[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4847-4860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1773]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MO 170-1170; IL 216-1; FRL-7444-5]


Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans, and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 
Purposes; States of Missouri and Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area (St. Louis area) has attained the 1-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposal is based 
on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality 
monitoring data for the 2000 through 2002 ozone seasons that 
demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. 
On the basis of this proposal, EPA is also proposing to determine that 
certain attainment demonstration requirements along with certain other 
related requirements of part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
are not applicable to the St. Louis area.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve an exemption from certain 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) requirements as provided for in 
section 182(f) for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. Section 
182(f) establishes NOX requirements for ozone nonattainment 
areas. However, it provides that these requirements do not apply to an 
area if the Administrator determines that NOX reductions 
would not contribute to attainment. Because the St. Louis area is 
currently attaining the ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing to grant the 
Illinois portion of the St. Louis area an NOX exemption from 
NOX reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
requirements. If final action is taken, the Illinois portion of the St. 
Louis area would no longer be subject to these NOX emission 
control requirements. However, all emission controls previously adopted 
by the state must continue to be implemented.
    EPA is also proposing to approve requests from the States of 
Missouri and Illinois, submitted on December 6, 2002, and December 30, 
2002, respectively, to redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment of 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In proposing to approve these requests EPA is 
also proposing to approve the states' plans for maintaining the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS through 2014, as revisions to the Missouri and Illinois 
State Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA is also proposing to find 
adequate and approve the states' 2014 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 
(MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide 
compounds (NOX) in the submitted maintenance plans for 
transportation conformity purposes.
    The St. Louis nonattainment area is located in portions of Illinois 
and Missouri. The Illinois portion of the nonattainment area includes 
Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties (collectively referred to as 
the Metro-East area). The Missouri portion of the nonattainment area 
includes Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties and 
St. Louis City.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Joshua Tapp, Chief, Air 
Planning and Development Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; or, J. Elmer 
Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch 
(ART-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Relevant documents are available for inspection during normal 
business hours at the above-listed Region 7 and Region 5 locations. 
Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an 
appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Petruska, Region 7, (913) 551-
7637, ([email protected]) or Edward Doty, Region 5, (312) 886-
6057, ([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Determination of Attainment and Redesignation
    A. What actions is EPA proposing to take?
    B. Why is EPA taking these actions?
    C. What would be the effect of these actions?
    D. What is the background for these actions?
    E. What are the redesignation review criteria?
    F. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
    1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS
    2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP 
under Section 110(k); and the Area Must Have Met All Applicable 
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D
    a. Section 110 Requirements
    b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas
    c. Part D: General Provisions for Nonattainment Areas
    d. Section 172(c) Requirements
    (1) RACM and RACT
    (2) Reasonable Further Progress
    (3) Emissions Inventories
    (4) Identification and Quantification of Allowable Emissions for 
Major New or Modified Stationary Sources and Permits for New and 
Modified Major Stationary Sources
    (5) Other Emission Control Measures
    (6) Contingency Measures
    e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
    g. Attainment Demonstration
    h. 1990 Base Year Inventory and Periodic Emissions Inventories 
Updates
    i. Emissions Statement Requirements
    j. 15 Percent Rate-Of-Progress Plan Requirements
    k. VOC RACT Requirements
    l. RACM
    m. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
    n. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Requirements
    o. NOX Emission Control Requirements
    3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    a. Emission Controls
    b. Meteorological Conditions
    4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 
Maintenance Plan Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A
    a. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    b. Maintenance Demonstration
    c. Monitoring Network
    d. Verification of Continued Attainment
    e. Contingency Plan
    f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

[[Page 4848]]

    G. Where is the public record and where do I send comments?
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Determination of Attainment and Redesignation

A. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to Take?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis nonattainment area 
has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. On the basis of this 
determination, EPA is also proposing to determine that certain 
attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1) of the CAA), 
along with certain other related requirements, of part D of Title I of 
the CAA, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure 
requirement (measures needed to mitigate a state's failure to achieve 
reasonable further progress toward, and attainment of, a NAAQS), the 
section 182(b)(1) attainment demonstration requirement and the section 
182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement, are not 
applicable to the St. Louis area as long as it continues to attain the 
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing the following actions with respect 
to each state:
Illinois
    EPA is proposing to approve a request from the state of Illinois to 
redesignate the Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area to 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In addition, for Illinois, EPA is proposing the following:
    [sbull] Approve Illinois' plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS through 2014, as a revision to the Illinois SIP;
    [sbull] Find adequate and approve the 2014 MVEBs for VOC and 
NOX in the submitted maintenance plan for transportation 
conformity purposes;
    [sbull] Determine that the attainment demonstration (and associated 
contingency measures) and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
requirements of the CAA are not applicable so long as the area 
continues to attain the NAAQS; and
    [sbull] Exempt the Illinois portion of the area from the 
NOX RACT requirements of the CAA.
Missouri
    EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Missouri to 
redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area to 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In addition, for Missouri, EPA is proposing the following:
    [sbull] Approve Missouri's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS through 2014, as a revision to the Missouri SIP;
    [sbull] Find adequate and approve the 2014 MVEBs for VOC and 
NOX in the submitted maintenance plans for transportation 
conformity purposes; and,
    [sbull] Determine that the attainment demonstration (and related 
contingency measure requirements) and RACM requirements of the CAA are 
not applicable so long as the area continues to attain the NAAQS.
    Although EPA is addressing separate requests from Missouri and 
Illinois, all of the above actions are being proposed in this rule. 
Where applicable, notations have been made indicating items 
specifically applicable to Missouri and those specifically applicable 
to Illinois. In any final rulemaking(s), EPA will consider addressing 
the above proposed actions in either one rule or in rules specific to 
each state.

B. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    As detailed below, EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis 
area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard and has fully met the 
requirements for redesignation found at section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 
for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. The EPA 
believes that each state has demonstrated that the area has attained, 
and that the criteria for redesignation have been met.

C. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions?

    A final determination that the St. Louis area has met the 1-hour 
ozone standard would relieve the states from the obligation to meet 
certain additional requirements, as identified above, which apply to 
areas not attaining that standard. EPA notes, however, that the area is 
likely to be designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, 
and would be subject to any additional requirements as a result of such 
designation. EPA also notes that it is not proposing to revoke the 1-
hour standard for the St. Louis area.
    Approval of the Missouri redesignation request would change the 
official designation for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 
for the St. Louis area, including the City of St. Louis, and the 
Counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis from 
nonattainment to attainment. It would also incorporate into the 
Missouri SIP a plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 
2014. The plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future 
violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC and 
NOX MVEBs for 2014 for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
area.
    Approval of the Illinois redesignation request would change the 
official designation for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 
for the Illinois counties of Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair from 
nonattainment to attainment. It would also incorporate into the 
Illinois SIP a plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 
2014. The plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future 
violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC and 
NOX MVEBs for 2014 for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis 
area.

D. What Is the Background for These Actions?

    With respect to the proposed finding of attainment and proposed 
determination that certain requirements are not applicable to an area 
monitoring attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA described its 
interpretation of the attainment demonstration requirements (and 
related requirements) in detail in its proposed rule on the Cincinati-
Hamilton area (65 FR 3630, 3631-3632, January 24, 2000). In summary, 
EPA interprets the CAA's general nonattainment provisions of subpart 1 
of part D of Title I (sections 171 and 172) and the more specific 
attainment demonstration and related provisions of subpart 2 (section 
182), relating to SIP requirements for ozone nonattainment areas to not 
require the submission of SIP revisions concerning reasonable further 
progress (RFP), attainment demonstrations, or contingency measures for 
areas where the monitoring data show that the area is attaining the 1-
hour ozone standard. (See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 
1996)). This rationale is described in a memorandum from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled 
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995. (See also, the 
proposed determination of attainment for Louisville, 66 FR 27483, 
27486, May 17, 2001, and the proposed determination of attainment for 
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 66 FR 1925, January 10, 2001, for more recent 
applications of this interpretation.)
    With regard to the redesignation requests, under section 107(d) of 
the CAA, the St. Louis area was designated as an ozone nonattainment 
area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November

[[Page 4849]]

