[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25442-25466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11524]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IL 216-2;FRL-7496-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, and 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of 
Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has determined, in a separate rule published in today's 
Federal Register, that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (St. 
Louis area) has attained the one-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area 
includes the Counties of Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair in Illinois and 
the Counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.

[[Page 25443]]

Louis and St. Louis City in Missouri. Based on the determination of 
attainment, EPA has also determined, in today's separate rule, that 
certain ozone attainment demonstration requirements along with certain 
other ozone planning requirements of part D of title I of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) are not applicable for the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area.
    The EPA is approving a request from the State of Illinois, 
submitted on December 26, 2002, to redesignate the Metro-East St. Louis 
area (Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties, Illinois) (the Illinois 
portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area) to attainment of the 
one-hour ozone NAAQS. In approving this request, the EPA is also 
approving the State's plan for maintaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS 
through 2014 as a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan 
(SIP); and finding as adequate and approving the State's 2014 Motor 
Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 
and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), as contained in the 
maintenance plan, for transportation conformity purposes. Refer also to 
a separate rule published today (the attainment determination rule) 
regarding similar approvals for the State of Missouri.
    The EPA is approving an exemption from certain NOX 
emission control requirements, as provided for in section 182(f) of the 
Clean Air Act, for the Metro-East St. Louis area. Because the St. Louis 
area is currently attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA is 
granting the Metro-East St. Louis area an exemption from NOX 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (NOX RACT) 
requirements. However, all NOX emission controls previously 
adopted by the State must continue to be implemented.

DATES: For good cause as explained below, this rule is effective May 
12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this rule are available 
for inspection at the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate EPA office at least 24 hours in advance before visiting the 
office. The reference file number is IL 216.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Regulation Development Section, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, 
([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' 
or ``our'' are used, we mean the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Actions Are We Taking and When Are They Effective?
III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
V. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    On January 30, 2003, EPA published a final rule and two proposed 
rules related to the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (68 FR 4836, 68 
FR 4842, and 68 FR 4847). The final rule (the January 30, 2003 final 
rule), 68 FR 4836, reinstated and made effective EPA's prior finding 
that the St. Louis nonattainment area failed to attain the one-hour 
ozone NAAQS (one-hour ozone standard) by November 15, 1996 (based on 
1994-1996 ozone data) and reinstated a reclassification of the area to 
a serious nonattainment area. In addition, in the January 30, 2003 
final rule, EPA established a schedule for submission of SIP revisions 
for Illinois and Missouri to meet the CAA requirements for a serious 
ozone nonattainment area and established November 15, 2004 as the date 
by which the St. Louis area must attain the ozone standard. A 
correction to this final rule was published on February 13, 2003 (68 FR 
7410) which corrected a table entry.
    In a January 30, 2003 proposed rule, 68 FR 4847 (the January 30, 
2003 proposed rule), EPA proposed to determine that the St. Louis area 
has attained the one-hour ozone standard (clean air determination) 
based on complete, quality-assured ozone monitoring data for the period 
of 2000 through 2002. In addition, in the same proposed rule, EPA 
proposed to: (a) approve the requests from the States of Missouri and 
Illinois to redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment of the one-
hour ozone NAAQS; (b) determine that certain planning requirements of 
the CAA are not applicable to the St. Louis area based on the clean air 
determination; (c) approve an exemption from NOX RACT 
requirements in the Metro-East St. Louis area; and (d) find adequate 
and approve Missouri's and Illinois' 2014 MVEBs for VOC and 
NOX, as contained in the States' maintenance plans, for 
transportation conformity purposes.
    In the proposed rule found at 68 FR 4842, EPA proposed to approve a 
revision to the Missouri SIP for the vehicle inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program operating in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
nonattainment area.
    This rule is EPA's final action on the January 30, 2003 proposed 
rule as it relates to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis 
nonattainment area. A separate rule in today's Federal Register is 
EPA's final action finding that the St. Louis area has attained the 1-
hour ozone standard along with EPA's final action on the January 30, 
2003 proposed rule as it relates to the Missouri portion of the St. 
Louis nonattainment area. As noted in the January 30, 2003 proposed 
rule on page 4848, EPA received separate requests from Missouri and 
Illinois to redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment. In the 
January 30, 2003 proposed rule, EPA proposed actions related to both 
the Missouri and Illinois portions of the nonattainment area. However, 
EPA stated that it was considering issuance of two separate rules when 
it took final action on the redesignation requests. We received no 
comments on this aspect of the proposal. With the exception of the 
determination of attainment, EPA is taking final action related to the 
Missouri portion of the nonattainment area, and is taking final action 
on the Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area in separate 
rulemaking actions. Section 107(d)(3)(v) provides, as a prerequisite to 
redesignation, that: ``the State containing such area has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.'' 
This section plainly shows that Congress meant for EPA to evaluate 
whether each State requesting redesignation of an area has met the 
applicable requirements. In addition, each state has authority only to 
adopt and submit for approval a maintenance plan and a revision of its 
SIP that are applicable to its territory. Since each state has the 
authority only to request redesignation for the portion of the area 
within its boundaries, and EPA evaluated each states' request for 
redesignation separately, the final rules redesignating each states' 
portion of the nonattainment area are being published separately. 
However, EPA has concluded that in determining whether or not a 
multistate area has attained the standard based upon complete, quality-
assured ambient air quality monitoring data, EPA will consider the 
attainment status of the area as a whole. Therefore,

[[Page 25444]]

EPA's finding that the area has attained the NAAQS applies to the 
entire nonattainment area, and we are publishing that finding in a 
separate rule today. See 67 FR 49600, July 31, 2002 (Reinstatement of 
Redesignation of Kentucky Portion of Cincinnati-Hamilton area) for 
additional discussion of these issues.
    The history for this action has been set forth in detail in the 
January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4847, 4848-4849), and is 
summarized below.
    The St. Louis area was designated as an ozone nonattainment area in 
March 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Under section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Act, 
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. On January 30, 
2003, EPA reclassified the area to a serious ozone nonattainment area, 
effective January 30, 2003.
    Illinois and Missouri adopted and implemented emission control 
programs required under the Act to reduce emissions of VOC and 
NOX. These emission control programs include stationary 
source RACT (VOC and NOX in Missouri and VOC only in 
Illinois), vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), transportation 
control measures (TCMs), and other emission control measures (see the 
analysis and discussion of specific emission control measures at 68 FR 
4847). 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 one-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    On December 26, 2002, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA) submitted an ozone redesignation request and ozone maintenance 
plan for the Metro-East St. Louis area along with a request for an 
exemption from NOX RACT requirements for the Metro-East St. 
Louis area. Included in this State submittal is a plan to maintain the 
one-hour ozone NAAQS through 2014 and 2014 VOC and NOX MVEBs 
for transportation conformity purposes. The January 30, 2003 proposed 
rule, in part, addressed this State submittal.

II. What Actions Are We Taking?

    Considering the comments on the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, as 
discussed below and in the separate determination of attainment rule 
published in today's Federal Register, we conclude that it is 
appropriate to finalize the actions proposed in the January 30, 2003 
proposed rule with regard to the Metro-East St. Louis area.

A. Determination of Attainment

    In a separate rule in today's Federal Register, EPA has determined 
that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, consisting of both the 
Missouri and the Illinois portions of the area, has attained the one-
hour ozone standard. See section II.A of today's determination of 
attainment rule for further discussion regarding EPA's attainment 
determination.
    Also, in the separate rule in today's Federal Register, EPA has 
determined that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 
172(c)(1) of the Act) along with certain other related requirements of 
part D of title I of the Act, 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 attainment demonstration and Rate-Of-
Progress (ROP) requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state 
attainment demonstration requirement, are not applicable to the St. 
Louis area. The discussion contained in the separate rule pertaining to 
the CAA requirements which are no longer applicable to the St. Louis 
area is hereby incorporated into this rule.

B. Redesignation of the Metro-East St. Louis Area to Attainment

    Although EPA is determining that the entire St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area has attained the one-hour ozone standard, EPA has 
concluded that it is appropriate to take final action related to 
Illinois' request to redesignate the Metro-East St. Louis area and to 
Missouri's request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
nonattainment area in separate rulemaking actions published today. In 
this rule, EPA is taking the following actions with respect to the 
Metro-East St. Louis area:
    1. EPA is approving a request from the State of Illinois to 
redesignate the Metro-East St. Louis area to attainment of the one-hour 
ozone NAAQS;
    2. EPA is approving Illinois' plan for maintaining the one-hour 
ozone NAAQS through 2014, as a revision to the Illinois SIP;
    3. EPA is finding as adequate and approving the 2014 MVEBs for VOC 
and NOX in Illinois' ozone maintenance plan for the purposes 
of transportation conformity; and
    4. EPA is approving an exemption (waiver) from NOX RACT 
requirements for the Metro-East St. Louis area.

C. Effective Date of These Actions

    EPA finds that there is good cause for this redesignation to 
attainment, SIP revision, and exemption from NOX RACT 
requirements to become effective immediately upon publication because a 
delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a 
redesignation to attainment which relieves the area from certain Clean 
Air Act requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate 
effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective 
less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes 
an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section 553(d)(3) which 
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as 
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published 
with the rule''. As indicated above, in the January 30, 2003 final 
rule, EPA reclassified the St. Louis area to a ``serious'' 
nonattainment area and established a schedule for submission of SIP 
revisions fulfilling the requirements for serious ozone nonattainment 
areas. Upon the effective date of this rule, the State of Illinois will 
be relieved of the obligation to develop and submit these SIP 
revisions. In addition, the Illinois rules adopted to meet the 
requirements of title V of the CAA, provide that in a ``serious'' area, 
stationary sources with potential emissions of VOC and NOX 
greater than 50 tons per year are major sources. As such, these major 
sources are subject to the title V permit program and are required to 
submit title V permit applications within twelve months of January 30, 
2003. Upon the effective date of this rule, stationary sources which 
are newly subject to the title V permitting program as a result of the 
January 30, 2003 reclassification of the St. Louis area to a serious 
nonattainment area will be relieved of the requirement to submit title 
V permit applications to the State of Illinois. EPA finds that good 
cause exists for this final rule being immediately effective since it 
relieves the State of Illinois as well as stationary sources of certain 
requirements established as a result of the January 30, 2003 
reclassification to a serious nonattainment area.

III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?

    EPA has determined, in a separate rule published in today's Federal 
Register, that the St. Louis area has attained the 1-hour ozone 
standard. In

[[Page 25445]]

this rule, we have concluded that Illinois has fully met the 
requirements for redesignation found at sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A 
of the CAA for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to 
attainment for ozone. In addition, EPA believes that the State of 
Illinois has demonstrated that the area has attained, and that the 
criteria for redesignation have been met.
    In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4847, EPA described 
the applicable criteria for redesignation 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 
emission 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 of the Act.
    EPA has determined that the St. Louis area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS. EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation 
plan for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area under section 
110(k). EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable 
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable reductions. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for 
the Illinois portion of the area as meeting the requirements of section 
175A. Illinois has met all requirements applicable to the Metro-East 
St. Louis area under section 110 and part D of the Act.
    By finding that the maintenance plan provides for maintenance of 
the NAAQS through 2014, EPA is hereby finding adequate and approving 
the 2014 VOC and NOX MVEBs contained within the maintenance 
plan. The MVEB for NOX in the Metro-East St. Louis area is 
18.72 tons per ozone season weekday. The MVEB for VOC in the Metro-East 
St. Louis area is 10.13 tons per ozone season weekday.
    The rationale for these findings is as stated in this rulemaking 
and the January 30, 2003 proposed rule found at 68 FR 4847.

IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

    In a separate rule published in today's Federal Register, EPA has 
determined that the St. Louis area attained the 1-hour ozone standard 
and that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 
172(c)(1) of the Act) along with certain other related requirements of 
part D of title I of the Act, 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 attainment demonstration and ROP 
requirements, and the section 182(j) multi-state attainment 
demonstration requirement, are not applicable to the St. Louis area. 
EPA's determination that the St. Louis area has met the one-hour ozone 
standard relieves Illinois and Missouri from the obligation to meet 
certain additional Clean Air Act requirements, which apply to areas not 
attaining that standard.
    EPA notes 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 revoking the one-hour standard for the St. Louis area.
    Approval of the Illinois redesignation request changes the official 
designation for the one-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for 
the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area, including Madison, Monroe, 
and St. Clair Counties, from nonattainment to attainment. It also 
incorporates into the Illinois SIP a plan for maintaining the one-hour 
ozone NAAQS through 2014. The plan includes contingency measures to 
remedy any future violations of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes 
VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2014 for the Illinois portion of the 
St. Louis area.
    Approval of an exemption from NOX RACT requirements for 
the Metro-East St. Louis area means that Illinois is no longer 
obligated by the Clean Air Act to adopt and submit NOX RACT 
regulations for applicable NOX stationary sources. This also 
means that the Illinois SIP can be judged to be complete despite the 
lack of such regulations in the Metro-East St. Louis area.

V. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?

    We received 5 letters containing comments regarding the January 30, 
2003 proposed rule. Four of the letters supported the proposed 
rulemaking action. Two of the four letters in support of the proposed 
rulemaking action raised issues to which we are responding in this 
section. One of the five letters contained adverse comments and opposed 
the proposed rulemaking actions. A summary of the comments and EPA's 
responses to them are provided below. This discussion addresses 
comments relating to the St. Louis area as a whole and comments 
specifically relating to the Illinois portion of the area. Comments 
relating specifically to the Missouri portion of the area are addressed 
in a separate final rule for Missouri also published today.

A. Comments Related to Meeting the Criteria for Redesignation to 
Attainment

    Comment 1: The St. Louis area has failed to meet any of the five 
criteria specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation 
to attainment.
    Response 1: EPA's determination that the St. Louis area has 
attained the one-hour ozone standard is contained in a separate rule 
published in today's Federal Register. Further, EPA has found that the 
area has met all five of the criteria specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA for redesignation to attainment. Below are specific comments 
and responses raised by the commenter regarding each criterion. It 
should be noted that, although the commenter generally directed 
comments at issues for both States, Illinois and Missouri, this final 
rulemaking focuses on the Illinois portion of St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area. To that extent, most responses given here focus on 
that portion of the nonattainment area. For our responses relative to 
the Missouri portion of the area, please refer to the separate final 
rulemakings for the State of Missouri also published in today's Federal 
Register.

