[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20122-20127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9727]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 0125-1125; IL 196-3; FRL-6968-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Missouri and 
Illinois; One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations, Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACM), and Contingency Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2001, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposed several actions for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. In 
that supplemental proposed rule, we noted that EPA would issue a 
separate proposal addressing how the St. Louis nonattainment area meets 
the respective requirements pertaining to the implementation of RACM 
and contingency measures under sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(9) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). In today's supplemental proposed rule, 
we are proposing to find that Missouri and Illinois have met the RACM 
requirements of the CAA and are proposing to find that the contingency 
measures identified by the states are adequate to meet the requirements 
of the Act. We are also proposing to approve the contingency measures 
implementation plan submitted by Missouri.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer 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 docket are available at the following addresses for 
inspection during normal business hours: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (please telephone Patricia

[[Page 20123]]

Morris at (312) 353-8656 before visiting the Region 5 office); or U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air, RCRA, and Toxics 
Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, 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) 353-8656, E-Mail Address: 
[email protected]; or Lynn Slugantz, Air Planning and Development 
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, Telephone Number (913) 551-7883, 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:

Background and Submittal Information

     What is the scope of this proposed rule?
     What are the requirements for RACM under section 172(c)(1) 
of the CAA?
     How do the Missouri and Illinois SIPs for the St. Louis 
area address the RACM requirements?
     What are the requirements for contingency measures under 
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA?
     How do the Missouri and Illinois SIPs for the St. Louis 
area address the contingency measure requirements?

EPA's Proposed Actions

     Do the Missouri and Illinois SIPs meet the RACM and 
contingency measure requirements?
     What actions are we proposing today?

Background and Submittal Information

     What is the scope of this proposed rule?
    This supplemental proposal addresses how Missouri and Illinois have 
addressed the RACM requirements of the CAA and the contingency measure 
requirements. Written comments on the issues discussed in this proposal 
may be submitted during the next 30 days. Although these requirements 
are separate from the approvability of the attainment demonstration, we 
will respond to any written comments on the issues discussed in this 
proposal in our final action on the Missouri and Illinois ozone St. 
Louis attainment demonstrations.
     What are the requirements for RACM under section 172(c)(1) 
of the CAA?
    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires that SIPs provide for the 
implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has 
previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of 
172(c)(1). (See 57 FR 13498, 13560.) In that guidance, EPA indicated 
its interpretation that potentially available measures that would not 
advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. 
EPA concluded that a measure would not be reasonably available if it 
would not advance attainment. EPA also indicated in that guidance that 
states should consider all potentially available measures to determine 
whether they were reasonably available for implementation in the area, 
and whether they would advance the attainment date. Further, states 
should indicate in their SIP submittals whether measures considered 
were reasonably available or not. If measures are deemed reasonably 
available, they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that 
states could reject potential RACM measures either because they would 
not advance the attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and 
long-term adverse impacts, or for various reasons related to local 
conditions, such as economics or implementation concerns. EPA also 
issued a recent memorandum on this topic confirming its earlier 
guidance, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas,'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, November 30, 1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
     How do the Missouri and Illinois SIPs for the St. Louis 
area address the RACM requirements?

Missouri

    Section 3.0 of Missouri's November 1999 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan 
(ROPP), which was approved by EPA on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31485),\1\ is 
dedicated to the evaluation of potential control measures. The state 
considered an extensive list of potential control measures and has 
documented the measures which are not practicable based on 
considerations such as cost effectiveness and enforceability. Some 
examples of control measures that were not selected for implementation 
include rule effectiveness improvements, limits on volatile organic 
compound (VOC) content of pesticides, limits on VOC emissions from 
wineries and micro breweries, and various transportation control 
measures (TCM). Based on reviews of the state's analysis of additional 
measures and lists of control measures which have been implemented in 
other nonattainment areas, EPA believes that there are no other 
measures that Missouri could have implemented that would have 
substantially accelerated achievement of the target level of VOC 
emissions for the state's ROPP. EPA is not aware of other practicable 
measures which will result in comparable emissions reductions that can 
be implemented sooner than those contained in Missouri's ROPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A petition for review of EPA's approval is pending in the 
8th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 
00-2744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illinois