15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Under section 
107(d)(4)(A) of the CAA, on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the St. 
Louis area was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area as a 
result of monitored violations of the one-hour ozone NAAQS during the 
1987-1989 period. In a separate rulemaking, EPA is reclassifying the 
area to a serious nonattainment area. However, as explained below, in 
Section I.F.2, the basis for the proposed redesignation does not depend 
on the area's ``serious'' classification.
    Illinois and Missouri have adopted and implemented emission control 
programs required under the CAA to reduce emissions of VOC and 
NOX. These emission control programs include stationary 
source RACT, vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, 
transportation control measures (TCMs), and other measures (see the 
analysis and discussion of specific emission control measures below). 
As a result of the emission control programs, ozone monitors in the St. 
Louis area have recorded three years of ozone monitoring data for the 
2000-2002 period showing that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
    On December 6, 2002, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
submitted a Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the 
Missouri Portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area along with a 
request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
nonattainment area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Included in 
the Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Missouri 
Portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area is a plan to maintain the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS for a least the next 10 years, and the 2014 MVEBs 
for transportation conformity purposes.
    On December 30, 2002, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted a Maintenance Plan for the Illinois Portion of the St. Louis 
ozone nonattainment area along with a request to redesignate the 
Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area to attainment of 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Included in the Maintenance Plan for the 
Illinois Portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is a plan to 
maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for at least the next 10 years, and the 
2014 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

E. What Are the Redesignation Review Criteria?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for 
redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the 
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully 
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable 
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a 
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 
175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:

State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), April 16, 1992 
(General Preamble);
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to 
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. 
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting 
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or 
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

F. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?

    EPA believes that Missouri and Illinois have demonstrated that the 
St. Louis area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard and have 
demonstrated that the area meets all of the applicable criteria for 
redesignation to attainment as specified in Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
CAA.
1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    EPA proposes to find that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 
standard and to approve the redesignation requests submitted by 
Missouri and Illinois for the St. Louis area as meeting this 
requirement because complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring 
data for the 2000 to 2002 ozone seasons (April through September, when 
the highest ozone concentrations are expected to occur in this area) 
demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the entire 
St. Louis area. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in 
accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H, based on three complete, 
consecutive calendar years of quality-assured ambient monitoring data. 
A violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the estimated number 
of exceedances per year averaged over three years is greater than 1.0 
at any monitoring site in the area or its downwind environs, using 
conventional rounding techniques.
    The calculation of the estimated exceedances takes into account not 
only the number of exceedances during a

[[Page 4850]]

given ozone season, but also completeness of data, and daily peak ozone 
concentrations on days in the ozone season that can be assumed to be 
less than the level of the standard. An example calculation of 
estimated exceedances at the West Alton monitor is given below. A daily 
exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during a 
given day is greater than or equal to 0.125 parts per million (ppm), 
using conventional rounding techniques. Monitoring data must be 
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 
recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
    MDNR and IEPA submitted quality-assured ozone monitoring data to 
EPA for the 2000 to 2002 ozone monitoring seasons. Table 1 below 
summarizes these air quality data.

       Table 1.--1-Hour Ozone NAAQS Exceedances in the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri Area from 2000 to 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Estimated exceedances            Average
                                                             ---------------------------------------  number of
              Site name                 County or city and                                            estimated
                                               state              2000         2001         2002     exceedances
                                                                                                      2000-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerseyville.........................  Jersey, IL............          0.0          1.0          1.0          0.7
Alton...............................  Madison, IL...........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Maryville...........................  Madison, IL...........          0.0          0.0          1.0          0.3
Edwardsville........................  Madison, IL...........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Wood River..........................  Madison, IL...........          0.0          1.0          0.0          0.3
Houston.............................  Randolph, IL..........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
East St. Louis......................  St. Clair, IL.........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
=====================================
Arnold..............................  Jefferson, MO.........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
West Alton..........................  St. Charles, MO.......          1.0          1.0          1.0          1.0
Orchard Farm........................  St. Charles, MO.......          0.0          0.0          2.0          0.7
Bonne Terre.........................  St. Genevieve, MO.....          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
South Lindbergh.....................  St. Louis, MO.........          0.0          0.0          2.0          0.7
Queeny..............................  St. Louis, MO.........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Hunter..............................  St. Louis, MO.........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Flo Valley..........................  St. Louis, MO.........          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
St. Ann (old).......................  St. Louis, MO.........          0.0          n/a          n/a      \1\ 0.0
St. Ann (new).......................  St. Louis, MO.........          n/a          0.0          0.0      \1\ n/a
Broadway............................  St. Louis City, MO....          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Clark...............................  St. Louis City, MO....          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
Margaretta..........................  St. Louis City, MO....          0.0          0.0          0.0         0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The owner of the property on which the old St. Ann monitor was located terminated the lease agreement with
  MDNR. The new site is 0.7 miles east of the old site. In general, ambient monitors should remain at the same
  location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. However, when three
  complete, consecutive calendar years of data is not available for a monitoring site, adjustments are made
  consistent with EPA monitoring criteria, in determining the average number of estimated exceedances per year.
  The average number of estimated exceedances for 2000-2002 for the old St. Ann monitor is the estimated
  exceedances for 2000, or 0.0. In addition, where a monitor has been in operation less than three years, the
  average estimated number of exceedances cannot be determined. Since the new St. Ann monitor has been in
  operation less than three years, the average number of estimated exceedances for 2000-2002 was not determined.

    The following is an example of how the number of estimated 
exceedances at the West Alton Monitor were determined: During the 2000 
to 2002 time period, the West Alton monitor was determined to have an 
annual average number of estimated exceedances of 1.0. This value was 
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H, as follows:

 
                      e = v + [(v/n)*(N-n-z)] where
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Variable description                       Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e = the estimated number of exceedances     Calculated.
 for the year.
N = the number of required monitoring days  Missouri's ozone season is
 in the year.                                April 1 through September
                                             30.
n = the number of valid daily maxima......  Days with valid data based
                                             on 40 CFR part 50 and
                                             appendix H.
v = the number of daily values above the    Based on monitored values.
 level of the standard.
Z = the number of days assumed to be less   Based on 40 CFR part 50,
 than the standard level.                    Appendix H, for days that
                                             were likely below the
                                             standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           West Alton Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Variable                      2000     2001     2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e............................................      1.0      1.0      1.0
N............................................    214      214      214
n............................................    214      213      213
v............................................      1        1        1
z............................................      0        1        0
----------------------------------------------
Average Number of Estimated Exceedances =
 (1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0)/3 = 1.0
----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under 
Section 110(k); and the Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements 
Under Section 110 and Part D

Background

    In order to analyze whether the Missouri and the Illinois portions 
of the area each meet these criteria, it is necessary to discuss what 
requirements are applicable to the St. Louis area, and for the 
applicable SIP requirements, the extent to which they are fully 
approved under section 110(k). In a notice accompanying a rulemaking 
published June 26, 2001, EPA explained how the states had previously 
submitted, and

[[Page 4851]]