B. Comments Related to Criterion 1: The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-
Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Comment 2: Monitoring data are not representative of air quality 
conditions. Monitoring data collected during the Labor Day weekend in 
2002 are ``hopelessly contaminated'' due to voluntary emission 
reductions undertaken by industry and others.
    Response 2: See the response to comment 2 in the separate rule in 
today's Federal Register regarding the determination of attainment for 
the St. Louis area. See also the responses to comments 18 and 19 below.
    Comment 3: Monitored data run directly counter to air quality 
modeling.

[[Page 25446]]

The modeling supported the contention that the NAAQS could be attained 
only in 2004 after all control measures are adopted. Thus, the 
monitored ozone standard attainment during the 2000-2002 period is a 
``fluke'' explainable by factors other than the success of the 
pollution control measures. In addition, based on a September 4, 1992 
EPA policy memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni) (the Calcagni 
Memo), the commenter believes that supplemental ozone modeling may be 
necessary to determine the representativeness of the monitored data. 
Without such supplemental modeling, the commenter asserts that the 
January 30, 2003 proposed rule's implicit conclusion that the St. Louis 
area ozone data are ``representative'' is baseless.
    Response 3: See the response to comment 3 in the separate rule in 
today's Federal Register regarding the determination of attainment for 
the St. Louis area. See also the responses to comments 19, 21, 23, and 
24 below.
    Comment 4: The monitored data do not support a conclusion of 
continued attainment since the number of exceedances tripled from 2000 
to 2001 and more than doubled from 2001 to 2002, showing an upward 
trend in peak ozone concentrations. The commenter notes that, if the 
same number of ozone standard exceedances that occurred in 2002 occur 
in 2003 or 2004, the area will again violate the one-hour ozone 
standard.
    Response 4: See the response to comment 4 in the separate rule in 
today's Federal Register regarding the determination of attainment for 
the St. Louis area. See also the response to comment 20 below.
    Comment 5: EPA asserts that the data are ``quality assured'' but 
provided no explanation. EPA must demonstrate that the data are 
quality-assured. EPA must document the adequacy of the states' quality-
assurance plans. In addition, the commenter questions whether the ozone 
data relied on for the attainment determination were quality-assured 
since they were entered into AIRS faster than usual.
    Response 5: See the response to comment 5 in the separate rule in 
today's Federal Register regarding the determination of attainment for 
the St. Louis area. See also the response to comment 2 in the separate 
rule concerning EPA's actions taken to insure the proper monitoring and 
quality-assurance of ozone data.

C. Comments Related to Criterion 2: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 
SIP Under Section 110(k)

    Comment 6: The serious area SIP requirements of the CAA are 
applicable to the St. Louis area. These requirements have not been met 
by the States, and there is no ``claim'' that they could not have been 
submitted with the redesignation request. Thus, the SIPs are not 
``fully approved''. In addition, the Calcagni Memo includes procedures 
suggested by EPA for reducing the stringency of the control measures by 
requiring them to become part of the contingency plan. The states have 
not done these procedures.
    Response 6: The SIP, which is required to be ``fully approved'' 
under criterion 2, is the ``applicable'' implementation plan (section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). This section requires that the SIP must be ``fully 
approved'' under section 110(k) rather than partially, conditionally, 
or limitedly approved (Calcagni Memo page 3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) 
requires the SIP to include ``all requirements applicable to the area 
under section 110 and Part D''. The commenter asserts, without 
explanation, that the statute requires EPA to determine that the 
``serious'' area requirements are applicable to its consideration of 
the redesignation request for the area. However, the Act is not as 
prescriptive as the commenter assumes. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 
426,438 (6th Cir. 2001) which states ``The statute, however, does not 
describe how the EPA is to decide which Part D requirements are 
`applicable' in evaluating a redesignation request.''
    EPA has established a policy to provide guidance in determining how 
to apply the statutory criterion with respect to this issue. As stated 
in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4851), the Calcagni Memo 
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. Pursuant to 
the January 30, 2003 final rule (68 FR 4836), the emission control 
measures and plans resulting from serious nonattainment area 
requirements for the St. Louis area are due on January 30, 2004. Since 
these emission control measures and plans are not yet due, the Illinois 
SIP is not deficient. EPA policy and a reasonable application of 
sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) allow for an area to be redesignated 
without the area adopting measures which are not yet due. EPA has 
consistently applied this policy and interpretation in other 
redesignations, including the Detroit-Ann Arbor redisgnation discussed 
at 60 FR 12465-12466.
    In addition, there is no requirement in section 107(d)(3)(E) that 
indicates that States must ``claim'' that they could not have submitted 
the serious area SIP revisions or any additional revisions at the time 
of the redesignation requests if those requirements are not applicable 
to the area when the requests are made. EPA's action to reclassify the 
St. Louis area to a serious nonattainment area was published in the 
Federal Register after Illinois had submitted its redesignation 
request, and it established a deadline for submission of the serious 
area requirements which has not yet passed. Thus, Illinois is not 
required to include in its request a ``claim'' that the State cannot 
complete the serious area requirements.
    Finally, the Calcagni Memo (pages 12-13) discusses the statutory 
requirement that the State must implement all measures included in its 
SIP prior to redesignation. (In our response to comment 26 below, we 
discuss how this requirement has been met.) This requirement does not 
expand the universe of requirements which are ``applicable'' for 
purposes of redesignation. Unless the serious area requirements are 
applicable, and already contained in the SIP prior to redesignation, 
the discussion in the Calcagni Memo does not relate to the issue raised 
by the commenter. Because the serious area requirements are not 
applicable requirements for the Metro-East St. Louis area and Illinois, 
the guidance in the Calcagni Memo relating to mechanisms for converting 
part D measures into contingency measures is not applicable for the 
purposes of this redesignation and assessment of Illinois' ozone 
maintenance plan.
    Comment 7: The January 30, 2003 proposed rule suggests that a SIP 
meeting the serious area requirements need not be fully approved 
because such a plan is not yet due. The commenter believes that the CAA 
does not make an exception for SIP revisions that have or have not 
become due. In fact, the serious area requirements have, as a matter of 
law, become due. The plans were due by June 14, 1998, and no later than 
May 18, 2002 pursuant to previous EPA and Court actions. The commenter 
stated that the May 18, 2002 date was set by EPA in a March 19, 2001 
rulemaking, and that the effect of a

[[Page 25447]]

decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was to 
reinstate this submission due date.
    Response 7: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Act requires that the 
applicable SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) 
of the Act as one of the criteria for redesignation to attainment. As 
discussed in comments 6 above and 8 below, the applicable SIP for the 
Illinois portion of the St. Louis area is fully approved, and the 
serious area emission control measure and plan requirements are not yet 
due. In making this determination, EPA is not creating an ``exception'' 
to the statutory requirements for approved SIPs, but is determining 
that SIP revisions which are not yet due are not ``applicable'' for 
purposes of sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the Act (for purposes 
of assessing the State's ozone redesignation request). As noted in the 
January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4838, on November 25, 2002, the 
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a June 26, 2001 final 
rule extending the St. Louis area's attainment date to November 15, 
2004, and remanded to EPA for ``entry of a final rule that reclassifies 
St Louis as a serious nonattainment area effective immediately * * *'' 
(Sierra Club and Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. EPA, 311 F. 
3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002)). In response to the Court's order, and in 
accordance with section 181(b)(2) of the Act, EPA reinstated the 
nonattainment determination and reclassification contained in the March 
19, 2001 rulemaking (66 FR 15585), but did not reinstate the state plan 
revision and regulation due date established in that rulemaking. In the 
January 30, 2003 final rule, EPA established a deadline of 12 months 
after January 30, 2003 for the States to submit the serious area 
requirements. The rationale for the deadline is stated in the January 
30, 2003 final rule (68 FR 4838). Today's final redesignation rule does 
not reopen the January 30, 2003 final rule, and comments on the 
appropriate deadline for the serious area requirements are beyond the 
scope of this rule.
    With respect to the commenter's assertion that the serious area 
requirements should have been due by June 14, 1998, this is based on an 
argument made by the commenter in the U.S. District Court and in the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the reclassification 
of the St. Louis area to serious should have been made retroactive to 
1997, with the serious area measures due in 1998. This argument is not 
only outside of the scope of this rulemaking as explained previously, 
but it was also rejected by the Court. (See, Sierra Club v. Whitman, 
285 F.3d, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). As explained above, EPA's determination 
that the serious area requirements are not ``applicable'' with respect 
to this redesignation is consistent with the Act, with the January 30, 
2003 final rule, with applicable EPA policy, and with relevant judicial 
decisions. Additionally, note that the decision made by the Court on 
November 25, 2002 required the EPA to rulemake to reclassify the St. 
Louis area to serious nonattainment effective immediately on the date 
of the rulemaking. The Court did not order the EPA to reinstate the 
reclassification with an effective date contained in the March 19, 2001 
rulemaking, and the Court did not order the EPA to reinstate the May 
18, 2002 State plan due date set forth in the March 19, 2001 
rulemaking.
    Comment 8: There is no ``fully approved'' or even partially 
approved SIP because the June 26, 2001 rule was vacated by the Court of 
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
    Response 8: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. In this rule, EPA is providing a 
response regarding only the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See 
the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation 
of the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to 
this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
area.
    In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, 
EPA described the actions taken by EPA in the June 26, 2001 rule which 
were vacated by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Also, in 
the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850 through 4856, EPA 
reproposed to approve some requirements, and explained that certain 
additional actions vacated by the Court were no longer applicable 
requirements since the area has attained the NAAQS. As discussed in the 
January 30, 2003 proposed rule, the additional actions vacated by the 
Court which are no longer applicable include the contingency measure 
requirements of section 172(c), additional RACM requirements of section 
172(c)(1) and section 182(b), and the attainment demonstration 
requirements of section 182(b)(1). That discussion is incorporated by 
reference herein. See also the discussion in section II.A of the 
separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register concerning the 
inapplicability of certain requirements.
    In the June 26, 2001 rule, EPA took the following applicable 
actions: approved Missouri's and Illinois' 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration; found that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area met 
the reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirements of the 
Act; found that the contingency measures identified by the States are 
adequate; approved the Illinois and Missouri motor vehicle emissions 
budgets (MVEBs); and approved an exemption from the NOx RACT 
requirements for and disapproved an exemption from the NOx 
new source review (NSR) and NOx conformity requirements for 
the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. EPA has 
determined, for the reasons stated in the proposed rule, that the 
attainment demonstration, and RACM requirements, are no longer 
applicable requirements since the area has attained the NAAQS. In this 
final rule, EPA is approving contingency measures as part of Illinois' 
maintenance plan, granting an exemption from the NOx RACT 
emission control requirements, and approving MVEBs for 2014, for the 
Illinois portion of the area.
    To be considered fully approved pursuant to section 110(k), the SIP 
must not have partial approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of 
submittals. EPA is not partially approving, disapproving, nor 
conditionally approving any of the SIP actions contained in the June 
26, 2001 rule vacated by the Court. EPA is fully approving the measures 
submitted by Illinois which are applicable for purposes of section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v), and is determining that the other submissions are not 
applicable. Therefore, the Illinois SIP is ``fully approved'' for all 
applicable requirements.
    Comment 9: EPA attempted to assert that the Illinois and Missouri 
SIPs ``can be considered to be approved''. This is a ``pseudo-
approval'' and an attempt by EPA to escape the simple straightforward 
statutory requirement for a fully approved SIP. This effort by EPA 
fails because of the clear language of the CAA, and because EPA must do 
a rulemaking to approve the SIPs. EPA is also avoiding the requirement 
for judicial review of its actions.
    Response 9: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. In this rule, EPA is providing a 
response regarding only the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See 
the separate rule in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation 
of the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to 
this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
area.
    The use of the phrase ``can be considered to be approved'' (See the

[[Page 25448]]