    In a June 30, 1995, submittal,\2\ initially intended as an update 
to the state's attainment demonstration, Illinois stated, ``In adopting 
these measures, the State has demonstrated our commitment to seek all 
reasonable volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction measures that can 
be applied in that area [metro-east St. Louis] * * *.'' \3\ Illinois 
considered a number of measures for point, area and mobile sources. 
Illinois went beyond the CAA requirements for moderate areas by 
implementing an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and 
improved rule effectiveness on stationary sources. Illinois held a 
public hearing on December 21, 1994, on these materials and took public 
comment on the modeling and conclusions. In the documentation 
materials, Illinois states ``Additional control of local emission 
sources, if implemented, would provide only marginal air quality 
improvements, and at significantly greater expense. All practicable 
controls have been, or will soon be, implemented.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The state has since submitted revisions to its attainment 
demonstration which were the subject of proposed rulemakings 
published on April 17, 2000, and April 3, 2001. (65 FR 20404 and 66 
FR 17647, respectively.)
    \3\ The measures to which the statement refers are control 
measures the state determined to be necessary to attain the ozone 
NAAQS through air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Illinois submitted documentation on VOC reduction 
measures which the state implemented in conjunction with its 15% ROPP. 
These measures resulted in emissions reductions beyond those required 
to meet the state's rate-of-progress obligations under section 
182(b)(1)(A) of

[[Page 20124]]

the CAA. Under this provision of the Act, the state was obligated to 
achieve VOC emissions reductions of 26.66 tons per day (TPD). 
Accounting for a separate requirement to implement contingency control 
measures (to be implemented if the area failed to achieve reasonable 
further progress), which would achieve further VOC reductions of 3 
percent of the adjusted base year requirement or 4.96 TPD, the total 
reduction required was 31.62 TPD. Illinois' ROPP, which was approved by 
EPA on December 18, 1997 (62 FR 66279), included emissions reductions 
of 38.12 TPD. A number of TCMs were included as implemented measures 
which contributed 0.2 TPD reduction. The TCM selection process has been 
documented by the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC), St. 
Louis' metropolitan planning organization (MPO), in its report, 
``Transportation Control Measures Completion Report'' dated February 
1998. A copy of that report can be found in the docket for this 
proposed rule or via the World Wide Web at http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/TransReadingRoom/transreadingroom.htm#Rpts.
    EPA has performed an analysis to evaluate emission levels of oxides 
of nitrogen (NOX) and VOCs and their relationships to the 
application of current and anticipated control measures expected to be 
implemented in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis one-hour ozone 
nonattainment area. This analysis was done to determine if additional 
stationary source RACM are available after adoption of the CAA-required 
measures for this area. The analysis EPA conducted demonstrates that a 
number of possible stationary source emission control measures have 
been evaluated for their emission reductions. It further demonstrates 
that the measures evaluated would not advance the attainment date for 
the area, and therefore would not be considered RACM under the Act. 
Based on this analysis which is contained in the docket and available 
for public review, EPA concluded these measures would not advance the 
attainment date in the area and therefore are not considered RACM. The 
VOC and NOX controls potentially available are about 4.2 
percent and 3.0 percent, respectively, of the total emissions 
reductions needed for attainment from 1990 to the 2004 attainment year 
in the entire nonattainment area.
    EPA believes controls on these categories are not considered RACM. 
EPA reached this conclusion primarily because the reductions expected 
to be achieved by the potential RACM measures are relatively small, 9.2 
tons per day of VOC and 8.4 tons per day of NOX for 
stationary sources, as compared to the emissions reductions needed 
within the nonattainment area to reach attainment.