EPA had previously approved, various SIPs for the area in order to meet 
the CAA requirements applicable to a moderate ozone nonattainment area 
(66 FR 33996, 34001). The EPA incorporates that discussion into this 
notice by reference. In redesignating an area EPA may rely on prior SIP 
approvals and rulemaking actions, and need not reopen earlier issues 
with regard to the SIP. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 438 (6th Cir. 
2001) and Southwestern Pa. Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 
989-90 (6th Cir. 1998). In the June 26, 2001, rulemaking, EPA also 
approved into the Missouri and Illinois SIPs, several plan elements 
which ensured that the states had fully approved SIPs (e.g., the 
states' attainment demonstrations for the area) (66 FR 33996, 34010).
    On November 25, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit (Court) issued a decision in Sierra Club and Missouri Coalition 
for the Environment v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)(``Sierra 
Club''). In this decision, the Court vacated the June 26, 2001, rule 
and remanded to EPA for entry of a final rule that reclassifies St. 
Louis as a serious nonattainment area for ozone. Although the Court 
addressed only EPA's action extending the attainment date for St. 
Louis, the Court's order vacated the other EPA actions in the 
rulemaking as well. EPA has reviewed the other actions in the June 26, 
2001, rulemaking, and proposes to find, as discussed below, that the 
SIP actions vacated by the Court are no longer applicable requirements 
since the area has attained the NAAQS. EPA is also reproposing to 
approve the exemption granted in the June 26 rule to Illinois from the 
NOX RACT requirements under section 182(f) of the Act, since 
the area has attained the NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant 
the exemption in this rulemaking, as discussed elsewhere in this 
notice. In addition, in a separate rulemaking, EPA is reclassifying the 
St. Louis area as a serious nonattainment area in accordance with the 
Court's Order. With respect to the redesignation criteria applicable to 
St. Louis, the following includes a discussion of the effect of the 
Court's action and of the reclassification on EPA's ability to 
redesignate the area.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of the Section 
107(d)(3)(E) requirement. Under this interpretation, states requesting 
redesignation to attainment must meet the relevant CAA requirements 
that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation 
request. Areas may be redesignated even though they have not adopted 
measures that come due after the submission of a complete redesignation 
request.
    The May 10, 1995, Seitz memorandum (see ``Reasonable Further 
Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995) states that certain SIP 
revisions need not be submitted for EPA to approve a request for 
redesignation, since the requirements would no longer be considered 
applicable requirements as long as the area continues to attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. The SIP requirements subject to this policy are 
described as the general provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I of 
the CAA (sections 171 and 172) concerning RFP, attainment 
demonstrations, and contingency measures, as well as the ozone-specific 
provisions of subpart 2 of the CAA. The Seitz memorandum was discussed 
above, in section I.D. and in more detail in the proposed rulemaking on 
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, 65 FR 3630, 3631-3632 (January 24, 2000), 
also referenced previously.
    EPA sets forth, in a separate rulemaking published today, a 
schedule for the states of Missouri and Illinois to submit the serious 
area SIP requirements within one year after today's date. However, 
because the States have already submitted complete redesignation 
requests, EPA believes, pursuant to the policies described above, that 
the serious nonattainment requirements are not applicable, for purposes 
of reviewing and acting on the redesignation requests. Therefore, for 
purposes of acting on the redesignation requests, EPA's analysis 
includes a proposed determination that the area has met the applicable 
CAA requirements for moderate nonattainment areas.
    If the area violates the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to final action 
on the redesignation request, however, not only would the serious area 
requirements become applicable, but the redesignation request could not 
be approved because the area would no longer meet the criterion of 
having attained the 1-hour NAAQS. (Seitz memorandum dated May 10, 
1995.) Furthermore, requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to 
the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request would continue 
to be applicable to the area until a redesignation is approved but are 
not required as a prerequisite for redesignation (see section 175A(c) 
of the CAA). If the redesignation were to be disapproved, the States 
remain obligated to fulfill all of the serious area requirements.
    The following is a discussion of the relevant requirements for the 
St. Louis area. Where appropriate, EPA addresses the SIP actions in the 
June 26, 2001, rulemaking vacated by the Court in Sierra Club, and 
explains its conclusion that each state has met its obligation to have 
fully approved SIPs for its portion of the nonattainment area. EPA also 
identifies the SIP actions for the area which pre-dated the June 26, 
2001, rulemaking and were not impacted by the Sierra Club ruling. (As 
stated above, those prior actions were also discussed in the June 26, 
2001, rulemaking.)
a. Section 110 Requirements
    General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 
110(a)(2) of Title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, 
but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been 
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; 
provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate apparatus, 
methods, systems, and procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; 
implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the 
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD)); provisions for the implementation of part D 
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for 
stationary source emission control measures, source monitoring, and 
source reporting; provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions 
for public and local agency participation in planning and emission 
control rule development.
Illinois
    Review of the Illinois SIP, as codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart 
O, and specifically 40 CFR 52.720, 52.722, and 52.726, shows that 
Illinois has an approved ozone SIP which meets the general requirements 
of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, and which can be considered to be 
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. The SIP, which has undergone 
public review: (a) Provides for the control of ozone precursor 
emissions, including those from stationary sources, in the Metro-East 
area at sufficient control levels to attain the ozone standard; (b) 
provides for continued monitoring of ozone in this area; (c) contains 
provisions covering permitting of new sources

[[Page 4852]]

under PSD and NSR provisions; and (d) where appropriate, requires 
stationary source monitoring.
Missouri
    The Missouri SIP, is codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart AA. If EPA 
finalizes its proposal for the revisions to the Missouri motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, published elsewhere in this 
Federal Register, as described below in the Vehicle Inspection/
Maintenance Requirements, the Missouri ozone SIP will meet the 
applicable requirements of section 110 and part D, and can be 
considered to be approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. The SIP, 
which has undergone public review: (a) Provides for the control of 
ozone precursor emissions, including those from stationary sources, at 
sufficient control levels to attain the ozone standard; (b) provides 
for continued monitoring of ozone in this area; (c) contains provisions 
covering permitting of new sources under PSD and NSR provisions; and 
(d) where appropriate, requires stationary source monitoring.
b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas
    Modeling results generated using EPA's Regional Oxidant Model (ROM) 
indicate that ozone precursor emissions from various states outside of 
the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), in the Northeastern United States, 
contribute significantly to increased ozone concentrations in the OTR 
(as well as to increased ozone concentrations in other states in the 
Eastern portion of the United States). On October 27, 1998, (63 FR 
57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call, requiring the District of 
Columbia and 22 states, including Illinois and Missouri, to reduce 
their statewide emissions of NOX in order to reduce the 
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In March 2000, the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia largely 
upheld the SIP call, Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 
Illinois is currently subject to the NOX SIP call. However, 
the Court vacated and remanded the SIP call as it relates to Missouri.
Illinois
    In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call, Illinois has 
developed rules governing the control of NOX emissions from 
Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and 
major cement kilns. EPA approved Illinois' rules for major non-EGU 
industrial boilers and major cement kilns on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 
56449), and Illinois' rules for EGUs on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56454).
Missouri
    On February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8396), EPA proposed modifications to 
the NOX SIP call for Missouri. EPA has not finalized the 
rulemaking to require Missouri to submit this SIP revision. When 
finalized, EPA anticipates that the rule will specify a schedule for 
submission of necessary SIP revisions. Missouri is not subject to the 
NOX SIP call at this time.
c. Part D: General Provisions for Nonattainment Areas
    Before an area may be redesignated to attainment, it must have 
fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D of Title 
I of the CAA, an area's ozone classification determines the 
requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D specifies the 
basic requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of 
part D establishes additional requirements for nonattainment areas 
classified under Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. As described in 
the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the CAA, specific 
requirements of subpart 2 may override or modify subpart 1's general 
provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). Therefore, in order to be 
redesignated, the states must meet the applicable requirements of 
subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 176, as well as 
the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D.
    EPA believes that Illinois and Missouri have each met the 
requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c), and 
176, insofar as applicable, as well as the applicable requirements of 
subpart 2 of part D of the CAA as described below. EPA is proposing to 
determine that the requirement for a SIP revision providing an 
attainment demonstration to meet the requirements of sections 
172(c)(1), 182(b)(1), and 182(j) is not applicable. In addition, 
although the St. Louis area is being reclassified to a serious 
nonattainment area in a separate rulemaking, EPA believes that the 
serious area requirements which have not yet been adopted by the states 
\2\ are not yet applicable to the St. Louis area until such time as 
they are due. The States of Missouri and Illinois are not required to 
submit the serious area SIP requirements for one year from today. The 
discussion below demonstrates how the St. Louis area has met the 
applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 
172(c) and 176, as well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of 
part D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each state has adopted certain permit applicability rules 
which are dependent on the nonattainment area's classification 
(e.g., the minimum applicability threshold is 50 tons per year of 
VOC or NOX in a serious area as compared to a 100-ton 
minimum threshold in a moderate area). These rules apply, according 
to their terms, as long as the area remains classified as a 
``serious'' nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Section 172(c) Requirements
    This section contains general requirements for nonattainment area 
SIPs. For reasons discussed previously, EPA proposes to determine that 
certain requirements relating to attainment of the NAAQS do not apply 
to St. Louis because the area has attained the standard. A thorough 
discussion of the requirements contained in section 172(c) may be found 
in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 
April 16, 1992). The following discussion summarizes the requirements 
in section 172(c) of the CAA. This is followed by a discussion of the 
extent to which the St. Louis area has met these requirements, and an 
identification of the requirements which EPA proposes to find are not 
applicable to the St. Louis area.
    General Plan Requirements--The plan provisions, to the extent 
applicable, must provide for the implementation of all RACM as 
expeditiously as practicable. At a minimum, the plan must require the 
implementation of RACT for stationary sources. Also to the extent 
applicable, the plan must also provide for the attainment of the 
national primary ambient air quality standards (those standards set to 
protect public health);
    RFP--RFP reflects a steady, annual progress towards attainment of 
the air quality standards, generally addressed in terms of annual 
emission reductions. To the extent applicable, the plan must document 
and provide for such annual progress;
    Emissions Inventory--The plan needs to include a comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the 
relevant pollutant as determined necessary by the Administrator to 
assure that the requirements of part D of the CAA are met;
    Identification and Quantification of Allowable Emissions for Major 
New or Modified Stationary Sources--The quantified emissions must be 
consistent with the emission levels needed to achieve RFP and 
attainment of the NAAQS;
    Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources--The plan 
provisions must require permits for the construction and operation of 
new or