January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4851-4852) was merely a 
statement that the SIP will meet the section 110 requirements and, as 
such, ``can be considered to be approved'' if EPA approves certain plan 
elements, described in the proposed rulemakings. In the January 30, 
2003 proposed rule, EPA proposed to grant an exemption to the State of 
Illinois from the NOX RACT requirements in the Illinois 
portion of the St. Louis area under section 182(f) of the Act. In 
today's final rule, EPA is taking final action exempting the State of 
Illinois from the NOX RACT requirements in the Metro-East 
St. Louis area. By taking this action, EPA now concludes that the 
Illinois SIP is fully approved. The use of the quoted phrase was not 
intended to escape a statutory requirement. In fact, it recognized 
EPA's obligation to complete rulemaking in order to approve the SIP, 
and it recognized that EPA could not determine that the SIP was fully 
approved and complete the redesignation of the Illinois portion of the 
St. Louis area to attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS until it took 
final action to approve the remaining SIP element (an exemption from a 
RACT requirement, as approved today, eliminates the CAA requirement for 
NOX RACT and moots this SIP element). All of the SIP 
elements which are applicable to the Metro-East St. Louis area for 
purposes of redesignation have either been approved in previous 
rulemakings or are approved in today's rule.
    The proposed rule at 68 FR 4851 states that 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 final 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's decision extensively 
addressed only EPA's action extending the attainment date for St. Louis 
providing its rationale for vacating this action, the Court's order 
also vacated the other EPA actions in the June 26, 2001 final rule. EPA 
has approved all SIP elements that are applicable to the Metro-East St. 
Louis area, and is today determining that others are not applicable. 
This is not a ``psuedo-approval'' of the SIP elements, but a 
determination that because certain requirements are not applicable 
(e.g., the ozone attainment demonstration and RACM), they need not be 
approved. (See response to comment 8 for more discussion.) The 
applicable requirements which were approved prior to the vacated June 
26, 2001 action (e.g., VOC RACT and the 15 percent ROP plan) were 
subject to notice and comment rulemaking and judicial review. The 
measures approved today (the ozone maintenance plan and contingency 
measures, MVEBs, and NOX RACT exemption) have been subject 
to notice and comment rulemaking and this action is subject to judicial 
review. Our determination that certain requirements are not applicable 
has been subject to notice and comment rulemaking and is subject to 
judicial review. The public has had full opportunity to comment on all 
of our actions, as evidenced by the numerous comments submitted by the 
commenter. Therefore, EPA has not avoided any requirement for public 
comment or judicial review.
    In acting on a redesignation request, EPA can rely on any prior SIP 
approvals plus any additional approvals it may perform in conjunction 
with acting on the redesignation. EPA has already taken final action to 
approve all required SIP elements or is approving them in conjunction 
with this final action on the redesignation. Therefore, the Metro-East 
St. Louis area has a fully approved SIP. See the Calcagni Memo, page 3. 
The Calcagni Memo allows for approval of SIP elements and redesignation 
to attainment to occur simultaneously, and EPA has frequently taken 
this approach in its redesignation actions. See (66 FR 53096) 
(Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 
37879) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) 
(Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, May 7, 1996); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 
1995); and (61 FR 31832-31833) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 21, 1996).
    Comment 10: The SIP fails to meet the section 110 requirements 
because the inapplicable ``moderate'' area requirements contained in 
the SIP do not provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 
of the NAAQS; modeling shows that the plan does not provide for 
attainment until 2004.
    Response 10: EPA finds that the Illinois SIP meets the section 110 
requirements. See the January 30, 2003 proposed rule and responses to 
comments 8 and 9 for further discussion. See the responses to comments 
19, 21, 23, and 24 below. See also the response to comment 3 in the 
separate rule published in today's Federal Register with regard to the 
redesignation of the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    Comment 11: The SIP fails to meet the part D requirements of the 
CAA. EPA asserts that certain requirements of part D are not applicable 
because monitoring data show that the area has attained. EPA relies on 
the case of Sierra Club v. EPA for this conclusion. However, this case 
has no application here because it was not a ``redesignation case''. 
Given the attainment demonstration modeling, it would be impossible to 
conclude that any of the ``Part D requirements are not necessary''. All 
part D requirements are applicable unless, prior to redesignation, EPA 
formally exempts the St. Louis area from the Part D requirements.
    Response 11: See section II.A of the separate rule published in 
today's Federal Register with regard to the redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for a discussion of the 
rationale for EPA's determination of attainment and suspension of 
certain CAA requirements.
    The part D requirements applicable to the Metro-East St. Louis area 
specifically include the requirements of sections 172(c) and 176 as 
well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2. The section 172(c) 
requirements include General Plan Requirements which, to the extent 
applicable, must provide for the implementation of all RACM as 
expeditiously as practicable (at a minimum, this requires RACT for 
stationary sources), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), emissions 
inventories, identification and quantification of allowable emissions 
for major new or modified stationary sources, permits for new and 
modified major stationary source, other emission control measures 
needed to assure attainment of the NAAQS, section 110(a)(2) 
requirements, and contingency measures. Section 110(a)(2) requirements 
include: 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 (nonattainment 
area 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.

[[Page 25449]]

Subpart 2 requirements include: attainment demonstrations; 1990 base 
year inventory and periodic emissions inventories updates; emission 
statements; 15 percent rate-of-progress plans; VOC RACT; RACM; stage II 
vapor recovery; I/M; and NOX emission controls.
    As stated in the response to comment 8 above, Illinois' SIP meets 
all applicable requirements, including section 110 and part D 
requirements. As stated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 
4852 and 4853, EPA has approved Illinois' RFP plan, permitting 
programs, and VOC RACT rules as meeting the requirements of part D. 
Illinois' SIP has regulations requiring annual emission statements from 
major sources. Illinois has submitted complete emission inventories, 
which have been approved by the EPA. Illinois has approved general 
conformity rules pursuant to section 176. In this action, EPA has 
approved Illinois' maintenance plan, which includes adequate 
contingency measures. Thus, Illinois has met the applicable part D 
requirements of the Act. Note also that, as stated in our response to 
comment 8 above, by finding that the St. Louis area has attained the 
one-hour ozone standard, the attainment demonstration and RACM 
requirements are no longer applicable requirements. See also the final 
rule for Missouri published in today's Federal Register describing how 
the Missouri portion of the area has met the applicable requirements.
    Neither Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act nor EPA policy referenced 
by the commenter require modeling as a prerequisite to redesignation of 
an ozone nonattainment area. In addition, no modeling was conducted as 
part of the redesignation requests submitted by Missouri or Illinois. 
Thus, there is no modeling basis for EPA to make any conclusions 
regarding the necessity for the Part D requirements. (Modeling is not a 
required element of a redesignation request. See, 65 FR 37879--
Cincinnati redesignation for additional discussion of this issue. (See, 
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d. 426 upholding this interpretation.) However, the 
monitoring data collected over the 2000 through 2002 period show that 
the area has in fact attained the ozone standard. EPA finds no need for 
further controls to bring about attainment.
    With respect to the commenter's assertion that the Tenth Circuit 
Court of Appeals Sierra Club v. USEPA case is not applicable because it 
is not a ``redesignation'' case, the commenter misses the point of the 
case as it relates to St. Louis. The Tenth Circuit's endorsement of the 
interpretation of the Act in ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' John S. 
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 
1995 (Seitz Memo), that certain ``statutory'' requirements relating to 
attainment are not applicable to an area which has attained the 
standard, was not dependent on the fact that the area was not being 
redesignated. The case involved a determination by EPA that Salt Lake 
and Davies Counties, Utah, had attained the ozone standard, and that, 
therefore, certain additional requirements relating to attainment (such 
as an attainment demonstration) would not apply so long as the area 
continued to attain. The Court expressly recognized that the area could 
be redesignated without having met those requirements, even though the 
action at issue there was an attainment determination and not a 
redesignation. The Court stated: ``Recall that the Environmental 
Protection Agency's determination to exempt the Counties from limited 
ozone requirements is really no more than a suspension of those 
requirements for so long as the area continues to attain the standard 
or until the area is formally redesignated to attainment.'' (Sierra 
Club v. USEPA, 99 F.3d. 1551, 1558 (10th Cir.1996)) (See also, 66 FR 
53095 for EPA's redesignation of the Pittsburgh area.) The Court did 
not say, as the commenter would have it, that the area would have to 
adopt those measures which had been determined to be unnecessary in 
order to be redesignated. As it did in the Utah Counties, in which EPA 
redesignated those Counties without requiring that they meet the 
suspended requirements, EPA is here determining that the St. Louis area 
is attaining the standard and that certain CAA requirements do not 
apply. The basis for this determination and the suspension of certain 
requirements for the area was explained in detail in the January 30, 
2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850-4858 and further explained in this 
response to various comments on the issue. The determination is based 
on monitored data, not modeling, for reasons explained in this notice. 
Nothing in the Tenth Circuit case prohibits EPA from simultaneously 
suspending the requirements and redesignating an area, which is what 
this rulemaking accomplishes. EPA has taken this dual action in a 
number of areas, including Louisville (66 FR 53665), Cincinnati (65 FR 
37879), Grand Rapids (61 FR 31831), and Pittsburgh (66 FR 53094). Upon 
redesignation to attainment, the suspended nonattainment requirements 
will no longer apply at all since the area is no longer designated as a 
nonattainment area.
    Comment 12: EPA asserts that the RACM requirements of section 
172(c)(1) need not be adopted because the area has attained the NAAQS, 
thus, these measures would not accelerate attainment. This is 
confoundingly circular reasoning which erases the ``fully approved'' 
requirements of the CAA. EPA's assertion is not relevant here.
    Response 12: The April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13560) 
states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) such that the RACM 
requirements are a ``component'' of an area's attainment demonstration. 
Thus, since the attainment demonstration is not an applicable 
requirement, RACM is also no longer an applicable requirement. See our 
response to comment 8 above for further discussion. EPA has also been 
consistent in this interpretation. See the final rulemaking for 
Pittsburgh, 66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) for additional discussion of 
this interpretation.
    EPA believes that its policy is not ``confoundingly circular 
reasoning'' but rather straightforward reasoning. It is reasonable to 
conclude that states need not develop an attainment demonstration 
showing how they will attain a NAAQS that they have already attained. 
Similarly, states need not adopt additional RACM as necessary to 
accelerate attainment when attainment has already been achieved.
    As stated in the response to comments 8 and 9 above, SIPs must be 
``fully approved,'' as required by section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), only with 
respect to the ``applicable'' requirements of section 110 and part D, 
as addressed in section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act. If requirements are 
not ``applicable'' with respect to those sections, they need not be 
fully approved.
    Comment 13: The RACM and RACT requirements of the CAA are not tied 
to reasonable further progress but are required by the CAA to be 
implemented as expeditiously as practicable. This is supported by H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 223; Sierra Club 
v. USEPA, 99 F.3d 1551, 1557 (10th Cir. 1996); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 
426, 441 (6th Cir. 2001); and, EPA's Seitz Memo, page 4. EPA's 
contention that any additional RACM and RACT measures need not be 
adopted directly repudiates the plain language of the CAA.
    Response 13: This comment refers to both the Missouri and the 
Illinois

[[Page 25450]]

portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is hereby providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See the separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding the redesignation of 
the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) of the Act is defined 
via section 171(1) of the Act as an annual incremental reduction in 
emissions of the relevant air pollutant (VOC and NOX in this 
case) that is required to ensure attainment of the applicable standard 
(here the one-hour ozone standard) by the applicable date. Section 
182(b)(1)(A) sets forth the specific requirements for RFP for a 
moderate nonattainment area which includes a reduction in VOC emissions 
of at least 15 percent from baseline emissions. As stated in the 
January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4854, EPA approved Illinois' 15 
percent ROP plan on July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37494).
    RACM is a general requirement of section 172(c)(1) which calls for 
SIPs to contain ``all reasonably available control measures as 
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions 
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology and 
shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air 
quality standards.'' EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to 
require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could 
contribute to reasonable progress or attainment. See General Preamble 
57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. Thus, where an area has already met all 
applicable requirements for progress and has attained the relevant 
standard, no additional RACM measures are required.
    Section 182(b)(2) specifies the SIP requirements for RACT in 
moderate nonattainment areas. These requirements include implementation 
of RACT at each source of VOC covered by Control Technology Guidelines 
(CTGs) and at all other major sources of VOC. EPA has never indicated 
that the area could avoid implementing VOC RACT requirements because 
the area has attained the standard.
    As stated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4855, 
Illinois has adopted and implemented all required VOC RACT rules. In 
addition, section 182(f) establishes NOX RACT requirements 
for major stationary sources. Under the provisions of section 182(f), 
the EPA is exempting the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area from the requirements for NOX RACT in 
this rulemaking. With the granting of this exemption, Illinois has met 
all applicable RACT requirements.
    The commenter states that H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 2, 101st 
Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 223 does not tie RACM and RACT measures to RFP. 
This document is a recitation of the statute, but does not address 
tying RACM and RACT to RFP.
    With respect to the commenter's contention that EPA's position 
regarding additional RACM and RACT measures being rejected in the Tenth 
Circuit Sierra Club case and in Wall v. EPA, the commenter is 
incorrect. The Wall case involved VOC RACT, which is not an issue here, 
because, as discussed previously, and in response to comment 14 below, 
Illinois has adopted all applicable VOC RACT measures. The Tenth 
Circuit Sierra Club case upheld EPA's determination that RACT was not 
tied to reasonable further progress, and that case did not address 
EPA's interpretation of RACM at all. The commenter's Seventh Circuit 
brief, which it relies on to support its position that RACM 
requirements must be met for an area to be redesignated, argued that 
EPA's interpretation of the RACM requirement (that section 172(c)(1) 
requires only implementation of all RACM which would expedite 
attainment) is an improper reading of the CAA. That issue was not 
addressed or decided by the Seventh Circuit. However, the issue of 
EPA's interpretation of the RACM requirement was raised and upheld in 
the 5th Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-45 (5th Cir. 
2002)) and in the District of Columbia Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA 294 
F.3d 155, 162-63 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Both circuits found that EPA's 
interpretation that the statute only required implementation of RACM 
measures that would advance attainment was reasonable.
    Comment 14: The rulemaking should identify each VOC RACT rule 
implemented by the states and identify whether the states have met the 
VOC RACT requirements.
    Response 14: This comment refers to both the Missouri and the 
Illinois portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a 
response regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a 
separate rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation 
of the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to 
this comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 
area.
    The January 30, 2003 proposed rule states at 68 FR 4855 that both 
States have adopted and implemented all required VOC RACT rules. In 
addition, the proposed rule provided the following Web site which 
contains the content of Illinois rules: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm.
    The Illinois VOC RACT rules for the Metro-East St. Louis area 
listed on this Web site include the following:

Part 219--A General Provisions
Part 219--B Organic Emissions From Storage And Loading Operations
Part 219--C Organic Emissions From Miscellaneous Equipment
Part 219--E Solvent Cleaning
Part 219--F Coating Operations
Part 219--G Use Of Organic Material
Part 219--H Printing And Publishing
Part 219--Q Synthetic Organic Chemical And Polymer Manufacturing Plant
Part 219--R Petroleum Refining And Related Industries; Asphalt 
Materials
Part 219--S Rubber And Miscellaneous Plastic Products
Part 219--T Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Part 219--V Socmi: Batch And Air Oxidation Processes
Part 219--W Agriculture
Part 219--X Construction
Part 219--Y Gasoline Distribution
Part 219--Z Dry Cleaners
Part 219--Aa Paint And Ink Manufacturing
Part 219--Bb Polystyrene Plants
Part 219--Gg Marine Terminals
Part 219--Hh Motor Vehicle Refinishing
Part 219--Pp Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Part 219--Qq Misc. Formulation Mfg.
Part 219--Rr Misc. Organic Chemical Mfg.
Part 219--Tt Other Emission Units
Part 219--Appendices.

