area, which demonstrate 
that St. Louis would have attained the 1-hour ozone standard by 
November 15, 2003, had the compliance date for the NOX SIP 
call remained May 1, 2003; (2) adopted emission control regulations 
needed to support the ozone attainment demonstration, and EPA has 
approved these regulations; and (3) motor vehicle transportation 
conformity emission budgets based on the revised ozone attainment 
demonstration.
    EPA believes Illinois will correct the deficiencies identified in 
our April 17, 2000, proposed rulemaking when it finalizes and submits 
the necessary revisions. Illinois has submitted: (1) Draft 
documentation of revised base year photochemical modeling results 
incorporating revisions to the 1996 base year emissions for the St. 
Louis nonattainment area and demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard by 2003; and (2) draft motor vehicle transportation 
conformity emission budgets based on the revised ozone attainment 
demonstration. The state has submitted a proposed NOX 
emission control rule needed to support the attainment demonstration 
(the 0.25 pounds NOX per mmBtu of heat input rule for EGUs). 
Final adoption of these items is expected to occur in April 2001.
    In short, EPA believes Missouri has made the submittals called for 
in our April 17, 2000, proposed rulemaking, and that Illinois will make 
the necessary submittals in April of this year.

What Is EPA's Assessment of the Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the 
St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area?

    EPA believes the ozone attainment demonstration for the Missouri 
portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is fully approvable. 
We also believe the ozone attainment demonstration for the Illinois 
portion (the Metro-East area) of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area 
is approvable contingent upon the state adoption and EPA approval of 
the 0.25 pounds NOX per mmBtu of heat input rule for EGUs, 
and adoption and submission of the final revisions to the attainment 
demonstration discussed in this notice.

What is EPA's Assessment of the Transportation Conformity Emission 
Budgets for the Illinois and Missouri Portions of the St. Louis Ozone 
Nonattainment Area?

    As noted above, EPA believes the transportation conformity emission 
budgets for both portions of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area are 
adequate and approvable with respect to EPA's conformity regulation.

When Will EPA Address Public Comments Received Regarding the April 17, 
2000, Proposed Rulemaking?

    EPA will address public comments received with respect to both our 
April 17, 2000, proposed rulemaking and today's supplemental proposed 
rulemaking in our final rulemaking on the Missouri and Illinois ozone 
attainment demonstration. With respect to the attainment demonstration 
and conformity budgets, EPA specifically seeks comments on the 
supplemental information described in this proposal.

What Actions Are We Proposing Today?

    EPA is proposing to approve the St. Louis nonattainment area ozone 
attainment demonstration for both Missouri and Illinois. Final approval 
of the attainment demonstration for Illinois is contingent on the 
state's submittal of an adopted rule requiring EGUs to achieve a 
NOX emission rate of 0.25 pounds per mmBtu of heat input or 
less.
    EPA is proposing its finding that the transportation conformity 
motor vehicle emission budgets submitted by Illinois and Missouri are 
adequate for

[[Page 17656]]

conformity purposes and is therefore proposing to approve them.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to withdraw its March 19, 2001, 
rulemaking determining nonattainment and reclassifying the St. Louis 
nonattainment area as a serious nonattainment area for ozone (66 FR 
15578), if EPA extends the attainment date for St. Louis pursuant to 
EPA's policy regarding the extension of attainment dates for downwind 
transport areas prior to the effective date of the March 12 
nonattainment determination. EPA proposes instead to extend the 
attainment date for this area to November 15, 2004, and to retain the 
classification of the area as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. 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 proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it does not meet the criteria stated above.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects 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 to 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 proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 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 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 proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it would merely approve a state program implementing a Federal 
standard, and would 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 this 
rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    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 proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval and other actions 
proposed do not create any new requirements, I certify that this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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 
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.

[[Page 17657]]

    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to 
approve pre-existing plans under state or local law, and take other 
actions which impose no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Volatile organic 
compounds, Nitrogen oxides, ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: March 23, 2001.
Wanda L. Johnson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 01-8019 Filed 4-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P