[[Page 4853]]

modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area;
    Other Emission Control Measures--The plan must include enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures and time schedules for 
implementation of emission controls as needed to assure attainment of 
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date;
    Compliance With Section 110(a)(2)--The plan must contain provisions 
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (see the 
discussion of section 110 requirements above); and
    Contingency Measures--The plan must provide, to the extent 
applicable, for the implementation of specific measures to be 
undertaken if the area fails to achieve RFP or to attain the NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date. Such measures must take effect, if 
triggered, without further action by the State or the EPA.
(1) RACM and RACT
    These requirements are discussed below under Subpart 2, Section 182 
Requirements.
(2) RFP
    The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress 
that must be made toward attainment. Section 182(b)(1)(A) sets forth 
the specific requirements for RFP. As described elsewhere in this 
proposal, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret that the Clean Air 
Act provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with 
certain other related provisions do not require certain SIP submissions 
if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is 
monitoring attainment of the ozone standard (i.e., has three 
consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality monitoring 
data) without those provisions being implemented. However, EPA has 
approved the regulations that were submitted by Illinois and Missouri, 
and their respective 15 percent rate-of-progress (or ROP) plans, as 
described below in the discussion of the section 182 requirements. 
These plans were submitted before the 2000 to 2002 time frame during 
which attainment has been monitored, and provided permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions for the St. Louis area during the 2000 
through 2002 ozone seasons (see the discussion under the heading 
``Criterion 3,'' below). These previously-approved SIP control measures 
must continue to be implemented and enforced and are not affected by 
this action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The RFP requirements in section 182(c)(2)(B), relating to 
RFP for serious nonattainment areas, are not yet due (as explained 
elsewhere, they would be due within a year after the 
reclassification), and, in any event, are not applicable 
requirements for the reasons stated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Emissions Inventories
    These requirements are discussed below under Subpart 2, Section 182 
Requirements.
(4) Identification and Quantification of Allowable
    Emissions for Major New or Modified Stationary Sources and Permits 
for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources
Illinois
    The state of Illinois has a fully approved set of adopted 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment area 
New Source Review (NSR) rules, as documented at the following EPA Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm.
Missouri
    The state of Missouri has a fully approved set of adopted 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment area 
New Source Review (NSR) rules, as documented at the following EPA Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/rules/missouri/chap6.htm.
    Both states' maintenance plans for the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area and the 15 percent ROP plans for the area document 
expected additional VOC and NOX emissions due to major 
source growth. Where possible, the states specifically identified the 
emission increases expected by source category. The emission growth 
estimates take into account the allowable emissions increases expected 
to result for each source category. As such, EPA believes the states 
have complied with the requirement for the identification and 
quantification of allowable emissions due to major new or modified 
stationary sources.
(5) Other Emission Control Measures
Illinois
    Illinois' maintenance plan for the St. Louis area indicates 
emission control measures which will maintain the 1-hour ozone standard 
until 2014. In addition, the state's 15 percent ROP plan identifies 
sufficient emission controls to achieve the required rate of progress 
(see EPA's approval of Illinois' ROP plan at 62 FR 37494, July 14, 
1997).
Missouri
    Missouri's maintenance plan for the St. Louis area indicates 
emission control measures which will maintain the 1-hour ozone standard 
until 2014. In addition, the State's 15 percent ROP plan identifies 
sufficient emission controls to achieve the required rate of progress 
(see EPA's approval of Missouri's ROP plan at 65 FR 31485, May 18, 
2000).
(6) Contingency Measures
    In the June 26, 2001, rulemaking, EPA found that both states had 
met their obligations to have contingency measures in the event of 
failure to attain the 1-hour standard. Although that finding was not 
challenged, the finding was vacated in the Sierra Club decision. 
However, because the area has now attained the standard, and for the 
reasons described previously, the relevant contingency measures are 
those necessary to maintain the standard. The contingency measures are 
identified below, and a more detailed discussion is included under the 
discussion of the maintenance plan, in Criterion 4, below.
Illinois
    Illinois' ozone redesignation request for the St. Louis area 
contains a contingency plan for the area that will result in the 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures as needed to 
maintain the ozone standard in the St. Louis area.
Missouri
    Missouri's ozone redesignation request for the St. Louis area 
contains a contingency plan for the area that will result in the 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures as needed to 
maintain the ozone standard in the St. Louis area.
e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    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. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 
U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity''), as 
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general 
conformity''). Section 176 further provides that state conformity 
revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that 
the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity 
requirements as

[[Page 4854]]