    These VOC control rules have been incorporated into the Illinois 
SIP by reference at 40 CFR 52.720. As part of the December 26, 2002 
redesignation request submittal, the IEPA has confirmed that the State 
has implemented all RACT rules contained in the SIP.
    Comment 15: The January 30, 2003 proposed rule concedes that EPA's 
waiver of the NOX RACT requirements for the Illinois portion 
of the nonattainment area was vacated by the Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit. Therefore, the Illinois SIP is not approvable because 
it fails to meet the NOX RACT requirements of the Act.
    Response 15: As proposed in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 
68 FR 4847 and as finalized in this rulemaking, the EPA is exempting 
the Metro-East St. Louis area from the NOX RACT requirements 
under section 182(f) of the Act. This NOX RACT exemption

[[Page 25451]]

is based on the St. Louis area attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS 
without the implementation of these NOX RACT emission 
controls. Section 182(f), and in particular section 182(f)(2)(B)(i), of 
the Act, provides for such an exemption since NOX RACT 
emission reductions in this area would be in excess of those emission 
reductions needed to attain the standard, as evidenced by EPA's 
determination of attainment finalized in a separate rulemaking for 
Missouri also published in today's Federal Register. The rationale for 
the exemption is not the same as that stated in the June 26, 2001 final 
rule vacated by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The 
vacated NOX RACT exemption was based on a modeled attainment 
demonstration indicating that additional NOX emission 
reductions in this area would not be needed to attain the one-hour 
ozone standard. The EPA is not relying on the exemption basis expressed 
in that earlier, vacated final rule, but rather on a new determination, 
based on monitored air quality. Attainment of the one-hour standard 
without the implementation of NOX RACT rules demonstrates 
that such rules are not needed to attain the one-hour ozone standard in 
the St. Louis area. Therefore, the Metro-East St. Louis area qualifies 
for a NOX RACT exemption under section 182(f)(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act.
    Comment 16: As the EPA concedes in the January 30, 2003 proposed 
rule, the Illinois SIP does not include transportation conformity 
procedures as required by the Act. EPA has no authority to waive this 
mandatory requirement for SIPs. Therefore, Illinois' SIP is incomplete.
    Response 16: Section 176(c) of the Act provides that state 
conformity provisions must be consistent with Federal transportation 
conformity regulations that the CAA requires EPA to promulgate. The 
Federal transportation conformity regulations were finalized on 
November 24, 1993, amended on August 7, 1995, and amended again on 
August 15, 1997 (40 CFR parts 51 and 93 Transportation Conformity Rule 
Amendment: Flexibility and Streamlining). On March 2, 1999, a court 
decision (Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 
1999)) rescinded several sections of the Federal transportation 
conformity rule, requiring EPA to revise those sections of the Federal 
rule. Illinois submitted transportation conformity rules on September 
23, 1998. The SIP revision was submitted by Illinois in response to the 
August 1997 changes to the Federal regulations. EPA has not acted on 
the Illinois transportation conformity rules submittal as it does not 
address later Federal transportation conformity regulation amendments. 
Once EPA has completed the revisions to the Federal rule to reflect the 
1999 court decision, Illinois will need to revise the State's rule to 
address the changes.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity 
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating Illinois' ozone 
redesignation request under section 107(d) of the Act. 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 Act continues to apply to a nonattainment area after 
redesignation to attainment, since such an area would be subject to a 
section 175A maintenance plan. Second, 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. EPA has explained its rationale and has applied 
this interpretation in a number of redesignation actions. See 
redesignations for: Tampa, Florida (60 FR 52748, December 7, 1995); 
Jacksonville, Florida (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995); Miami, Florida (60 
FR 10325, February 24, 1995); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31835, June 
21, 1996); and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996). 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld this 
interpretation in Wall v. EPA, No. 00-4010, Slip Op. at 21-24 (6th Cir. 
September 11, 2001). The Court upheld EPA's view that failure to submit 
a revision that meets the part D transportation conformity requirements 
is not a basis to deny an ozone redesignation request. Therefore, the 
EPA can redesignate the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard 
notwithstanding the lack of fully approved transportation conformity 
rules in Illinois' SIP.

D. Comments Related to Criterion 3: The Improvement in Air Quality Must 
Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    Comment 17: The St. Louis area cannot meet this requirement since 
there is not an approved SIP meeting the ``serious'' area requirements, 
and there is no applicable implementation plan.
    Response 17: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    As described in the response to comments for Criterion (2) above, 
the Illinois SIP meets the applicable CAA requirements. The applicable 
SIP requirements are described in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule 
(68 FR 4850-4856). EPA's approval of previous SIP submittals and this 
rulemaking, which grants Illinois an exemption from the NOX 
RACT requirements, render Illinois' SIP ``fully approved'' for all 
applicable SIP requirements. As stated in response to comments 7 and 8 
above, since the serious area requirements are not yet due, the SIP is 
not deficient even though the serious area requirements have not been 
included.
    In any event, this criterion is not dependent on which requirements 
are applicable or have been approved or implemented. The requirement is 
that air quality improvements be attributable to permanent and 
enforceable emissions reductions, which is a separable inquiry from the 
question of the requirements applicable to the area. Illinois' December 
26, 2002 submission contains a detailed analysis of the air quality 
improvements in the St. Louis area and their relation to the emission 
reductions resulting from the permanent and enforceable emission 
control measures which are in place in the St. Louis area. (See 
response to comment 19 below for further discussion.) These measures 
and resulting emissions changes are listed in the January 30, 2003 
proposed rule at 68 FR 4856-4858. These measures are all part of the 
applicable SIP. Thus, the commenter is incorrect in its assertion that 
there is no applicable SIP.
    Comment 18: It is impossible to demonstrate that monitored 
concentrations during and after the 2002 Labor Day weekend resulted 
from permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. The emissions 
reductions were due to voluntary curtailment of operations by large 
industrial operations.
    Response 18: The monitoring data for the St. Louis nonattainment 
area demonstrate that the estimated number of exceedances per year 
averaged over three years is 1.0 or less at all monitoring sites in the 
area. EPA

[[Page 25452]]

believes that any voluntary measures taken by industry and others over 
a two or three day period in this three year time period does not 
render the air quality monitoring data unrepresentative of the air 
quality. As explained in more detail in response to comment 19 below, 
ozone levels monitored during 2000-2002 are due to permanent and 
enforceable emission control measures which are in place (e.g. I/M 
programs, RACT on VOC stationary sources).
    In the event that some sources did voluntarily reduce emissions 
over this two or three day period, EPA has no basis to conclude that 
these voluntary reductions had a significant effect on the monitored 
air quality. As the commenter points out, ozone formation occurs 
through ``complex chemistry and meteorology''. Voluntary reductions 
over a short time period may or may not have had an impact on the 
monitored air quality. (We note that ``voluntary'' reductions are 
always a factor, since total emissions at a given point in time depend, 
for example, on how many people decide to drive on a given day or 
weekend). However, the State's demonstration that air quality 
improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions 
is based on its analysis of emission reductions over a ten-year period 
(see response to comment 19), consistent with the guidance in the 
Calcagni Memo at page 4.
    Note that in general, EPA encourages voluntary reductions to reduce 
emissions. EPA supports programs such as the Air Quality Index which 
encourages people to voluntarily reduce ozone forming activities such 
as filling gas tanks, painting, mowing, etc. at times when ozone 
formation is expected to be high. Although these measures are not 
enforceable nor measurable, they are encouraged. In addition, EPA does 
not believe that Congress intended, in enacting section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the Act, that communities and states, acting to 
protect the health of their residents, should be ineligible for 
redesignation merely because they encourage voluntary ozone precursor 
emission reductions during periods when ozone concentrations may be 
high.
    Comment 19: EPA cannot demonstrate that permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions are responsible for any alleged improvement of air 
quality. The only way to demonstrate this point is through 
photochemical grid modeling. No such modeling has been presented. 
Without modeling, EPA's claim is pure speculation. Emission reductions 
attributable to the emission controls ``could just as easily lead to 
increases in ozone concentrations.'' The attainment demonstration 
modeling shows that attainment was ``impossible'' in 2003.
    Response 19: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    EPA's response to this and other comments on the attainment 
demonstration modeling is included in the response to comments 21 and 
24 below. In addition, see Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) and our 
response to comment 23 for further discussion regarding the use of 
modeling in demonstrating maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Neither section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the Act nor the Calcagni Memo 
referenced by the commenter require modeling as a prerequisite to 
redesignation of an ozone nonattainment area. Thus, modeling is not a 
necessary prerequisite for demonstrating that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions. See the General 
Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 
1990, (57 FR 13496) (April 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 
(April 28, 1992); ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, September 4, 1992; ``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,'' Michael H. 
Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro Memo); and ``Use of Actual Emissions in 
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' D. 
Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 
30, 1993. Our policies provide that an area may meet this requirement 
by showing how its ozone precursor emissions changed due to permanent 
and enforceable emissions reductions from when the area was not 
monitoring attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to when it reached 
attainment. See the rationale set forth in the Cincinnati redesignation 
(65 FR 37879, 37886-37889) (June 19, 2000) and the Pittsburgh 
redesignation (66 FR 53094) (October 19, 2001). The Court of Appeals 
for the Sixth Circuit has recently upheld EPA's interpretation in Wall 
v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435).
    In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4856-4858, EPA 
explains the basis for concluding that the observed air quality 
improvements are due to the implementation of permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions. The reasons cited include: emission controls which 
have resulted in emission reductions; an analysis of meteorological 
conditions which has shown a downward trend in ozone design values 
while the annual number of days conductive to forming high ozone 
concentrations showed no significant trend between 1989 and 2002; and 
an assessment of emissions in 1990 and 2000 which has shown a 
substantial decrease in emissions of VOC and NOX.
    Annual days conducive to ozone formation (those days with 
relatively clear skies, low wind speeds and southerly wind directions, 
high peak temperatures exceeding 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and little or 
no precipitation) have shown no noticeable trend up or down, only 
relatively random year-to-year variations. The annual number of ozone 
conducive days have stayed between approximately 20 and 50, with no 
consistent increasing or decreasing trend. Meanwhile, annual site-
exceedances have decreased from over 120 in 1978, over 100 in 1983, 
over 60 in 1988, to a total of 11 in the three year period of 2000 to 
2002, showing a significant downward trend and steadily improving peak 
ozone levels. In addition, the year-to-year fluctuation of annual 
conducive days cannot be correlated with higher or lower ozone 
exceedance levels over the last few years. Since 1989, as the annual 
number of conducive days fluctuated from year-to-year with no 
significant long term trend, the number of exceedances demonstrated a 
significant long term downward trend. This indicates a disassociation 
between monitored exceedances and meteorological effects.
    During the 1990-2000 period, as the area-wide worst-case three year 
ozone design values (see our response to comment 20 for further 
discussion of the area's ozone design values) in the St. Louis area 
were decreasing, the VOC and NOX emissions in the St. Louis 
area were also significantly decreasing in a downward trend. The 
following tables list VOC and NOX emissions in 1990 and 2000 
for the Missouri and Illinois portions of the St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment area. Both sections of the nonattainment area have 
experienced a

[[Page 25453]]

downward trend in VOC and NOX emissions. The downward trend 
in emissions and ozone design values with no significant trends in days 
conducive to ozone formation implies that observed improvements in air 
quality are due to the implementation of permanent and enforceable 
emission control measures.

 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........................    135.421     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           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...............................    174.651     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reductions in VOC and NOX emissions have brought many 
areas across the Country into attainment. EPA has approved many ozone 
redesignations showing decreases in ozone precursor emissions resulting 
in attainment of the ozone standard. See redesignations for Charleston 
(59 FR 30326, June 13, 1994; 59 FR 45985, September 6, 1994), 
Greenbrier County (60 FR 39857, August 4, 1995), Parkersburg (59 FR 
29977, June 10, 1994); (59 FR 45978, September 6, 1994), Jacksonville/
Duval County (60 FR 41, January 3, 1995), Miami/Southeast Florida (60 
FR 10325, February 24, 1995), Tampa (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995), 
Lexington (60 FR 47089, September 11, 1995), Owensboro (58 FR 47391, 
September 9, 1993), Indianapolis (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 
54391, October 31, 1994), South Bend-Elkhart (59 FR 35044, July 8, 
1994; 59 FR 54391, October 31, 1994), Evansville (62 FR 12137, March 
14, 1997; 62 FR 64725, December 9, 1997), Canton (61 FR 3319, January 
31, 1996), Youngstown-Warren (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996), Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain (60 FR 31433, June 15, 1995; 61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996), 
Clinton County (60 FR 22337, May 5, 1995; 61 FR 11560, March 21, 1996), 
Columbus (61 FR 3591, February 1, 1996), Kewaunee County (61 FR 29508, 
June 11, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Walworth County (61 FR 
28541, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 43668, August 26, 1996), Point Coupee Parish 
(61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996; 62 FR 648, January 6, 1997), and Monterey 
Bay (62 FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most of the areas that have been 
redesignated to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard have 
continued to attain it. Areas that are not maintaining the one-hour 
ozone standard have maintenance plans to bring them back into 
attainment.
    Between 1990 and 2000, area-wide VOC and NOX emissions 
in the St. Louis area decreased by 37 percent and 25 percent, 
respectively (46 percent and 25 percent, respectively, in Metro-East 
St. Louis). These emissions reductions are due to 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, adoption of 
tighter emissions limits on existing stationary sources, and 
requirements for the use of reformulated and low RVP gasoline in motor 
vehicles. Some of the specific emission control measures implemented in 
the Metro-East St. Louis area include:
    [sbull] Basic and Enhanced 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

[[Page 25454]]

    [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.
    The commenter claims that the combination of NOX and VOC 
emissions reductions could just as easily have led to increases in 
ozone. However, the actual monitoring data collected in the area show 
that ambient ozone concentrations have dropped when this combination of 
ozone precursor emission reductions occurred. In other metropolitan 
areas, other levels of VOC and NOX reductions have also 
resulted in attainment. See the redesignation rules listed above in the 
first part of this response. The St Louis area's decrease in ozone 
levels is consistent with what other areas have experienced when ozone 
precursor emissions have been reduced. The commenter has not provided 
data showing that decreases in ozone precursor emissions have led to 
higher levels of ozone. In fact, the available data (as discussed in 
the January 30, 2003 proposed rule) for the St. Louis area prove just 
the opposite. Decreases in VOC and NOX emissions in the St. 
Louis area are associated with a decrease in peak ozone levels. There 
is no reason to assume that future reductions in VOC and NOX 
emissions will cause just the opposite effect. Therefore, it is 
appropriate for the EPA to assume that future reductions in VOC and 
NOX emissions will lead to lower peak ozone concentrations.
    EPA's conclusion that improvements in air quality are attributable 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in precursors is not 
``speculation'' but is based on a careful review of the various 
technical analyses conducted by the States and described above. EPA 
believes it is reasonable not to require photochemical grid modeling. 
Three-year averaging of annual exceedance rates addresses variations in 
meteorological conditions. Analysis of meteorological conditions showed 
no significant trend in the number of days conducive to ozone 
formation, and the commenter has presented no evidence that the three 
year attainment period was unusually favorable. It is important to note 
that, redesignation is not intended as an absolute guarantee that the 
area will never monitor future standard violations. This is what 
maintenance plan contingency measures are designed to address and 
correct. See Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886-37889) (June 
19, 2000) and the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 53094) (October 19, 
2001).
    Comment 20: If improvements in St. Louis air quality were due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions, the trend in monitored 
concentrations would be to go down. However, exceedances tripled from 
2000 to 2001 and more than doubled from 2001 to 2002.
    Response 20: 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. Although there was an 
increase in the number of exceedances between 2000 and 2001 as well as 
between 2001 and 2002, year-to-year trends in exceedances are not used 
to determine attainment, but rather an average over three years at each 
monitoring site is used. As noted in a separate rulemaking published in 
today's Federal Register, EPA has determined that the St. Louis area is 
in attainment with the NAAQS.
    As indicated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4850, 
Table 1 Summarizes the number of expected exceedances at each monitor 
in the area.