Missouri and Illinois

    EWGCC, the MPO for St. Louis, in conjunction with the Illinois and 
Missouri air quality agencies, evaluated TCMs for implementation in the 
St. Louis area. In 1993, Apogee Research Inc., prepared a report 
entitled, ``St. Louis Region TCM Analysis.'' This report identified a 
number of TCMs which had the potential to be implemented before 1997 
and which could be expected to result in significant air quality 
benefits. Each TCM was evaluated in terms of its emission reduction 
benefits and its cost effectiveness. All of the short-term measures 
suggested in the report were endorsed by the Council, subject to 
funding and, where necessary, legislative changes. These measures 
included: activity center based trip reduction; areawide ridesharing; 
work trip reduction; transit improvements; signal timing; intersection 
improvements; incident management; traffic flow improvements; and a 
Missouri fuel tax increase. These TCMs were identified in both the 
Missouri and Illinois ROPPs which EPA has approved. The emissions 
reductions associated with these measures were estimated to be 2.06 TPD 
for Missouri and 0.29 TPD for Illinois and were to be achieved by 1997.
    In addition to the TCMs in the SIP, other TCMs were identified and 
implemented that were not credited in the SIP. These include: bus 
replacement; bicycle transportation program; bicycle facilities for 
transit; bikeway or bike trail; bike and pedestrian way; transportation 
management association; and demand management. The calculated benefits 
from these TCMs however, were small in terms of emission reductions. 
The February 1998 document Transportation Control Measures Completion 
Report gives a status report on the implementation and effectiveness of 
the TCMs from the Apogee report that were implemented in the St. Louis 
area. One of the more effective TCMs was the Metrolink which opened in 
1994 with a recorded 7 million riders during 1994, and expanded to 14 
million riders by 1997.
    The TCMs identified in these reports are all the potential TCMs 
that were considered reasonably available. These types of TCMs have 
continued to be implemented and reductions estimated for future years. 
Many of the TCMs have been funded with money from the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality program funds. There are no additional TCM 
measures identified as RACM that can advance the attainment date.
    In addition, the St. Louis nonattainment area relies in part on 
reductions from outside the nonattainment area from EPA's 
NOX SIP call or section 126 rule (65 FR 2674, January 18, 
2000) to reach attainment. In the NOX SIP call (63 FR 
57356), EPA concluded that reductions from various upwind states were 
necessary to provide for timely attainment of the ozone standard in 
various downwind states, including in Missouri and Illinois. The 
NOX SIP call therefore established requirements for control 
of sources of significant emissions in all upwind states. However, 
these reductions are not slated for full implementation until May 2004.
    The Missouri and Illinois attainment demonstrations for the St. 
Louis nonattainment area indicate that the ozone benefit expected to be 
achieved from regional NOX reductions (such as the 
NOX SIP call) are substantial. (See the attainment 
demonstrations in the docket.) Therefore, EPA concludes, based on the 
available documentation, that since the reductions from potential RACM 
measures do not nearly equate to the reductions needed to demonstrate 
attainment, none of the potential RACM measures could advance the 
attainment date prior to full implementation of NOX emission 
control rules in 2004 and implementation by 2004 of all local measures 
already included in the states' ozone attainment demonstrations, and 
thus none of these potential measures can be considered RACM.
    Furthermore, both states have submitted air quality modeling 
results which show that additional VOC and NOX controls 
within the nonattainment area will not accelerate attainment of the 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The previously 
discussed, June 30, 1995, air quality modeling included the results of 
various ``sensitivity'' analyses.\4\ In these analyses, Illinois and 
Missouri tested the air quality benefits (with respect to ozone 
concentrations) of further VOC and NOX reductions within the 
nonattainment area. Relative to their 1996 nonattainment area emissions 
inventories, the states tested the impacts of: (1) reducing VOC by 30 
percent; (2) reducing NOX by 30 percent; and (3) reducing 
both VOC and NOX by 30