not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under 
section 107(d). The rationale for this is based on a combination of two 
factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with 
the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after 
redesignation to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a 
section 175A maintenance plan. Second, the EPA's Federal conformity 
rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of 
Federally approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to 
the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated 
to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal rules if 
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view 
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a 
redesignation request. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 
2001) upholding this interpretation.
Illinois
    The State of Illinois has fully adopted general conformity 
procedures, approved by the EPA on December 23, 1997 (62 FR 67000). The 
State does not have fully adopted and approved transportation 
conformity procedures in the SIP. For the reasons stated above, EPA 
believes the adoption of conformity rules is not a prerequisite for 
redesignation. For the Illinois portion of the area, the Federal 
conformity rules continue to apply.
Missouri
    The State of Missouri has adopted general conformity procedures 
found at 10 CSR 10-6.300, approved by EPA on May 14, 1997 (62 FR 
26395), and has adopted transportation conformity procedures found at 
10 CSR 10-5.480, approved by EPA on September 5, 1997 (62 FR 46880), 
corrected on February 10, 1998 (63 FR 6645).
f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
    For purposes of this redesignation, the part D, subpart 2, section 
182 (a) and (b) requirements for a nonattainment area apply to the St. 
Louis area.
g. Attainment Demonstration
    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires an attainment demonstration 
that provides specific annual reductions in emissions necessary to 
attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. Section 182(j) provides 
additional requirements for multistate areas.
    EPA approved Missouri's and Illinois' attainment demonstrations in 
the June 26, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 33996). This rulemaking was 
vacated in the November 25, 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit (Court) decision in the Sierra Club case (311 F. 3d 853, 862). 
The Court vacated the rulemaking based on EPA's granting of an 
attainment date extension for the area, which the Court found unlawful. 
In its petition, the Sierra Club raised other objections to the 
rulemaking, including EPA's approval of the attainment demonstration. 
The Court stated that it would not reach these other issues, and that 
it expressed no opinion on them. Id. However, because the Court vacated 
the entire rule, the area does not have an approved attainment 
demonstration.
    Although the approval of the attainment demonstration for the St. 
Louis area has been vacated, for the reasons discussed previously, EPA 
believes that the attainment demonstration requirement under Section 
182(b)(1) and 182(j) is no longer applicable provided the area 
continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This conclusion is based 
upon the monitored attainment with the NAAQS. EPA believes that upon 
monitoring attainment, there is no need for an area to take further 
action regarding additional measures to achieve attainment. This is 
consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) 
requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to Title I. EPA 
stated in the Preamble no other measures to provide for attainment 
would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since 
``attainment will have been reached'' (57 FR 13564). Upon attainment of 
the NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts to the 
maintenance of the NAAQS and the development of a maintenance plan 
under section 175A. (See also, the proposal on Cincinnati-Hamilton, 
discussed previously in Section I.F.2 of this proposal, 65 FR 3630, 
3631-32.)
h. 1990 Base Year Inventory and Periodic Emissions Inventories Updates
Illinois
    Illinois has submitted a complete and accurate 1990 emissions 
inventory for VOC and NOX for the Metro-East area as noted 
in EPA's final approval of the emissions inventory on March 14, 1995 
(60 FR 13631). The 1990 emissions inventory has formed the basic 
emissions input for the State's ROP plan.
    Illinois has submitted updated versions of the emissions 
inventories for 1996 and 2000.
Missouri
    Missouri submitted a complete and accurate 1990 emissions inventory 
of VOC and NOX for the St. Louis area as noted in EPA's 
final approval of the emissions inventory on February 17, 2000 (65 FR 
8060).
    Missouri submitted updated versions of the emissions inventories 
for 1996 as part of the ROP plan approved on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 
31485), and for 2000 as part of the redesignation request submitted on 
December 6, 2002.
i. Emissions Statement Requirements
Illinois
    As noted in the following EPA web site for adopted SIP revisions, 
Illinois' SIP includes regulations requiring annual emissions 
statements from major sources. The Web site is: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm
Missouri
    As noted in the following EPA web site for adopted SIP revisions, 
Missouri's SIP includes regulations requiring annual emissions 
statements from major sources. The Web site is: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/rules/missouri/chap6.htm.
    Missouri's requirements to submit annual emissions statements from 
major sources can be found at the above web site at 10 CSR 10-6.110.
j. 15 Percent Rate-Of-Progress Plan Requirements
    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires the submission of a 15 
percent Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) plan. This plan is to provide for VOC 
emission reductions in the nonattainment area of at least 15 percent, 
from the 1990 baseline emissions levels, by no later than November 15, 
1996. A discussion of the extent to which the requirement is applicable 
to an area monitoring attainment of the standard is included above. We 
note that the Missouri and Illinois SIPs contain these provisions as 
indicated below.
Illinois
    In November 1994 the IEPA submitted a 15 percent ROP plan for the 
control of VOC emissions in the Metro-East area. This ROP plan was 
supplemented by the state through a submittal on January 31, 1995. The 
ROP plan, as supplemented, was approved by the EPA in a final 
rulemaking on July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37494).
Missouri
    In 1995 MDNR submitted a 15 percent ROP plan for the control of VOC 
emissions in the St. Louis area. On

[[Page 4855]]

March 18, 1996, EPA proposed a limited approval of the ROP plan (61 FR 
10968). On November 12, 1999, MDNR submitted a revised ROP. The revised 
ROP plan was approved by the EPA in a final rulemaking on May 18, 2000 
(65 FR 31485). EPA's approval of the Missouri ROP was upheld in Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 252 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2001).
k. VOC RACT Requirements
    Sections 172(c) of the CAA specifies that SIPs must provide for the 
implementation of all Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
including all Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as 
expeditiously as practicable to attain the NAAQS. At a minimum, the 
SIPs must require the implementation of RACT for two classes of VOC 
sources. The VOC source classes are: (a) All sources covered by a 
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document issued by the Administrator 
by the date of attainment of the ozone standard; and (b) all other 
major non-CTG stationary sources.
Illinois
    The Illinois redesignation request, submitted on December 30, 2002, 
shows that Illinois has adopted and implemented all required VOC RACT 
rules. EPA, through a number of rulemakings, has approved RACT rules 
for Illinois fully meeting the VOC RACT requirements of the CAA. The 
contents of these RACT rules and EPA's rulemakings approving these RACT 
rules are documented at the following EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm.
Missouri
    The Missouri redesignation request, submitted on December 6, 2002, 
shows that Missouri has adopted and implemented all required VOC RACT 
rules. EPA, through a number of rulemakings, has approved RACT rules 
for Missouri fully meeting the RACT requirements of the CAA. The 
contents of these RACT rules and EPA's rulemakings approving these RACT 
rules are documented at the following EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/rules/missouri/chap5.htm.
l. RACM
    On April 19, 2001, EPA proposed to approve Illinois' and Missouri's 
SIPs for the St. Louis area as meeting the RACM requirements of the CAA 
(66 FR 20122). The approval of the Illinois and Missouri SIPs as 
meeting the RACM requirements of the CAA was finalized on June 26, 2001 
(66 FR 33996). As explained previously, the June 26, 2001, rule was 
vacated on November 25, 2002, by the Seventh Circuit in the Sierra Club 
case.
    EPA believes that no additional RACM controls beyond what are 
already required in the SIP are necessary for redesignation to 
attainment. The General Preamble, April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13560), 
explains that section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all 
nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of RACM as 
expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this requirement to impose 
a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control 
measures and to adopt and implement those measures that are reasonably 
available and necessary to attain as expeditiously as practicable. 
However, measures need not be adopted, and would not be considered 
RACM, if they would not accelerate attainment (see 57 FR 13498, 13560). 
Because attainment has been achieved, no additional measures are needed 
to provide for attainment.
    The suspension of the attainment demonstration requirements 
pursuant to our determination of attainment include the section 
172(c)(1) RACM requirements as well. The General Preamble treats the 
RACM requirements as a ``component'' of an area's attainment 
demonstration. Thus, the suspension of the attainment demonstration 
requirement pursuant to our determination of attainment applies to the 
RACM requirement, since it is a component of the attainment 
demonstration.
m. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
    Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit Stage II 
vapor recovery rules.
Illinois
    The Stage II vapor recovery regulations for the Metro-East area 
were originally found in Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35: 
Environmental Protection; subtitle B: Air Pollution, chapter I: 
Pollution Control Board, part 219: Organic Material Standards and 
Limitations for the Metro-East Are: subpart Y: Gasoline Distribution; 
section 219.583: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities--Storage Tank Filling 
Operations, and section 219.586: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities--Motor 
Vehicle Fueling Operations. EPA approved the incorporation of these 
regulations into the Illinois SIP on January 12, 1993 (58 FR 3841).
    Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA provides that Stage II vapor recovery 
regulations are not required in moderate ozone nonattainment areas if 
EPA promulgates On-Board Vapor Recovery (OBVR) regulations for 
vehicles. EPA promulgated such regulations on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 
16262), which became effective on May 6, 1994.
    Pursuant to section 202 of the CAA, the State of Illinois repealed 
the Stage II vapor recovery regulations for the Metro-East area and 
requested a SIP revision to remove these regulations from the SIP. EPA 
approved the removal of these regulations from the SIP on December 16, 
1994 (59 FR 64853). Therefore, the Metro-East area has no Stage II 
vapor recovery regulations currently in place in the SIP, and is not 
required to have such regulations by virtue of section 202(a)(6) of the 
CAA.
Missouri
    Missouri established a Stage II vapor recovery program in the 1970s 
and has revised the program periodically. On May 18, 2000 (65 FR 
31489), EPA approved into Missouri's SIP the most recent revisions to 
the state rule entitled ``Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading, 
and Transfer'' (10 CSR 10-5.220). This rule fully adopts and implements 
the Stage II vapor recovery requirements in Missouri.
n. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Requirements
    Section 182(b)(4) and EPA's final I/M regulations in 40 CFR part 
51, subpart S require the states to submit a fully adopted I/M program.
Illinois
    EPA approved an enhanced vehicle I/M program for the Metro-East 
area as part of the Illinois SIP on February 22, 1999 (64 FR 8517). 
This revision to the SIP became effective on April 23, 1999.
Missouri
    EPA approved Missouri's I/M program on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31480). 
It can be found at 10 CSR 10-5.380.
    In April 2000, Missouri began testing vehicles under its SIP 
approved I/M program. In April 2001, EPA published revised I/M program 
requirements including the use of on-board diagnostics (OBD) testing. 
These rules are found at 40 CFR part 85. The use of OBD testing was to 
begin January 1, 2002.
    Under EPA's new OBD rule, states were given the opportunity to 
request an extension of one year to implement the OBD testing. If 
requested, a state could delay implementation of OBD testing until 
January 1, 2003. In a letter dated January 10, 2002, the MDNR stated 
its intent to implement OBD testing but requested to delay 
implementation of