       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 state                                      estimated
                                                                       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
  the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 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.


[[Page 25455]]

    The area has monitored attainment for the three year period from 
2000-2002. This indicates that the current level of emissions is 
adequate to keep the St. Louis area in attainment. In addition, the Act 
does not presume that the area will always be in attainment. The Act 
provides that, if the area were to violate the 1-hour ozone standard, 
then the contingency measures in the maintenance plan would be 
triggered. This would reduce the ozone precursor emissions and bring 
the area back into attainment.
    One exceedance was monitored in the area in 2000, three in 2001, 
and seven in 2002. EPA notes that when dealing with numbers as small as 
one exceedance in 2000, any subsequent increase in the number of 
exceedances will result in the number of exceedances being at least 
doubled. Thus, citing a doubling or tripling of exceedances is not 
necessarily an indicator of significant changes in air quality.
    The one-hour ozone NAAQS is based on a three-year average. For a 
violation, the estimated number of exceedances per year must exceed 1.0 
at any monitoring site. Under this standard, a monitor may record up to 
three exceedances over a three-year period without causing a violation 
of the standard. The fourth-highest monitored level at a monitor over a 
three-year period can be used as an indicator of potential violations 
of the NAAQS. (Note that since other factors, such as missing data, can 
affect the calculation of the estimated number of exceedances, the 
fourth highest monitored value is not solely used to determine a 
violation. See the discussion in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 
68 FR 4849 and 4850 for an example of how the number of estimated 
exceedances is determined.) The term ``design value'' is used to refer 
to the fourth highest monitored value in a three year period. For an 
individual monitor, the design value is the fourth-highest monitored 
value in a three-year period. For an area such as the St. Louis area, 
the highest of the individual monitor design values over a three-year 
period is referred to as the ``area's design value''. The lower an 
area's design value the more likely the area will meet the standard. 
Also, an area's design value which decreases over time indicates that 
the monitored ozone concentrations are generally lowering and the air 
quality is improving.
    The St. Louis area's design value decreased as follows:
    0.156 parts per million (ppm) in 1987--1989 (see 52 FR 13385--13386 
dated March 18, 1999); 0.136 ppm in 1994--1996 (see 53 FR 15581 dated 
March 19, 2001); 0.131 ppm in 1996--1998 (see 53 FR 15583 dated March 
19, 2001); 0.127 ppm in 1998--2000 (see 53 FR 15584 dated March 19, 
2001), and, 0.123 ppm in 2000--2002. This indicates that the monitored 
air quality improved over this time period.
    In the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4856--4858, and in 
the response to comment 19, EPA explains the basis for concluding that 
the observed air quality improvements are due to the implementation of 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The reasons cited 
include emission controls which have resulted in emission reductions, 
an analysis of meteorological conditions which has shown a trend in the 
reduction of ozone from 1989 to the present while the number of days 
conducive to forming ozone showed no significant trend, and an 
assessment of emissions in 1990 and 2000 which have shown substantial 
decreases in emissions of VOCs and NOX.
    Finally, it is noted that the commenter errs in totalling the 
exceedance numbers from many monitors for each year and concluding, on 
the basis of the exceedance totals that a worsening ozone trend has 
occurred. Referring to Table 1 in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule 
(68 FR 4850) (repeated above), one can see that many monitors, 
including the worst-case monitor at West Alton, show no consistent 
trend in exceedance numbers in the 2000-2002 period on a monitor-
specific basis. The ``sudden'' increase in exceedances from zero to two 
at the Orchard Farm and South Lindbergh monitoring sites, although 
implying a worsening ozone trend, simply point to the instability of 
considering year-to-year changes within a small time period.
    Comment 21: The only modeling which the commenter is aware of was 
relied upon in the June 26, 2001 rulemaking. This modeling shows that 
it is impossible to attain the NAAQS in St. Louis in 2002. The 
significant factor is long range transport. This suggests that 
variations in out-of-state transport may account for the monitored 
improvements in air quality.
    Response 21: Previous modeling referenced by the commenter was 
conducted as part of the attainment demonstration approved by EPA in 
the June 26, 2001 rulemaking (66 FR 33995). (This approval was vacated 
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as explained 
previously.) This modeling demonstrated that utilizing planned controls 
and measures, the area will attain the standard by no later than 
November 15, 2004. EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that 
the modeling demonstrated it was impossible to attain the standard in 
2002. The purpose of the modeling was to determine the likelihood of 
attainment. EPA's approval of the States' attainment demonstrations did 
not include a determination that attainment or maintenance of the 
standard prior to 2004 was impossible.
    The assumptions used in the modeling for the attainment 
demonstration approved in the June 26, 2001 rulemaking are described in 
an April 3, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 17649-52). In this discussion, 
EPA noted that the States incorporated corrections to the 1996 base 
year emissions inventory, documented an assessment of the model's 
performance by applying statistical tests, and discussed assumptions 
regarding which states are affected by the NOX SIP call 
including NOX limits on facilities.
    As discussed in the April 2001 notice, the States had taken 
measures to revise the emissions inventory to reflect the most current 
data inputs available. In addition, an evaluation of the model was 
performed as a measure of the ``likelihood'' that the standard will be 
achieved. The June 26, 2001 rulemaking at 66 FR 17652 states:

    The states conclude, and EPA concurs, that the revised modeling 
system performs at an acceptable level because it satisfactorily 
reproduces peak ozone concentrations relative to the monitored peak 
ozone concentrations. The modeling system adequately simulates the 
observed magnitude and spatial and temporal patterns of monitored 
ozone concentrations. Furthermore, the modeling results accurately 
differentiate between days with marginal ozone levels and days with 
elevated ozone concentrations. Therefore, based on the revised 
modeling and WOE results presented by the states which confirm the 
adequacy of the adopted emission control strategy, EPA is approving 
the states' attainment demonstrations.

    The conclusions made regarding the likelihood of attainment based 
upon the attainment demonstration modeling were the best that could be 
drawn from the available information. It is likely that different 
conclusions regarding attainment would be drawn if the State's were 
required to conduct modeling as part of the maintenance demonstration. 
For example, if a prospective maintenance demonstration were performed 
with an ozone photochemical model following EPA guidance, the modeling 
would be allowed to use episode days from the 2000-2002 period, not 
1991 and 1995 as was used in the attainment demonstration modeling. It 
is highly likely, if not certain, that the outcome would be a 
conclusion that attainment will be

[[Page 25456]]

preserved through the required 10-year period.
    Ozone models are designed to primarily predict the relative impacts 
of emission changes on future ozone levels. Thus, it is not uncommon to 
observe that actual monitored ozone concentrations are different than 
modeled values at certain locations. The commenter's assertion that 
attaining the standard in 2002 is impossible is not supported by the 
existing science.
    The commenter does not provide data to support its hypotheseis that 
variations in out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in 
air quality. The commenter only speculates that out-of-state transport 
may account for the improvement in air quality. As described in the 
response to comments 19 and 20 above, the States demonstrated that 
improvements in air quality are due to emission controls which have 
resulted in emission reductions, an analysis of meteorological 
conditions which has shown no significant decrease in the annual number 
of days conducive to ozone formation while there has been a significant 
reduction in monitored ozone concentrations, and an assessment of 
emissions in 1990 and 2000 which have shown decreased emissions of VOCs 
and NOX. Thus, the states have demonstrated that the air 
quality improvements in the St. Louis area are due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions in the St. Louis area.

E. Comments Related to Criterion 4: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 
Maintenance Plan Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A

    Comment 22: Under section 175A(a) of the Act, the state maintenance 
plans must be a SIP revision. Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires 
a SIP to contain enforceable emission limitations. The maintenance plan 
for each State does not include any enforceable emission limitations.
    Response 22: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding the redesignation of 
the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    The Act requires the area to have a fully approved SIP and to have 
met all of the applicable requirements of the Act. The Illinois SIP 
satisfies this requirement as described in EPA's proposed rulemaking 
published on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847). The measures that the State 
relies on to maintain the one-hour ozone standard (the emission 
controls which have been previously implemented plus the statewide 
NOX emission control rules now being implemented) have been 
approved into the SIP and are State and Federally enforceable. This 
includes Illinois' statewide NOX rules, approved by the EPA 
on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56449 and 66 FR 56454). The State must 
continue to implement these measures as provided for in the Federally 
approved SIP.
    The Act does not require a separate level of enforcement for a 
maintenance plan as a prerequisite to redesignation. The enforcement 
program approved for and applicable to the SIP as a whole also applies 
to the maintenance plan. See discussion in the Cincinnati redesignation 
(65 FR 37879, 37881-37882), and Sixth Circuit decision in Wall v. EPA, 
supra, at 20-21, upholding EPA's interpretation of the requirement.
    All of the control measures which the State relied on to attain and 
maintain the one-hour ozone standard are SIP-approved measures. EPA 
cannot withhold its approval of the maintenance plan submitted by 
Illinois because of concerns that the State may, at some future time, 
either submit a SIP revision to amend or remove a program, or that the 
State may fail to implement these programs in the Metro-East St. Louis 
area. The Federally approved SIP requirements remain in place, and 
remain enforceable until such time as EPA takes action to approve SIP 
revisions to amend or remove them. This can only be done via Federal 
rulemaking, which includes procedures for public comment and review.
    Comment 23: Section 182(j), 40 CFR 51.112(b), the Calcagni Memo, 
and the General Preamble require the use of photochemical modeling to 
demonstrate maintenance. EPA is overruling Congress, EPA regulations, 
and common sense by proposing to predict maintenance for ten years 
without any modeling. Monitoring is more accurate to show past 
concentrations, but modeling is required to predict future 
concentrations. The commenter cites Ober v. U.S.E.P.A., 84 F.3d 304 
(9th Cir. 1996) in support of this assertion.
    Response 23: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
use of photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance is required by 
the Act, EPA policy, or EPA regulations. The EPA is not overruling 
Congress or EPA regulations.
    Section 175A requires States to develop and submit, as a SIP 
revision, a plan for maintaining the NAAQS for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. The plan shall contain such additional measures, if any, 
as the Administrator deems necessary to ensure such maintenance. 
Section 175A does not require modeling.
    Section 182(j) contains no reference to maintenance plans. Section 
182(j)(1) requires that each state in a multi-state ozone nonattainment 
area shall ``* * * (A) take all reasonable steps to coordinate, 
substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of 
State implementation plans applicable to the nonattainment area 
concerned; and (B) use photochemical grid modeling or any other 
analytical method determined by the Administrator, in his discretion, 
to be at least as effective''. The language in this section clearly 
refers to ``nonattainment'' areas. Thus, EPA believes that section 
182(j) is applicable to attainment demonstrations not maintenance 
plans.
    Even if the commenter is correct in the assertion that section 
182(j) applies to maintenance plans, this section does not necessarily 
require modeling. EPA has the discretion to approve the use of other 
analytical methods determined to be at least as effective. In the 
Calcagni Memo, on page 9, EPA stated ``A State may generally 
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future 
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of 
the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of 
sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS''. 
By this policy, EPA has, in effect, expressed how its discretion will 
be utilized regarding the use of emissions in lieu of modeling for 
demonstrating maintenance. In addition, the Sixth Circuit in Wall v. 
EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that ``EPA's actions are completely 
consistent with its own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS 
maintenance to be demonstrated by showing that the future emissions of 
a pollutant's precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the 
area to achieve attainment in the first place.'' The Ober v. U.S.E.P.A. 
case cited by the commenter deals with modeling requirements for 
approval of a SIP revision in a nonattainment area for particulate 
matter, and has no relevance to the ozone maintenance plan at issue 
here.
    The regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(a) requires the SIP to demonstrate 
that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate 
to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 
regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(b) specifies