[[Page 20125]]

percent. The results of that modeling showed that reductions of these 
magnitudes would not accelerate attainment of the ozone standard. It 
was only when the states tested the impacts of VOC and NOX 
reductions beyond boundaries of the nonattainment area that the 
modeling indicated improvements in air quality to the degree necessary 
to attain the standard. In other words, the transport of ozone and 
precursor emissions from upwind areas significantly contribute to St. 
Louis' nonattainment problem. Air quality modeling which EPA performed 
in association with the NOX SIP call (63 FR 57356) confirmed 
the states' analyses. This conclusion has been expressed in previous 
rulemakings pertaining to the St. Louis area as the basis for proposing 
to extend the area's attainment date (66 FR 17647).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the attainment modeling for the St. Louis area has 
been revised since the 1995 submittal, EPA believes the sensitivity 
analyses are still valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information presented above, EPA believes the states 
have identified and implemented all RACM. Any additional measures would 
be unlikely to achieve the levels of local precursor emissions 
reductions needed to have a significant impact on ozone concentrations 
and hence accelerate attainment. Furthermore, the states and EPA have 
demonstrated that reductions in upwind emissions are necessary for 
attainment of the standard, and that these upwind emission reductions 
provide a significantly greater improvement in local peak ozone 
concentrations than do available local emission reductions.
     What are the requirements for contingency measures under 
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA?
    Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires SIPs to contain additional 
measures that will take effect without further action by the state or 
EPA if an area fails to attain the standard by the applicable date. The 
CAA does not specify how many contingency measures are needed or the 
magnitude of emissions reductions that must be provided by these 
measures. However, EPA provided guidance interpreting the control 
measure requirements of 172(c)(1) in the April 16, 1992, General 
Preamble for Implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 
1990. (See 57 FR 13498, 13510.) In that guidance, EPA indicated that 
states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas should include 
sufficient contingency measures so that, upon implementation of such 
measures, additional emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the 
emissions in the adjusted base year inventory (or such lesser 
percentage that will cure the identified failure) would be achieved in 
the year following the year in which the failure has been identified. 
States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented 
with minimal further action on their part and with no additional 
rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative reviews. The 
additional 3 percent reduction would ensure that progress toward 
attainment occurs at a rate similar to that specified under the 
reasonable further progress requirements for moderate areas (i.e., 3 
percent per year), and that the state will achieve these reductions 
while conducting additional control measure development and 
implementation as necessary to correct the shortfall in emissions 
reductions.
    EPA has also determined that Federal measures can be used to 
analyze whether the contingency measure requirements of section 
179(c)(9) have been met. While these measures are not SIP-approved 
contingency measures which would apply if an area fails to attain, EPA 
believes that existing Federally enforceable measures can be used to 
provide the necessary substantive relief. Therefore, Federal measures 
may be used in the analysis, to the extent that the attainment 
demonstration does not rely on them or take credit for them. (See, 
e.g., 66 FR 586, 615 (January 3, 2001).)
     How do the Missouri and Illinois SIPs for the St. Louis 
area address the contingency measure requirements?