[[Page 4856]]

OBD testing along with incorporating a phase-in period. In this letter, 
MDNR requested a one-year delay in implementing the OBD testing, along 
with a two-year phase-in period. Under MDNR's request, full 
implementation of the OBD testing will not occur until January 1, 2005.
    In August 2002, Missouri revised its state rule incorporating the 
requested delay and phase-in period. The new state rule requires OBD 
testing to begin January 1, 2003, but allows for the use of the 
transient emissions test only, for the retest, if a vehicle fails the 
initial OBD emissions test during the two-year phase-in period. EPA's 
rule requires an OBD test for the retest during the phase-in period.
    In a separate proposed rulemaking in this Federal Register, EPA is 
proposing to modify Missouri's SIP by approving revisions to the 
state's Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection rule found at 10 CSR 10-
5.380. A detailed discussion of the revision and EPA's rationale for 
approval can be found in that proposal.
    The regulation at 40 CFR 51.372(c) states, in part, that a 
redesignation request for any nonattainment area that would qualify for 
redesignation to attainment shall receive full approval of a SIP 
submittal if the submittal contains legal authority to implement an I/M 
program, the inclusion of an I/M upgrade into the contingency measures 
portion of the maintenance plan, and a contingency commitment that 
includes the legal authority and an enforceable commitment and schedule 
for adoption and implementation of the OBD program.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c), by incorporating 
the OBD testing program as a contingency into the maintenance plan (the 
OBD testing program is the I/M upgrade required by EPA's new OBD rule), 
and by meeting the other requirements specified in 40 CFR 51.372(c), 
the SIP can receive full approval.
    The maintenance plan submitted by Missouri contains the OBD testing 
program, consistent with EPA's OBD rule, as a contingency measure in 
the maintenance plan. It also contains a demonstration of legal 
authority to adopt the program, and a schedule for adoption with 
appropriate milestones. EPA believes the submission meets the 
requirement of 40 CFR 51.372(c). A more detailed discussion of the rule 
is contained in EPA's proposed rule on the I/M revisions for Missouri 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. Thus, upon completion of the 
accompanying rulemaking approving Missouri's I/M rule into the SIP, EPA 
believes that the Missouri SIP for the St. Louis 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area will satisfy all of the Section 182(b)(4) 
requirements of the CAA. Note, however, that EPA will not approve the 
redesignation request unless it takes final action to approve the I/M 
SIP revision.
o. NOX Emission Control Requirements
    Section 182(f) establishes NOX requirements for ozone 
nonattainment areas which require the same provisions for major 
stationary sources of NOX as apply to major stationary 
sources of VOCs. One of the requirements for major sources of VOCs is 
RACT. However, section 182(f) also provides that these requirements do 
not apply to an area if the Administrator determines that 
NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment.
Illinois
    As part of the June 26, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 33996) regarding 
the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, EPA granted a waiver to the 
state of Illinois from the section 182(f) requirements for 
NOX RACT. The basis for the waiver was that Illinois 
demonstrated that additional NOX emission controls in the 
Metro-East area would not contribute to the attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard in the area. EPA concluded that the area would achieve 
the 1-hour ozone standard without these additional NOX 
emission controls. This conclusion was not challenged in the Sierra 
Club case and was not addressed by the Court. However, the grant of the 
waiver was vacated as part of the Court's action on the June 26, 2001, 
rule.
    EPA's policy on the NOX RACT requirements for areas 
which qualify for redesignation is stated in the September 17, 1993, 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, referenced previously. The 
memorandum states that additional NOX reductions would not 
contribute to attainment if attainment is already being monitored, but 
that such reductions might contribute to maintenance. Therefore, EPA 
stated that it could allow an exemption from the section 182(f) 
NOX requirement, in the absence of a modeling demonstration, 
if the maintenance plan contains NOX RACT as a contingency 
measure.
    The EPA is reproposing to approve Illinois' request for an 
exemption from the NOX RACT requirement. This proposal is 
based on the area attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Illinois has 
included NOX RACT as a contingency measure in its 
maintenance plan. Therefore, EPA believes that it can exempt the 
Illinois portion of the St. Louis area from the section 182(f) 
requirements. If EPA finalizes this exemption as proposed, and 
finalizes the redesignation as proposed, all controls previously 
adopted by Illinois must continue to be implemented, but no additional 
NOX RACT measures would be required. However, if there is a 
violation of the ozone NAAQS in any portion of the St. Louis area, 
Illinois would be required to evaluate, and if appropriate, implement 
additional NOX controls to address the violation.
Missouri
    On May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31482), EPA approved Missouri's 
NOX RACT rule into the SIP. This rule can be found at 10. 
CSR 10-5.510 and imposes RACT requirements for major sources of 
NOX emissions. This rule meets the Section 182(f) 
requirements for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    Based on the analysis described above, EPA believes the area meets 
the requirements for redesignation in Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).
3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of 
the SIP, Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.
a. Emission Controls
    EPA believes that the states have demonstrated that the observed 
air quality improvements are due to the implementation of permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions through the implementation of emission 
controls contained in their SIPs.
Illinois
    Subsequent to the 1990 CAA amendments, Illinois implemented a 
number of emission controls. The area has complied with all of the 
emission requirements for a moderate ozone nonattainment area as 
required by the CAA.
    Some of the emission reductions were achieved through the 
implementation of a 15 percent ROP plan, approved by EPA on December 
18, 1997 (62 FR 66279). The 15 percent ROP plan produced a VOC emission 
reduction of 38.1 tons per day in the Metro-East area, and included 
both Federal and state emission control measures, including the use of 
low volatility gasoline, more stringent Tier I motor vehicle emission 
standards, implementation of a more stringent vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program, controls on area sources, and the adoption 
of tighter emissions limits on existing stationary

[[Page 4857]]

sources. Some of the specific state emission control measures included 
in the 15 percent ROP plan are:

[sbull] Basic I/M for Motor Vehicles
[sbull] Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
[sbull] Low-Volatility (low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)) Gasoline
[sbull] Tightened Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
Standards for Some Source Categories
[sbull] RACT for Sources Covered By New Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTGs)
[sbull] Architectural Surface Coating Standards
[sbull] Volatile Organic Liquids Storage Facility Controls
[sbull] Automobile Refinishing Operation Controls
[sbull] Marine Vessel Loading Emission Controls