[[Page 25457]]

what the demonstration required in 40 CFR Sec.  51.112(a) must include. 
The Sixth Circuit in Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) determined that 
EPA's position that the regulation at 40 CFR 51.112(a) applies only to 
attainment demonstrations and not to maintenance plans is ``neither 
impermissible nor in conflict with a statutory mandate * * * Moreover, 
EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own interpretive 
memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be demonstrated by 
showing that the future emissions of a pollutant's precursors will not 
exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve attainment in the 
first place.''
    Lastly, the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4858 states 
that emissions of NOX in the Metro-East St. Louis area will 
be reduced from 141.64 to 96.67 tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 
to 2014 and in Missouri, they will be reduced from 453.14 to 317.58 
tons per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014. Emissions of VOCs in 
the Metro-East St. Louis area will be reduced from 94.11 to 75.98 tons 
per ozone season weekday from 2000 to 2014 and in Missouri, they will 
be reduced from 248.35 to 182.57 tons per ozone season weekday from 
2000 to 2014. A ``common sense'' conclusion is that further emission 
reductions are projected to occur through 2014. Based on past trends of 
emissions decreases, peak ozone levels will continue to be reduced from 
2000 to 2014. Further modeling would continue to demonstrate 
attainment. The commenter has not provided any data to indicate that 
these emission reductions would lead to modeled increases in ozone 
concentrations.
    Comment 24: EPA and the States have stated in testimony provided to 
courts and the public that maintenance of the NAAQS in 2003 is not 
possible. EPA and the states have stated that, due to upwind emissions, 
attainment with the NAAQS cannot be achieved until 2004.
    Response 24: The commenter uses the same arguments in this comment 
to state that the attainment with the NAAQS cannot be maintained as was 
used in comment 21 above to claim that the area cannot attain the 
NAAQS. See the response to comment 21 for further discussion.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the modeling 
demonstrated it was impossible to maintain the standard in 2003. The 
evaluation of the modeling is to determine the likelihood of attainment 
by a future attainment deadline (2004 in this case). EPA's approval of 
the States' attainment demonstrations did not include a determination 
that attainment or maintenance of the standard prior to 2004 was 
impossible.
    The commenter references documents submitted by EPA and the States 
as well as language used in various rulemakings stating, in effect, 
that reductions in upwind emissions are necessary for attainment of the 
standard and that the earliest attainment date is November 15, 2004. At 
the time these documents were developed, EPA and the States were basing 
their conclusions on the attainment demonstration including the 
accompanying modeling. The statements made were the best conclusions 
that could be drawn from the available information.
    The conclusion that the maintenance plan will provide for 
maintenance of the NAAQS for the next ten years as required by section 
175A is based, in part, on more recent information than what was relied 
upon in the attainment demonstration which included the modeling 
referred to by the commenter. The maintenance plan includes an emission 
inventory which is more recent than the inventory used in the 
attainment demonstration. See the response to comment 36 for further 
discussion.
    EPA has no data to support the commenter's hypothesis that 
variations in out-of-state transport may account for the improvement in 
air quality. The commenter only speculates that out-of-state transport 
solely account for the improvement in air quality. EPA concludes that 
the plan demonstrates maintenance through 2014.
    Comment 25: The SIPs must provide assurance that the States have 
adequate personnel, funding and authority to carry out the SIP. The 
record for this action must provide real evidence of this assurance. 
The commenter raises the following specific concerns with regard to 
Illinois:
    a. The Illinois I/M funding expires on June 30, 2003. Illinois has 
no funding mechanism to replace this funding. Based on this 
observation, the EPA cannot lawfully find that Illinois has adequate 
funding to fully implement its SIP;
    b. EPA cannot lawfully find that the Illlinois motor vehicle 
emissions budgets are adequate because they presume full funding for 
the Illinois I/M program;
    c. Illinois is failing to adequately administer and enforce the 
title V source operating permits program due mainly to a lack of 
funding. Illinois failed to issue all source permits within three years 
of receiving interim approval of its title V permits program by the EPA 
on March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12478). At least 24 of the unpermitted sources 
are located in Madison and St. Clair Counties, Illinois. Illinois has 
announced that it will be very difficult to meet a commitment to issue 
all required source permits by the December 2003 deadline. Illinois is 
also violating the requirement to act on all source permit applications 
within 18 months of receipt, violating the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.7(a)(2). This is due to a lack of adequate funding; and
    d. Illinois is failing to adequately enforce its title V program 
through regular source inspections.
    The commenter expresses the general concern that Illinois lacks the 
funds to adequately enforce any of the Clean Air Act requirements and 
to implement its SIP, including NSR, PSD, and RACT rules. Therefore, 
the commenter believes that EPA should reject Illinois' statement in 
the maintenance plan that Illinois has the necessary resources to 
enforce any violations of its rules or source permit provisions.
    Response 25: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding the redesignation of 
the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area, 
and as it relates to the general assertion that the Illinois 
maintenance plan lacks a showing of adequate resources.
    With regard to the commenter's Illinois-specific comments, we have 
the following responses:
    a. The Illinois I/M program, in the Metro-East St. Louis area, is 
currently funded through a combination of fuel taxes and Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. It is EPA's understanding that 
Illinois currently has sufficient funding from CMAQ previously 
appropriated and obligated and from fuel taxes to run this program 
through December 2003. Meanwhile, Illinois officials are seeking 
alternative funding sources to replace the expired CMAQ funding, 
including continuance of CMAQ funding through Congressional 
reauthorization. The EPA believes at this time that it is reasonable to 
assume that Illinois will continue to implement this program, for 
several reasons. First, Illinois is committed to continuing 
implementation of this program, which it has been operating since 1986. 
Second, if Illinois fails to maintain this program other than 
termination through approvable means (for example, by substituting an 
emissions control measure to achieve

[[Page 25458]]

equal or greater emissions reductions), the program remains an 
enforceable component of the approved SIP. Finally, it is noted that 
this program is contractor operated, with the contractor operating 
under a binding contract extending through 2005. This contract, which 
is on file at EPA as part of the documentation for this portion of the 
SIP, contains penalty clauses insuring that the State will continue 
funding the I/M program through the lifetime of the contract (in the 
event that the State prematurely terminates the contract, the State 
would still be obligated to reimburse the contractor through 2005 for 
the estimated value of the contract). Illinois has no financial 
incentive to discontinue the I/M program;
    b. Since, for the reasons described above, EPA can assume that the 
Illinois I/M program will continue to operate in the Metro-East St. 
Louis area and since this program is an ozone maintenance measure 
assumed in Illinois' ozone maintenance demonstration, it is correct to 
conclude that Illinois' mobile source emissions budgets are acceptable 
and are not in jeopardy due to a pending termination of the I/M 
program; and
    c-d. As evidenced in the December 23, 2003 maintenance plan, 
Illinois remains committed to implementing the SIP after redesignation 
of the area. The Illinois ozone SIP for the Metro-East St. Louis area 
has been fully approved, and there are no criteria requiring EPA to 
evaluate and assess title V programs prior to redesignation of the area 
to attainment. The SIP approval and redesignation criteria do not 
include evaluating permitting programs to ascertain whether any 
deficiencies exist in these programs. The maintenance plan is designed 
to assure that attainment of the one-hour ozone standard is preserved. 
Whatever deficiencies are confirmed to exist in the source permitting 
program may be addressed and corrected in other contexts, including a 
finding of failure to implement under section 173(b) of the Act. 
Therefore, this comment is not a basis for disapproving Illinois' ozone 
maintenance plan and the EPA disagrees with the commenter on this 
issue.
    In addition, it should be noted that section 107(d)(3) and section 
175A ozone redesignation and ozone maintenance plan requirements 
require compliance with section 110 and part D requirements under title 
I of the Act. Title I of the Act itself does not require compliance 
with title V of the Act for purposes of considering redesignations to 
attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, even if the commenter were correct 
in its assertion that Illinois is not properly implementing its title V 
permit program, this would not be a basis for disapproval of the 
redesignation request and concerns with title V compliance and 
implementation are moot.
    The ozone SIP for the Metro-East St. Louis area has been fully 
approved, and there are no criteria requiring EPA to evaluate and 
assess title V programs prior to redesignation of the area to 
attainment. The SIP approval and redesignation criteria do not include 
evaluating permitting programs to ascertain whether any deficiencies 
exist in these programs. The maintenance plan is designed to assure 
that attainment of the one-hour ozone standard is preserved. Whatever 
deficiencies are confirmed to exist in the source permitting program 
may be addressed and corrected in other contexts, including a finding 
of failure to implement under section 173(b) of the Act.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter that this action must include in 
the record further evidence of Illinois resource commitments. Neither 
this commenter nor any other person has submitted substantive comments 
that would lead EPA to separately analyze whether it should call on the 
State to revise its section 110(a)(2) SIP regarding enforcement and 
funding.
    Comment 26: EPA policy indicates that a state may not relax 
existing controls upon redesignation. However, the States are moving 
requirements for Lowest Achievable Emissions Rates (LAER), new source 
emission offsets, and NOX RACT to the contingency plans 
without a modeling demonstration showing that these control measures 
are not needed for attainment, contrary to EPA policy.
    Response 26: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    Illinois has a commitment on page 26 of the maintenance plan to 
maintain all of the emission control measures implemented in the Metro-
East St. Louis area to ensure maintenance of the one-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The commenter refers to the Calcagni Memo at page 10 which states 
that ``the State will be expected to maintain its implemented control 
strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are 
shown to be unnecessary for maintenance or are replaced with measures 
that achieve equivalent reductions''.
    Section 175A of the Act requires that maintenance plans shall 
contain contingency provisions deemed necessary to assure that the 
States will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs 
after redesignation of the area as an attainment area. These provisions 
shall include a requirement that the State will implement ``all 
measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned 
which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of 
the area as an attainment area''. On page 6 of an October 14, 1994 
memorandum entitled, ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) 
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment'' from 
Mary D. Nichols, assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA 
stated its interpretation that the term ``measures'' used in section 
175A does not include part D NSR permitting programs. In accordance 
with this interpretation, EPA believes that LAER and offsets, which are 
components of Illinois' part D NSR permitting program, are not required 
to be retained following redesignation of the Metro-East St. Louis area 
as an attainment area.
    LAER and new source emissions offsets are specified in part D and 
subpart 2 of the Act to be applicable to nonattainment areas. Upon 
redesignation to attainment, these requirements are no longer 
applicable. Removing the LAER and offsets provision in the State's 
permitting program is not contrary to the above mentioned policy. Upon 
redesignation to attainment, the LAER requirements included in 
stationary source permits and the emissions offsets which were obtained 
by stationary sources at the time when the LAER and offset provisions 
were in effect will remain in effect for those facilities. Thus, the 
LAER and offset measures which were relied upon to attain the NAAQS 
will remain in effect following redesignation.
    Following redesignation, any new facilities subject to the State's 
permitting requirements will be subject to the PSD requirements of part 
C of title I of the Act. Under these requirements, the State must 
ensure that such new facilities will not cause significant 
deterioration of air quality to the extent that they cause or 
contribute to peak ozone levels in excess of the NAAQS (see section 165 
of the Act). As part of the PSD program, sources are required to 
perform a source-specific air quality demonstration to show no adverse 
impact on the NAAQS. This is a more accurate way of predicting impacts 
than

[[Page 25459]]

to do generalized modeling which does not consider emissions growth at 
specific sources.
    Illinois' new source rules are structured such that new source 
requirements, for new sources seeking permits after the area is 
redesignated to attainment, automatically revert to PSD requirements 
after an area is redesignated to attainment. This rule is part of 
Illinois' approved SIP.
    For Illinois, it is noted that the State has not relied on 
NOX RACT to attain the ozone standard and the Illinois SIP 
does not contain NOX RACT rules. Therefore, moving 
NOX RACT to the contingency plan is not a relaxation of the 
Illinois SIP.
    Regarding modeling, the Shapiro Memo at page 6 states that ``States 
may be able to move SIP measures to the contingency plan upon 
redesignation if the State can adequately demonstrate that such action 
will not interfere with maintenance of the standard * * * for ozone, 
the State would need to submit an attainment modeling demonstration 
consistent with EPA's current ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' 
showing that the control measure is not needed to maintain the 
standard''. As stated above, all emission control measures in place as 
a result of the LAER and Offsets rules are being retained by sources 
already implementing them following redesignation. For the Illinois 
portion of the St. Louis area, as noted above, NOX RACT is 
not part of Illinois' existing SIP. Thus, no modeling is needed to 
demonstrate that these measures are not needed since all are being 
retained or are not parts of existing SIPs.
    Comment 27: The contingency provisions of the maintenance plans 
fall short of those required. All serious area requirements of section 
182(c) of the CAA should be included in the contingency plans and 
implemented promptly in case of a violation. Virtually none of these 
provisions are included in the contingency plans and, thus, the 
contingency plans cannot be approved.
    Response 27: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that all 
of the serious area requirements of section 182(c) should be included 
in the contingency plans and implemented in case of a violation.
    The requirements of section 175A(d) are the applicable requirements 
for contingency measures in maintenance plans. Section 175A(d) states:

    Each plan revision submitted under this section shall contain 
such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to 
assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the 
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area. Such provisions shall include a requirement that 
the State will implement all measures with respect to the control of 
the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State 
implementation plan for the area before redesignation of the area as 
an attainment area.