Missouri

    Calculation of Missouri's total 1990 adjusted base year inventory 
for VOC emissions for the Missouri portion of the nonattainment area is 
detailed in EPA's February 7, 2000, technical support document for 
Missouri's 15% ROPP, which we approved on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31485). 
Missouri's 1990 adjusted base year inventory of VOC emissions is 315.70 
TPD. Per EPA's guidance, Missouri's contingency measures must achieve 
VOC reductions equivalent to 3 percent of the adjusted base year 
inventory, or 9.47 TPD.
    The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted a 
Contingency Plan for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area in October 
1997. In that submittal, MDNR reviewed various control measures and 
proposed two contingency measures, implementation of a state rule 
regulating the use of solvents for metal cleaning, and implementation 
of a Federal rule limiting emissions from small gasoline powered 
engines. State rule 10 CSR 10-5.300, ``Control of Emissions from 
Solvent Metal Cleaning,'' was adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation 
Commission (MACC) on February 3, 1998, and approved by EPA on May 18, 
2000, 65 FR 31485. It is projected to reduce VOC emissions in the 
nonattainment area by 9.0 TPD. The Federal small engine rule was 
projected to reduce VOC emissions in the nonattainment area by 1.22 
TPD. However, a part of the reductions resulting from the solvent metal 
cleaning rule (0.64 TPD) and all of the reductions resulting from the 
Federal small engine standards rule (1.22 TPD) were accounted for in 
EPA's approval of Missouri's 15% ROPP, leaving a balance of 8.36 TPD of 
reductions from these two measures that remained creditable toward the 
state's obligation to provide measures that could reduce emissions by 
9.47 TPD. This created a shortfall of 1.11 TPD with respect to the 
contingency measure requirement. MDNR has addressed this shortfall by 
submitting a supplement to its contingency plan. On April 5, 2001, 
Missouri submitted an analysis of the VOC reductions that will be 
achieved through the implementation of the Federal Tier 2/low sulfur 
gasoline rule during 2005 and 2006.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This is the period in which the requirement to implement 
contingency measures would be triggered and the reductions achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on MDNR's analysis, implementation of the Tier 2/low sulfur 
gasoline rule will result in VOC emissions reductions of 1.59 TPD 
during this period. Implementation of Missouri's revised Contingency 
Plan which includes the state's metal cleaning rule and substitutes the 
Federal Tier 2/low sulfur gasoline rule for the small engine standards 
rule, would result in emissions reductions of 10.59 TPD. Subtracting 
out the 0.64 TPD previously applied to Missouri's 15% ROPP, the state's 
revised Contingency Plan provides for VOC emissions reductions of 9.95 
TDP which exceeds the required reductions of 9.47 TPD.

Illinois

    Illinois has identified surplus emission reductions that occur thru 
the year 2006 that are available as contingency measure reductions. 
These contingency measure reductions are not the same reductions as 
were approved as contingency measures for the 15% Plan for Illinois (62 
FR 37494). The contingency measure reductions approved at that time 
were implemented by 1998 and were included in the most recent 
attainment demonstration modeling for the St. Louis area. Thus, these 
measures have already been ``used'' to demonstrate attainment. 
Contingency measures for the ozone attainment demonstration must be 
above and beyond (or surplus

[[Page 20126]]

to) the measures that were modeled in the attainment demonstration or 
used to show attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. Illinois also 
submitted an updated emission inventory in support of a 2004 attainment 
date in connection with its attainment demonstration. The reductions 
listed here have been reviewed for their applicability as contingency 
measures surplus to any previous reductions or crediting.
    The total amount of reduction needed for Illinois to meet the 
contingency measure requirement in the Metro-East St. Louis 
nonattainment area is 3 percent of the adjusted base year emissions 
inventory or 4.96 TPD. The control measures to achieve the required 
reductions are listed in the following table:

                 Illinois Contingency Measure Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Reduction
                       Control measure                           (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Source Measures *....................................        1.61
Tier 2/Low Sulfur Fuel Program..............................        0.08
On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)..................................        2.86
Non-Road Engine Standards...................................        1.99
                                                             -----------
  Total.....................................................       6.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the difference between estimated emissions in the Metro-East
  area in 2004 (27.51 TPD) and those in 2006 (25.90 TPD) calculated
  using MOBILE5b.