    All of the emission control measures contained in Illinois' 15 
percent ROP plan have been fully adopted, have been implemented, and 
are enforceable in the Metro-East area.
    Illinois has adopted and implemented emission control rules 
requiring existing sources of VOC to meet, at minimum, RACT. These 
requirements apply to sources in categories covered by CTGs and other 
major non-CTG sources. Some of these RACT emission controls were 
achieved in addition to the RACT controls reflected in the 15 percent 
ROP plan.
    The stationary NOX source emission reductions in 
Illinois are primarily due to the implementation of acid rain emission 
controls implemented in compliance with Title IV of the CAA.
Missouri
    MDNR explained that some of the VOC emission reductions were due to 
the implementation of Missouri's 15 percent ROP plan, including its 
implementation of a centralized motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program and stationary source controls. Additional 
reductions were due to tighter Federal standards for new vehicles, and 
some were due to requirements for reformulated and low RVP gasoline for 
motor vehicles. In addition, Title IV of the CAA resulted in reduced 
NOX emissions from utility sources.
b. Meteorological Conditions
    In addition to identifying the controls which have led to emission 
reductions and air quality improvements, both Illinois and Missouri 
have evaluated whether ozone air quality improvements in the St. Louis 
area could be attributable to favorable meteorological conditions, by 
comparing the trend of 1-hour ozone design values \4\ to the number of 
ozone conducive days \5\ that have occurred annually from 1989 to the 
present. While ozone design values trended significantly downward from 
1989 to the present, the number of ozone conducive days, which varied 
from year-to-year, showed no significant trend over the period studied. 
Therefore, EPA believes that concentration is not due to changes in 
meteorology. EPA believes that reductions in emissions due to 
regulatory control programs have led to the improvement in ozone air 
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ozone design value is the fourth highest daily peak 1-
hour ozone concentration at the worst-case ozone monitor for a given 
three-year period.
    \5\ The IEPA and the MDNR have analyzed ozone concentrations and 
meteorological conditions in the St. Louis area, and have found that 
peak ozone concentrations are highly dependent on certain 
meteorological conditions. Days are judged to be conducive to high 
ozone concentrations if the following conditions simultaneously 
exist:
    [sbull] Maximum temperatures greater than 85 degrees Fahrenheit
    [sbull] Wind speeds less than 10 miles per hour
    [sbull] Solar insolation greater than 500 Langleys
    [sbull] Little or no precipitation
    [sbull] Southerly wind directions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illinois
    The IEPA assessed the changes in VOC and NOX emissions 
in the Metro-East area for 1990 and 2000 (the first year of the three 
year attainment period). The 1990 emissions are the base year emissions 
taken from an inventory approved by EPA on September 13, 1994 (59 FR 
46920). To derive the 2000 emissions, the IEPA used a 1999 update to 
the emissions inventory. Emissions documented in this emissions 
inventory were grown to 2000 to derive the 2000 attainment year 
emissions. Point source emissions were grown using EPA's EGAS model. 
Area source emissions were grown using source activity levels 
(indicators, such as population, source sector employment, etc.) 
appropriate for each source category grown to the 2000 levels and 
applied using appropriate source emission factors. On-road mobile 
source emissions for 2000 were calculated using EPA's MOBILE6 emissions 
model and 1999 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data grown to 2000 assuming 
a 2 percent per year growth rate. On-road mobile source emissions for 
1990 were calculated using EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model. Off-road 
emissions were grown to 2000 using source sector activity levels and 
growth factors employed in the 1999 periodic emissions inventory 
update.
    The table below documents the 1990 and 2000 VOC and NOX 
emissions in the Metro-East area.

           1990 and 2000 Metro-East Area VOC and NOX Emissions
              [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Source category                       VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         1990
Point Sources.........................................    74.05    95.85
Area Sources..........................................    33.84     1.66
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    43.27    45.13
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    23.49    23.99
                                                       ----------
  1990 Totals.........................................   174.65   166.63
                         2000
Point Sources.........................................    17.91    61.91
Area Sources..........................................    28.32     1.18
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    26.57    54.71
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    21.31    23.85
                                                       ----------
  2000 Totals.........................................    94.11   141.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It can be seen that both the VOC emissions and NOX 
emissions have decreased in the Metro-East area between 1990 and 2000. 
The IEPA notes that these emission decreases are primarily due to the 
application of permanent and enforceable emission controls, and that 
these emission controls have contributed to the ozone air quality 
emission improvement in the St. Louis area.
Missouri
    Similar to Illinois, Missouri compared VOC and NOX 
emissions in 1990 (the base year emissions inventory) to those in 2000 
(the attainment year emissions inventory). The 2000 emissions were 
derived by growing the 1999 periodic emissions inventory emissions. The 
1999 periodic emissions inventory and source growth parameters are 
documented in the state's redesignation request. MDNR developed the 
1990 on-road emissions using EPA's MOBILE5b emissions model. For 
purposes of comparison, MDNR included in the redesignation request, 
2000 on-road emissions developed using EPA's MOBILE5b emissions model 
and MOBILE6 emissions model. Note that the discussion below only 
includes the 2000 on-road mobile emissions derived from using the 
MOBILE6 emissions model.
    The following table presents the 1990 and 2000 VOC and 
NOX emissions for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
ozone nonattainment area.

[[Page 4858]]



 1990 and 2000 Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Nonattainment Area VOC
                            and NOX Emissions
              [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Source category                       VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         1990
Point Sources.........................................    81.97   347.61
Area Sources..........................................    87.74    29.47
On-Road Mobile Sources................................   135.42   135.00
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    64.30   114.32
                                                       ----------
  1990 Totals.........................................   369.43   626.40
                         2000
Point Sources.........................................    46.59   165.96
Area Sources..........................................    57.38    32.27
On-Road Mobile Sources................................   103.79   181.75
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    40.59    73.16
                                                       ----------
  2000 Totals.........................................   248.35   453.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the above table, both the VOC and the 
NOX emissions in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area have been significantly reduced between 1990 and 
2000 (VOC emissions have been reduced by 121 tons per day and 
NOX emissions have been reduced by 173 tons per day). These 
emission reductions are primarily due to the implementation of 
permanent and enforceable emission controls and are primarily 
responsible for the observed improvement in ozone air quality in the 
area.
    The states have demonstrated that the implementation of permanent 
and enforceable emission controls have reduced local VOC and 
NOX emissions. The states have also demonstrated that year-
to-year meteorological changes and trends are not the likely source of 
the overall, long-term improvement in ozone levels. EPA believes that 
emission reductions are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone 
levels, and are the cause of the area achieving attainment of the ozone 
standard.
4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 
Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides for maintenance of 
the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, 
provides additional guidance on the required content of a maintenance 
plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five 
areas: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, 
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a 
contingency plan. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the 
emissions level in the area that is sufficient to attain the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS, based on emissions during a three-year period which had no 
monitored violations. Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that 
future emissions will not exceed the level established by the 
attainment inventory. The ``attainment inventory'' approach to 
demonstrating maintenance was upheld in Wall v. EPA, 426 F. 3d at 435-
37. Provisions for continued operation of an appropriate air quality 
monitoring network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The 
state must show how it will track and verify the progress of the 
maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must include a list of 
potential contingency measures which ensure prompt correction of any 
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
a. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Both Illinois and Missouri selected 2000 as ``the attainment year'' 
for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The projected 2000 VOC and NOX emissions for the St. 
Louis area are summarized in the table above.
b. Maintenance Demonstration
    To demonstrate maintenance of the ozone standard through a ten-year 
maintenance period, both Illinois and Missouri projected VOC and 
NOX emissions for the St. Louis area to 2007 and 2014 and 
compared these projected emissions to the 2000 attainment year 
emissions. The 2007 emission estimates were generated to test a 
midpoint in the ten-year maintenance period.
    The following tables summarize the VOC and NOX emission 
estimates for the St. Louis area for 2000, 2007, and 2014 periods.

   Illinois 2000, 2007, and 2014 Metro-East Area VOC and NOX Emissions
              [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Source category                       VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         2000
Point Sources.........................................    17.91    61.91
Area Sources..........................................    28.32     1.18
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    26.57    54.71
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    21.31    23.85
                                                       ----------
  2000 Totals.........................................    94.11   141.64
                         2007
Point Sources.........................................    21.19    54.34
Area Sources..........................................    28.07     1.24
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    16.31    36.87
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    16.04    19.07
                                                       ----------
  2007 Totals.........................................    81.61   111.52
                         2014
Point Sources.........................................    24.49    62.13
Area Sources..........................................    28.10     1.29
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    10.13    18.72
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    13.26    14.54
                                                       ----------
  2014 Totals.........................................    75.98    96.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Missouri 2000, 2007, and 2014 St. Louis Area VOC and NOX Emissions
              [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Source category                       VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         2000
Point Sources.........................................    46.59   165.96
Area Sources..........................................    57.38    32.27
On-Road Mobile Sources (MOBILE6-based estimates)......   103.79   181.75
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    40.59    73.16
                                                       ----------
  2000 Totals.........................................   248.35   453.14
                         2007
Point Sources.........................................    47.72    149.5
Area Sources..........................................    57.19    34.12
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    74.46   130.55
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    27.91    66.01
                                                       ----------
  2007 Totals.........................................   207.28   380.18
                         2014
Point Sources.........................................    51.73   154.57
Area Sources..........................................    59.42    35.58
On-Road Mobile Sources................................    47.14    68.59
Off-Road Mobile Sources...............................    24.28    58.84
                                                       ----------
  2014 Totals.........................................   182.57   317.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Monitoring Network
    Missouri and Illinois have addressed the maintenance plan 
requirements for monitoring and emissions inventories. Both have 
committed to continue the operation of the monitors in the area in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
d. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Both the states of Illinois and Missouri have the legal authority 
to implement and enforce the requirements of the ozone maintenance 
plan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any 
subsequent emission control contingency measures determined to be 
necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.