    None of the serious area requirements were contained in the SIPs 
prior to redesignation. The plans must contain contingency measures 
which assure that the States ``will promptly correct any violation of 
the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area''. As described in response to comment 28 below and in 
the January 30, 2003 proposed rule, EPA believes that this requirement 
has been met. The statute does not require that all serious area 
requirements be included in the maintenance plans as contingency 
measures, but rather that all measures included in the SIP prior to 
redesignation be included in the maintenance plans as contingency 
measures. As explained previously, certain serious area requirements 
need not be met in the case of the St. Louis area since the area has 
attained the standard prior to the date that these requirements are 
due. Since these provisions are not applicable in the St. Louis area, 
they do not need to be included in the maintenance plans as contingency 
measures.
    The commenter's assertion that there is no implementation plan 
applicable to this ``serious area'' is addressed above. See, for 
example, our response to comment 17.
    Comment 28: 42 U.S.C. 7505a(d) requires that the states will 
promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after 
redesignation. However, there is nothing in either contingency plan 
which assures prompt correction of future violations. The plans contain 
no adopted measures, and no schedule to adopt specific measures. The 
plans offer to adopt an unspecified measure within eighteen months of 
notification of a violation. This is an unreasonably long period. The 
plans should require adoption in much less than eighteen months and 
immediate implementation.
    Response 28: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    EPA disagrees that Illinois' maintenance plan lacks adequate 
contingency provisions should the area violate the standard. As stated 
in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule at 68 FR 4859, the contingency 
plan portion of each State's maintenance plan delineates the State's 
planned actions in the event of future one-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 has developed a contingency plan 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. 
Illinois has also committed to continue to implement all control 
measures included in the SIP prior to redesignation consistent with 
section 175A(d) of the Act.
    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 one-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 one-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 new 
emission control measures, from those

[[Page 25460]]

listed below, to address the cause of the ozone standard violation.
    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 December 23, 2002 maintenance plan for the 
Metro-East St. Louis area stated that the adopted contingency measures 
would be implemented as expeditiously as practicable, but generally 
within 24 months of adoption. However, in a letter dated April 15, 2003 
from the IEPA, the State noted that the final maintenance plan was 
erroneously modified based on a prior comment letter from the EPA 
addressing the State's October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan. The 
State has corrected its contingency implementation deadline commitment 
to reflect the contingency implementation deadline language contained 
in the October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan, which commits the State 
to implement adopted contingency measures within 18 months of a 
determination of a violation of the one-hour ozone standard based on 
quality-assured data. The October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan was 
the version of the maintenance plan reviewed by the public in the 
State's public hearing and during its public review period. The State 
notes that, in amending its October 1, 2002 draft maintenance plan to 
the final December 23, 2002 version, the State did not intend to extend 
the implementation deadline for contingency measures, but to merely 
address EPA's comment on the October 1, 2002 draft version. With the 
April 15, 2003 letter, the State of Illinois officially clarifies its 
commitment to implement contingency measures within 18 months of a 
determination that a one-hour ozone standard violation has occurred. 
The April 15, 2003 letter includes a revised contingency measures 
section, section 6.1, to replace the same section of the December 23, 
2002 version of the State's maintenance plan, consistent with its 
clarification.
    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
    As stated in the Calcagni Memo, page 12, ``For purposes of section 
175A, a State is not required to have fully adopted contingency 
measures that will take effect without further action by the State in 
order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the contingency 
plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should 
ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently once they 
are triggered.'' Thus, according to this policy, the plans need not 
contain adopted measures.
    In order to properly deal with future ozone standard violations and 
to comply with its own internal rulemaking procedure requirements, 
Illinois requires time to evaluate potential controls and provide 
public notice and public participation in the rulemaking process when 
adopting contingency measures. The commenter provided no rationale for 
why a time period shorter than 18 months to adopt and implement 
contingency measures is warranted. EPA finds that 18 months, as 
described in Illinois' maintenance plan, as amended by the IEPA's April 
15, 2003 letter, to adopt and implement contingency measures is a 
reasonable time period for Illinois to meet its regulatory obligations 
while meeting the requirement under section 175A to promptly correct 
any violation of the one-ozone standard after the redesignation of the 
St. Louis area to attainment. In addition, this 18 month period to 
adopt and implement contingency measures is consistent with other 
redesignations, such as that approved for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (66 
FR 53102), in which a 12 to 24 month time period was specified to adopt 
and implement contingency measures.
    Comment 29: Neither maintenance plan provides any procedure for 
quantifying the reductions needed to correct violations.
    Response 29: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to comment as 
it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    As indicated above, the maintenance plans refer to a violation of 
the NAAQS as a level II trigger. In the event of a violation, Illinois 
and Missouri have committed to work together to conduct a thorough 
analysis to determine appropriate measures to address the cause of the 
ozone standard violation. It is impossible for a State to determine, 
before a violation, what emission reductions are necessary to correct a 
violation. For example, if Illinois would select tightening RACT for 
existing sources as a contingency measure, the amount of emissions 
reductions resulting from implementation of this measure is dependent 
upon the number of sources subject to RACT rules in the area at the 
time of the violation. Since the State has no control over when a 
source ceases operating, it is impossible to determine, at this time, 
how many sources will be affected by a tightening of RACT which may be 
implemented at some unspecified time in the future. Thus, it is 
impossible to determine beforehand how much of an emission reduction 
will be achieved by implementing this measure.
    The approach taken in the Illinois maintenance plan is to conduct a 
thorough analysis to determine the magnitude of the emissions 
reductions needed to correct an ozone standard violation, the types of 
sources for which emission reductions must be made, and the mechanisms 
for achieving the emissions reductions. The list of contingency 
measures includes a reasonable mix of emission control measures from 
which to select the emission control measures most suited to address a 
future ozone standard violation (a level II trigger), if one

[[Page 25461]]

occurs, or to alleviate an unanticipated worsening of air quality or 
emissions (a level I trigger). EPA finds that this is a reasonable 
approach which will assure prompt correction of the air quality 
problem. In addition, this approach is consistent with EPA guidance 
contained in the Calcagni Memo.
    Comment 30: The contingency measures in the maintenance plans are 
vague and open ended. Neither plan identifies any measures to be 
adopted. No firm schedule for adoption and implementation is included.
    Response 30: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    EPA disagrees with the commenters assertion that the contingency 
measures are vague, and open ended. In response to comments 28 and 29 
above, EPA addressed the procedures contained in the maintenance plan 
for evaluating which measures are necessary to promptly correct a 
violation.
    In addition, in response to comment 28 above, EPA identified the 
list of potential contingency measures contained in Illinois' 
maintenance plan along with a schedule of 18 months to adopt and 
implement selected contingency measures in the event of a violation (a 
level II trigger) or worsening air quality (a level I trigger). EPA has 
concluded that the maintenance plan satisfies EPA guidance regarding 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures consistent with EPA 
guidance and the Act.
    Comment 31: Each maintenance plan contains inadequate provisions to 
respond to anticipated violations of the NAAQS. Anticipated violations 
are based on emissions inventories exceeding the 2000 inventory or two 
exceedances at any monitoring site during a two- or three-year period. 
There is no commitment to adopt any additional controls to address 
anticipated violations.
    Response 31: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    As indicated above, 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 2005 or 2008 VOC or 
NOX emissions 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 one-hour ozone 
NAAQS. A study shall be completed within nine months of the 
determination of the action trigger exceedance to select emission 
controls needed to mitigate possible future ozone standard violations. 
Illinois commits to implement any selected emission controls as 
expeditiously as practible.
    It is true that Illinois has not specified implementation deadlines 
for implementing new emissions controls in the event of exceedance of a 
Level I trigger. Illinois has only committed to conduct studies to 
determine if new emission controls are needed to avert possible future 
ozone standard violations. These studies could conclude that no 
additional emission controls are needed to avoid a future ozone 
standard violation. For example, such a study during 2004 could 
conclude that statewide NOX emission controls to be 
implemented to meet the State's NOX control SIP will be 
adequate to prevent a future ozone standard violation. In this case, 
Illinois may conclude that no additional emission controls are 
necessary. Given that the study could reach such a conclusion, Illinois 
is not committing to implement additional emission controls at this 
time.
    In addition, note that section 175A(d) of the Act only requires a 
state to implement additional emission controls in the event of a 
standard violation after an area is redesignated to attainment. Under 
this section of the Act, States are not obligated to implement 
additional emission controls if an area is ``threatened'' with a future 
ozone standard violation. Similarly, EPA does not require such action 
on the part of the States. EPA does encourage the States to take 
preventative measures to prevent future ozone standard violations if at 
all possible, but does not definitively require the States to implement 
additional emission controls unless a violation of the standard has 
actually occurred. The commitments of Illinois to respond to Level I 
triggers go beyond the minimum requirements of section 175A(d) and the 
EPA.
    The contingency plan meets the requirements of section 175A(d) of 
the Act and applicable guidance in the Calcagni Memo. The Administrator 
has exercised discretion regarding adoption and implementation of 
contingency measures consistent with EPA guidance and the Act.
    Comment 32: The maintenance plans contain no commitment to 
implement measures in the SIP. EPA cannot approve the maintenance plan 
without this commitment.
    Response 32: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    The commenter is incorrect in its statement that the maintenance 
plan does not contain a commitment to implement emission control 
measures in the SIP. Such a commitment was included in Illinois' 
maintenance plan. Section 6.1 of Illinois' maintenance plan states the 
following: ``Consistent with this plan, Illinois agrees to adopt and 
implement the necessary corrective actions in the event that violations 
of the one-hour ozone NAAQS occur anywhere within the St. Louis 
maintenance area after redesignation to attainment.'' In addition, as 
described in response to comment 28, Illinois is retaining and is 
continuing to implement all of the emission control measures contained 
in its SIP prior to redesignation.
    Comment 33: The maintenance plans do not address expected growth in 
areas adjacent to the nonattainment area, such as Ste. Genevieve 
County. An assessment of this growth should be included. Also, the 
plans are based on the ``irrational assumption'' that ``if there is no 
increase in emissions, and no decrease in controls, the standard will 
be maintained.''
    Response 33: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it

[[Page 25462]]

pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    The commenter's characterization of the ``basic premise'' of the 
maintenance plans is incorrect. The plans do not simplistically assume 
that there will be no increase in emissions. The plans carefully 
project the growth in emissions that will occur in various source 
sectors (source categories or types), and the emission reductions which 
will occur based on emission control programs which are in place, in 
order to determine the net change in emissions from 2000 through 2014. 
The States are required to and have applied the appropriate techniques 
to estimate and account for potential emissions changes in the area. 
These techniques are necessarily based on source sector-specific growth 
indicators (positive and negative), i.e., sector-specific economic 
factors, because the States have no way of predicting specific changes 
which will take place on a source-by-source basis in the emissions 
inventory.
    Specific new source projects, such as those cited by the commenter, 
are addressed through mechanisms other than maintenance plans. To 
implement new source projects, Illinois implements PSD and NSR 
permitting regulations depending on the attainment status and 
classification of an area. These regulations address the air quality 
impacts of new sources and expansion of existing sources both inside 
and outside the boundaries of nonattainment areas. They are designed to 
prevent new source construction or existing source expansion which 
would adversely affect an area's ability to attain or maintain a 
national standard.
    EPA believes that it is the function of the State's air permitting 
rules, rather than the maintenance plan, to ensure that specific 
potential new sources do not create emissions which would interfere 
with the maintenance of the ozone standard. The new source rules in 
Illinois' address potential new sources both inside and outside of the 
St. Louis area.
    The anticipated plant referenced by the commenter is a potential 
source in Missouri. See the response to comment 33 in a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for a discussion regarding this 
facility.
    Comment 34: The emission estimates in the maintenance plans are 
unreliable. A recent study of flares throws doubt into the St. Louis 
emission inventory. Flares area used extensively in the Metro-East St. 
Louis area, including at the Conoco Wood River Refinery, two barge 
loading facilities, Granite City Steel, and three bulk gasoline storage 
facilities. EPA must consider the significant underestimation of flare 
emissions in the emission inventory.
    Response 34: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinoi 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    EPA believes that the States used the appropriate emission 
estimates in developing the emission inventories. The commenter cites a 
study of emissions from flares reported by the Bay Area Management 
District which the commenter alleges shows that the States greatly 
underestimated emissions from flares. EPA does not agree that the study 
cited by the commenter renders the emission estimates unreliable.
    The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD) study 
referenced by the commenter is a ``Draft'' document, which has the 
stipulation ``Do Not Cite or Quote.'' In addition, the study was 
specific to refinery flares and not all flare systems in general. The 
submitted comment inappropriately extends the applicability of this 
draft study document to flares at barge loading facilities, steel 
making operations, and bulk gasoline storage facilities.
    IEPA staff reviewed the flare operations at the Conoco Phillips 
Wood River Refinery, which is the only facility in the Metro-East St. 
Louis area that the AQMD study findings would possibly apply to, and 
found a well-designed emissions recovery and control system. The flares 
at the Wood River refinery function primarily as safety devices and are 
provided to avoid discharge of raw hydrocarbons to the atmosphere both 
during upsets and during planned intermittant maintenance activities. 
Process units' hydrocarbon emissions to flares are kept to a minimum to 
prevent product loss. Whenever possible, vent gasses are recovered, 
compressed, and used for firing heaters and boilers rather than being 
sent to flares. Seal vessels and pressure control systems allow nearly 
all vent gasses to be recovered by managing the pressure levels during 
normal operations and upsets.
    The Conoco Phillips Wood River Refinery has four refinery flares 
that the findings of the AQMD study would apply to--the distilling 
flare, the alkylation flare, the aromatics low-pressure flare, and the 
aromatics high-pressure flare. The AQMD technical assessment document 
presented that the primary concern for the 28 flares studied was that 
refinery flares were being used more often and more routinely than 
historic emissions data indicated. For the Conoco Phillips Wood River 
Refinery, this finding is not valid. The Conoco Phillips refinery 
flares are used only as safety devices and as minimally as possible 
because loss of product occurs when these devices must be used. When it 
became necessary to use these safety devices, all upset emissions were 
reported in the annual emissions reports. Such reports for 2000 were 
used in the development of the emission inventories developed by the 
IEPA for the redesignation request and the maintenance plan. Therefore, 
the Illinois redesignation request and maintenance plan accurately 
includes these emissions.
    Another issue identified in the AQMD refinery flare study was in 
regards to emissions control efficiency (CE) since its impact has a 
significant effect on reported emissions. All field studies regarding 
flare CE, which were referenced in the AQMD technical analysis 
document, indicate that CEs of greater than 98 percent could be 
expected for flares. The emissions for the Conoco Phillips flares, as 
included in Illinois' emissions inventories, uses EPA's recommended CE 
of 98 percent for all flares except in the lube area, which has a 99 
percent CE. Therefore, any impact of inventory emissions from 
overestimation of CE is considered to be insignificant for the Conoco 
Phillips Wood River Refinery.
    In regards to the impacts of crosswinds, the AQMD technical analyis 
document references one laboratory scale Canadian study that indicates 
that CEs may be impacted by crosswinds. The Canadian researchers, 
however, indicate that applying their laboratory findings after scaling 
up to the actual sizes of flares that refineries normally use could 
prove difficult. A referenced study in the AQMD technical analysis 
document shows that crosswinds with a speed of 18 miles per hour (8 
meters per second) are needed before any impact is seen on CEs for 
flares. In the years of 1999 and 2000, no hourly wind speeds greater 
than 11 miles per hour was recorded at the Edwardsville monitor, which 
is located less than 10 miles from Wood River, during high ozone days 
in the St. Louis area. Therefore, crosswinds are not considered to be 
an issue that might impact emission estimates for the Metro-East St. 
Louis area refinery flares.
    Further review of the document has shown that methane was included 
in the emission factor that was used to