    Illinois is relying on a number of Federal rules to serve as 
contingency measures. The mobile source measures consist of incremental 
reductions from the Federal motor vehicle control program and other 
measures already in place. In addition, several other Federal measures 
are relied upon which include the OBD rule, the Non-Road Engine 
Standards, and the Tier 2/low sulfur fuel rule. Illinois has documented 
the methodology for the calculations of the emission reductions and 
this material is available in the docket. The measures and the 
reduction calculations are summarized here.
    The OBD test standards have already been adopted by Illinois in 
Title 35 Subtitle B subpart H Part 240. These rules required Illinois 
to begin OBD testing in its I/M program on January 1, 2001. However, on 
March 28, 2001, the EPA Administrator signed a final rulemaking to 
amend the vehicle I/M program requirements to incorporate a check of 
the OBD system and extend the date that states needed to comply until 
January 1, 2002. Implementation of this check during the already 
implemented I/M program in the Metro-East St. Louis area starting in 
January 2002 is estimated to result in the 2.86 TPD emissions 
reduction. Because Illinois did not include any OBD emissions 
reductions in its attainment demonstration emission estimates, the 
entire 2.86 TPD are creditable toward the contingency measures 
requirement.
    The non-road engine standards apply to all sizes of non-road diesel 
engines. These engines include lawn and garden equipment, larger 
industrial equipment, marine engines, recreational vehicles, 
locomotives, and aircraft engines. The standards are phased in with 
Tier 2 standards from 2001-2006 and more stringent Tier 3 standards for 
larger engines from 2006-2008. The emissions reduction for the 
contingency measure is the difference between the 2004 estimated 
emissions and the 2006 estimated emissions (or 1.99 TPD). More detail 
on the emissions calculation is provided in the docket.
    The Tier 2/low sulfur fuel rule promulgated by EPA begins to take 
effect in 2004. Illinois used EPA's MOBILE5 information sheet #8 to 
estimate reductions. The reduction listed in the table represents the 
difference between the 2006 estimate (0.97 TPD) and the 2004 estimate 
(0.89 TPD).
    These reductions meet the criteria for reductions to be used as 
contingency measures. The measures are already adopted for 
implementation and will provide for specific emission control measures 
if the area fails to attain the ozone standard. The measures will take 
effect without any further action by the state or by the EPA 
Administrator. The reductions are surplus to the attainment 
demonstration. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that these measures meet 
the contingency measure requirements for the Illinois Metro-East St. 
Louis ozone area.

EPA's Proposed Actions

     Do the Missouri and Illinois SIPs meet the RACM and 
contingency measure requirements?
    EPA has reviewed the submitted sensitivity analyses, the process 
used by the MPO to review and select TCMs, the states' evaluation of 
potential stationary source control measures, and the attainment year 
emissions inventories for the St. Louis area. While the CAA requires 
nonattainment areas to implement available RACM measures, EPA does not 
believe that section 172(c)(1) requires implementation of potential 
RACM measures that either require costly implementation efforts or that 
produce relatively small emissions reductions that will not accelerate 
attainment of the ozone standard.
    Sensitivity modeling for the St. Louis moderate ozone area 
indicates that the ozone benefit expected to be achieved from regional 
NOX reductions (such as the NOX SIP call) are far 
greater than reductions that could be achieved by implementing the 
measures which have been rejected as RACM. Therefore, EPA believes that 
the reductions from such measures would not accelerate attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS.
    In addition, EPA believes that both Missouri and Illinois have 
identified adequate contingency measures. In Missouri's case, 
implementation of its solvent cleaning rule, 10 CSR 10-5.300, will 
provide for emissions reductions of 8.36 TPD and implementation of the 
Federal Tier 2/low sulfur gasoline rule will provide for emissions 
reductions of 1.59 TPD for combined emissions reductions of 9.95 TPD 
which exceeds the required reductions of 9.47 TPD. In the case of 
Illinois, Illinois has identified emissions reductions of 6.54 TPD from 
OBD, Tier 2, Non-Road Engine Standards and other mobile source measures 
which exceed the required reductions of 4.96 TPD. Therefore, EPA 
believes that both Missouri and Illinois have identified contingency 
measures which will provide for a 3 percent reduction in VOC emissions 
from the 1990 adjusted base year inventory, as required by section 
172(c)(9) of the CAAA.

What Actions Are We Proposing Today?

    EPA is proposing to find that the St. Louis nonattainment area SIPs 
adequately provide for RACM and contingency measures. EPA is also 
proposing to approve the contingency measures SIP submitted by Missouri 
in October 1997, as supplemented by a letter dated April 5, 2001.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve 
preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the

[[Page 20127]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also 
does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this 
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive Order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 12, 2001.
William A. Spratlin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 01-9727 Filed 4-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U