[[Page 4859]]

    To implement the ozone maintenance plan, the states will continue 
to monitor ozone levels in the St. Louis area. The states also 
committed to update the emissions inventory for the St. Louis area 
every three years for the duration of the maintenance plan. The ozone 
monitoring data and the updated emissions inventories will be used 
through the states' contingency plan to assure maintenance of the 1-
hour ozone standard.
e. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan portion of each state's maintenance plans 
delineate the states' planned actions in the event of future 1-hour 
ozone standard violations, increasing ozone levels threatening a 
subsequent violation of the ozone standard, and unanticipated increases 
in ozone precursor emissions threatening a subsequent violation of the 
ozone standard. Illinois and Missouri have prepared similar and 
compatible contingency plans, with some differences in the possible 
emission control contingency measures list selected for each state. The 
states have developed contingency plans with several levels of 
triggered actions depending on whether the ozone standard has actually 
been violated after the redesignation of the area to attainment or 
whether a subsequent violation of the ozone standard is threatened on 
the basis of increased ozone concentrations approaching the standard or 
unanticipated significant increases in ozone precursor emissions. Each 
state has also committed to continue to implement all control measures 
included in the SIP prior to redesignation consistent with section 
175A(d) of the CAA.
    The action trigger levels and planned corrective actions in each 
contingency plan are the following:
    A Level I Trigger will be exceeded if: (1) The monitored ambient 
ozone levels exceed 124 parts per billion, one-hour averaged, more than 
once per year at any monitoring site in the St. Louis maintenance area 
(the current St. Louis ozone nonattainment area), or more than two 
exceedances in any two- or three-year period; or (2) the St. Louis 
maintenance area's VOC or NOX emissions for 2005 or 2008 
increase more than 5 percent above the 2000 attainment levels. In the 
event one of these action trigger levels are exceeded, Illinois and 
Missouri will work together to evaluate the situation and determine if 
adverse emissions trends are likely to continue. If so, the states will 
determine what and where emission controls may be required to avoid a 
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A study shall be completed within 
nine months of the determination of the action trigger exceedance.
    A Level II Trigger will be exceeded if a violation of the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS at any monitoring site in the St. Louis ozone maintenance 
area is recorded after the area is redesignated to attainment of the 
standard. If this trigger is exceeded, Illinois and Missouri will work 
together to conduct a thorough analysis to determine appropriate 
measures, from those listed below, to address the cause of the ozone 
standard violation.
Missouri
    The contingency plan for Missouri lists a number of possible 
contingency measures. The plan calls for the appropriate contingency 
measures to be adopted and implemented within 18 months of a Level I or 
Level II trigger being exceeded. The list of possible contingency 
measures in Missouri's contingency plan include the following:

    Point Source Measures--

[sbull] NOX SIP Call Phase II (non-utility)
[sbull] Apply RACT to smaller existing sources
[sbull] Tighten RACT for existing sources covered by EPA Control 
Techniques Guidelines
[sbull] Expanded geographic coverage of current point source measures
[sbull] Maximum Available Control Technology for industrial sources
[sbull] New source offsets and Lowest Achievable Emission Rates
[sbull] Other measures to be identified

    Mobile Source Measures--

[sbull] Transportation Control Measures, including, but not limited to, 
area-wide rideshare programs, telecommuting, transit improvements, and 
traffic flow improvements.
[sbull] High Enhanced I/M (OBDII)
[sbull] California Engine Standards
[sbull] Other measures to be identified

    Area Source Measures--

[sbull] California Architectural/Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
[sbull] California Commercial and Consumer Products
[sbull] Broader geographic applicability of existing measures
[sbull] California Off-road Engine Standards
[sbull] Other measures to be identified
Illinois
    The contingency plan for Illinois lists a number of possible 
contingency measures. The plan calls for the appropriate contingency 
measures to be adopted no later than 18 months of a Level I or Level II 
trigger being exceeded. The list of possible contingency measures in 
Illinois' contingency plan include the following:
    Point Source Measures--

[sbull] NOX SIP call Phase II (non-utility measures)
[sbull] Reinstatement of requirements for new source offsets and/or 
Lowest Achievable Emission Rates
[sbull] Apply RACT to smaller existing sources
[sbull] Tighten RACT for existing sources covered by Control Techniques 
Guidelines
[sbull] NOX RACT
[sbull] Expand geographic coverage of current point source emission 
control measures
[sbull] Apply Maximum Available Control Technology for industrial 
sources
[sbull] Other point source measures to be identified

    Mobile Source Measures --

[sbull] Transportation Control Measures, including, but not limited to, 
area-wide rideshare programs, telecommuting, transit improvements, and 
traffic flow improvements
[sbull] High-enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance (OBDII)
[sbull] California engine standards
[sbull] Other mobile source measures to be identified

    Area Source Measures--

[sbull] California architectural/industrial maintenance coating 
emission controls
[sbull] California commercial and consumer products coating emission 
controls
[sbull] Broader geographic applicability of existing emission control 
measures
[sbull] California off-road engine standards
[sbull] Other area source measures to be identified

    Missouri's and Illinois' submittals adequately address the five 
basic components which comprise a maintenance plan (attainment 
inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification 
of continued attainment, and a contingency plan) and, therefore, 
satisfy the maintenance plan requirement.
f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    In addition to meeting the criteria for redesignation, as a control 
strategy SIP, the maintenance plans must contain motor vehicle 
emissions budgets that, in conjunction with emissions from all other 
sources, are consistent with attainment and maintenance. Illinois and 
Missouri developed MVEBs for the maintenance plan year of 2014. The 
MVEBs are for both VOC and NOX, as precursors to ozone 
formation, and would be applicable for the St. Louis area upon the 
effective date of a MVEB adequacy finding.
    A motor vehicle emissions budget is the total allowable VOC and 
NOX

[[Page 4860]]

emissions allocated to highway and transit vehicle use during the 
maintenance period (highway and transit vehicle use emissions impacted 
by transportation plans would be projected to 2014 and tested against 
the 2014 motor vehicle emissions budget). The rules and requirements 
governing transportation conformity require certain transportation 
activities to be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
contained in emission control SIPs (40 CFR 93.118). The projected 
emissions resulting from the transportation activities must be less 
than or equal to the emissions budget levels (40 CFR 93.118(a)). The 
review of the transportation plan impacts relative to the emissions 
budget will occur after EPA declares that the emissions budget meets 
the adequacy criteria of the transportation conformity rule under 40 
CFR 93.118(e).
    The motor vehicle emissions budgets for the St. Louis area were 
developed using emission factors generated through the use of EPA's 
MOBILE6 model. Inputs into this model were developed through 
coordinated efforts and review of a workgroup formed by representatives 
of the IEPA, MDNR, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, Missouri 
Department of Transportation, Illinois Department of Transportation, 
and EPA.
    EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs included in Missouri's and 
Illinois' maintenance plans adequate and is proposing to approve these 
budgets for conformity purposes. EPA believes that the MVEBs submitted 
by each state are consistent with the control measures identified in 
each SIP, and that each SIP, as a whole, demonstrates maintenance with 
the 1-hour ozone standard.
    The 2014 motor vehicle emission budgets included in the states' 
maintenance plans are summarized in the table below:

           St. Louis Area 2014 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
              [Emissions in tons per ozone season weekday]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         State                            VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois..............................................    10.13    18.72
Missouri..............................................    47.14    68.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Where Is the Public Record and Where Do I Send Comments?

    The official record for this proposed rule is located at the 
addresses in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
The addresses for sending comments are also provided in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this document. Public comments are 
solicited on EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Public comments received 
by March 3, 2003, will be considered in the development of EPA's final 
rulemaking action.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will 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). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve 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 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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. This proposed 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, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: January 13, 2003.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    Dated: January 16, 2003.
Thomas V. Skinner,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 03-1773 Filed 1-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P