[[Page 25463]]

derive emissions for this study. Methane is not an ozone precursor, and 
the inclusion of this pollutant could significantly alter the 
preliminary findings. The study targets the control efficiencies of the 
flares and states that ``efficiency drops approximately by the cube of 
the speed (wind)''. This would suggest that on high wind event days 
that the control efficiencies would be at their lowest. However, in the 
St. Louis area, high ozone days have been characterized by low wind 
conditions, which would produce minimal impact on flare control 
efficiencies during the periods of concern.
    Lastly, NOX and VOC emissions from all flares constitute 
less than one-tenth of one percent of the total emissions inventory for 
the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. Therefore, any potential 
changes in calculation methodology from this source category, even if 
changes were warranted based on this draft study, would still likely 
produce an insignificant change to the St. Louis area total VOC and 
NOX emissions.
    Comment 35: The Illinois request for approval of its maintenance 
plan and revised motor vehicle emissions budgets was submitted under 
the signature of David Kolaz, Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). This submission included the 
commitment to adopt contingency measures in the event of ozone standard 
exceedances and/or violations. The IEPA is without authority to make 
this commitment on behalf of the State of Illinois. During the Illinois 
public hearing (November 7, 2002), the IEPA stated that it did not have 
the authority to impose emission control requirements. The IEPA 
explained that such authority rests with the Illinois Pollution Control 
Board, a separate and independent State agency. The EPA cannot lawfully 
approve the maintenance plan submitted by the IEPA if the State is not 
legally bound to implement the commitments in the plan, including 
contingency measures.
    Response 35: Under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, the 
IEPA has authority to develop and submit for EPA approval air quality 
control plans. Section 4(j) of the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Act states: ``The Agency shall have the duty to represent the State of 
Illinois in any and all matters pertaining to plans, procedures, or 
negotiations for interstate compacts or other governmental arrangements 
relating to environmental protection.'' In addition, section 4(l) of 
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act states that ``The Agency is 
hereby designated as * * * air pollution agency for the state for all 
purposes of the Clean Air Act * * *'' These provisions give the IEPA 
the authority to develop and submit air quality plans to the EPA. 
Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the IEPA lacks the 
authority to submit an ozone maintenance plan that commits the State to 
certain actions if triggered under the contingency plan.
    With regard to adoption of specific emission control measures or 
rules, the IEPA has the authority and responsibility of developing 
source emission control regulations, which are subsequently adopted by 
the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Establishment of a separate 
rulemaking body is consistent with the process established by many 
states.
    The Calcagni Memo suggests that a procedure for adoption of 
contingency measures should be in place. However, there is no 
suggestion that a state must alter or suspend its rulemaking process in 
order to commit to implementation of contingency measures. If the State 
is unable to adopt a particular contingency measure as a result of its 
rulemaking process, it will be required to adopt and implement another 
equally effective measure (or group of measures) within the same 18-
month time frame. The IEPA will continue to be responsible for ensuring 
that its commitment is met, and the commitment remains enforceable.
    Comment 36: EPA cannot conclude that keeping emissions no higher 
than the projected inventory amounts will ensure maintenance of the 
ozone NAAQS.
    Response 36: As stated in response to comment 23 above, keeping 
emissions no higher than those that occurred in the attainment period 
(2000 through 2002) will ensure maintenance of the NAAQS. The Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 435) 
determined that ``EPA's actions are completely consistent with its own 
interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be 
demonstrated by showing that the future emissions of pollutant's 
precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve 
attainment in the first place.''
    Comment 37: Neither maintenance plan provides a technical analysis 
demonstrating that maintenance of the 2000 emission levels will assure 
maintenance of the NAAQS. Such a demonstration requires photochemical 
grid modeling.
    Response 37: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    EPA disagrees that modeling is required to demonstrate maintenance 
of the NAAQS. EPA reiterates its response to comment 23 in that the 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 426, 
435) determined that ``EPA's actions are completely consistent with its 
own interpretive memorandum, which allows for NAAQS maintenance to be 
demonstrated by showing that the future emissions of a pollutant's 
precursors will not exceed the level that allowed the area to achieve 
attainment in the first place.'' Also see the response to comment 36 
above.
    Illinois' maintenance plan includes a technical analysis, as 
described in the response to comment 28 above, that demonstrates 
maintenance of the NAAQS based on a comparison of base year (attainment 
year) and projected VOC and NOX emissions. This analysis 
meets the maintenance requirements of the Act and of EPA guidelines.
    Comment 38: EPA announced substantial changes in its PSD program on 
December 21, 2002. Illinois is required to administer these changes in 
attainment areas effective March 3, 2003, and three years later for 
nonattainment areas. 67 FR 80185. Therefore, the new NSR rules will not 
go into effect in the Metro-East St. Louis area for three years unless 
EPA redesignates the area to attainment. On February 27, 2003, Illinois 
announced that it is filing a lawsuit challenging the NSR changes due, 
in part, to the fact that the State lacks the resources to administer 
the new NSR rules. On the basis of this admission, EPA cannot lawfully 
make the finding that Illinois has adequate resources to administer the 
new NSR program that will only be necessary if EPA redesignates the 
area to attainment.
    Response 38: The Federal revisions to the PSD regulations 
promulgated on December 31, 2002 became effective on March 3, 2003. 
States like Illinois, to which EPA had delegated the authority to 
administer the PSD program, are required to implement the revisions as 
of their effective date. The commenter does not provide any specific 
information that the IEPA lacks the resources to administer the revised 
program in the Metro-East St. Louis area upon redesignation. In 
addition, the IEPA has not formally notified EPA that it does not have 
sufficient resources to

[[Page 25464]]

administer the PSD program under the revised regulations.
    Even if the State is unable to administer the PSD program in the 
Metro-East St. Louis area, the only consequences would be that EPA 
would, under this hypothetical situation, withdraw the delegation of 
the PSD program and administer the program itself. In addition, sources 
would still be required to obtain a source permits (and demonstrate 
that they will not adversely impact air quality) prior to construction, 
regardless of which agency (the IEPA or EPA) is responsible for permit 
issuance. Therefore, the perceived defect would not result in an 
inability to maintain the one-hour ozone standard in the area.
    Comment 39: The maintenance plan must include RACM and RACT, for 
the reasons stated in comment 13 above.
    Response 39: EPA incorporates its response to comment 13 in 
response to this comment.

F. Comments Related to Criterion 5: The Area Must Have Met All 
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D

    Comment 40: Neither State has met all the requirements applicable 
to the area. The serious area requirements of section 182(c) are 
applicable, but none of these requirements have been met. Some of the 
requirements are applicable and enforceable now, such as the 50 ton per 
year threshold for permitting and enforcement and paragraphs 7, 8, and 
10 of section 182(c).
    Response 40: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    As stated in the response to comments 6 through 11 above, the 
Illinois SIP meets the applicable requirements and the serious area 
requirements are not applicable for purposes of this redesignation. 
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. Upon completion of today's actions, the Illinois 
SIP is fully approved for all applicable regulations. SIP revisions 
addressing the serious area requirements are required to be submitted 
by January 30, 2004, after the submittal of Illinois' complete 
redesignation request and maintenance plan.
    The commenter errs in the conclusion that the 50 ton per year 
emissions threshold for permitting and enforcement is not in effect in 
Illinois. As of January 30, 2003, the St. Louis area was classified as 
a serious nonattainment area (68 FR 4836). At that time, the 50 ton per 
year emissions threshold for permitting and enforcement immediately 
became effective in Illinois. However, by redesignating the Metro-East 
area to attainment in this rulemaking, the 50 ton per year emissions 
threshold for permitting and enforcement is no longer applicable.
    Section 182(c) paragraphs 7 and 8 refer to special rules for 
modifications of major sources while paragraph 10 refers to a 1.2 to 1 
offset requirements for serious nonattainment areas. As stated in 
response to comment 7, EPA established a future date for submission of 
the serious area requirements, including section 182(c)(7), (8), and 
(10), and the requirements are not now applicable for purposes of this 
redesignation.

G. Comments Related to Implementation of Contingency Measures

    Comment 41: A commenter requested that in the final rule, EPA 
expressly state that, in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS, 
Illinois and Missouri will not necessarily be required to evaluate any 
particular contingency measure nor be required to submit further 
attainment demonstrations.
    Response 41: As stated above, the contingency plans delineate the 
States' planned actions in the event of future one-hour ozone standard 
violations (Level II trigger in the Illinois and Missouri ozone 
maintenance plans), multiple ozone standard exceedances at any monitor 
in a single or two year period (not a violation based on three years of 
data) (Level I trigger in the Illinois and Missouri ozone maintenance 
plans), or unanticipated emissions increases threatening a subsequent 
violation of the one-hour ozone standard (Level I trigger in the 
Illinois and Missouri ozone maintenance plans). In the event of an 
exceedance of a Level I trigger, Illinois will work with Missouri to 
evaluate the situation and to determine if adverse emissions or air 
quality trends are likely to continue and to threatened maintenance of 
the one-hour standard. If so, Illinois will determine to what extent, 
what type, and where (local or regional) emission controls may be 
required to avoid a violation of the one-hour ozone standard. A study 
will be completed within nine months of the determination of the action 
trigger exceedance. If needed to avoid future ozone standard 
violations, emission control measures and regulations will be adopted 
within 18 months of the completion of the study and implemented as 
expeditiously as practicable.
    In the event of a Level II trigger (a determination of a violation 
of the one-hour ozone standard in the St. Louis area), the States will 
complete an analysis of the air quality issue within six months of the 
ozone standard violation determination, and Illinois will adopt and 
implement necessary emission control measures and rules within 18 
months of the ozone standard violation determination.
    EPA expects that, through this process, the States will identify 
the appropriate emission control measures to implement in the near term 
to maintain the ozone NAAQS. The States are not obligated to select any 
particular emission control measure for study and/or implementation. 
The States must, however, select those emission control measures that 
their analyses show are adequate for maintenance of the NAAQS and which 
can be implemented within the time constraints contained within the 
maintenance plans.
    With regard to the need for new ozone attainment demonstrations, as 
indicated in the January 30, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR 4847), a final 
determination of attainment leads to the conclusion by the EPA that 
Illinois is not obligated to produce new ozone attainment 
demonstrations for the St. Louis area for purposes of attaining the 
one-hour ozone standard. The available quality-assured ozone data for 
the most recent three years demonstrate that the St. Louis area has 
attained the one-hour ozone standard. This conclusion leads to the 
conclusion that additional emission reduction in the Metro-East St. 
Louis area may only be needed for the purposes of maintaining the ozone 
standard in the St. Louis area and for reducing ozone and ozone 
precursor transport into downwind areas. Therefore, additional ozone 
modeling to support a new ozone attainment demonstration is not needed 
at this time.
    Following the redesignation of the St. Louis area to attainment of 
the one-hour ozone standard (the subject of this final rule and that 
for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area also published today), a 
violation of the one-hour ozone

[[Page 25465]]

standard will not necessarily trigger the need for Illinois to conduct 
additional photochemical dispersion modeling for the St. Louis area. In 
this situation, the maintenance plan requirements place no specific 
ozone modeling requirements on the State. Illinois is free to choose 
the types of analyses it deems necessary to determine the levels and 
types of additional emission controls needed to rectify the ozone 
attainment problem. Redesignated areas are not subject to an obligation 
to meet additional nonattainment area requirements, such as attainment 
demonstrations, since they are no longer as nonattainment areas. 
Instead, they must implement contingency measures, which is what 
Congress provided in the Act.

H. Comments Related to Redesignation of a Portion of the St. Louis Area

    Comment 42: One commenter requested that in the event the EPA is 
unable to finalize Missouri's I/M program, as proposed in a separate 
rulemaking on January 30, 2003, EPA should proceed with the 
redesignation for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area.
    Response 42: In a separate rule published in today's Federal 
Register, EPA is approving Missouri's revised I/M rule. In addition, as 
explained above, EPA is finalizing its actions on the Missouri and 
Illinois redesignation requests in separate rulemakings.

I. Comments Related to Interstate Transport

    Comment 43: EPA must ensure that the CAA requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D) pertaining to interstate transport impacts are actively 
and adequately met through the States' SIP's and through Federal 
control programs such as the NOX SIP call.
    Response 43: This comment refers to both the Missouri and Illinois 
portions of the St. Louis area. EPA is here providing a response 
regarding the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. See a separate 
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the 
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this 
comment as it pertains to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
    As stated above, EPA believes that state obligations under the 
NOX SIP call are not applicable requirements for purposes of 
evaluating a redesignation request. The NOX SIP call 
requirements are not linked with a particular area's ozone designation 
and classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's classification are the requirements 
that are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 
request. The NOX SIP call submittal requirements continue to 
apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the State.
    Thus, we do not believe that the NOX SIP call submission 
should be construed to be an applicable requirement for purposes of 
redesignation. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are 
linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. 
This policy is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated 
fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport 
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings 
(61 FR 53174-53176) (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826) (May 7, 1997); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458) (May 7, 
1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, 62741) 
(December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the 
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890) (June 19, 2000).
    Illinois has adopted and EPA has approved statewide NOX 
rules into the SIP on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56449 and 66 FR 56454). 
These rules will remain in effect and will remain Federally enforceable 
following the redesignation of the Metro-East St. Louis area to 
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard.
    Comment 44: A commenter notes that the expected NOX 
emission control programs and emission reductions for the St. Louis 
area should not be jeopardized due to the absence of continued Federal 
enforceability of the SIPs.
    Response 44: The SIPs will remain Federally enforceable following 
redesignation of the St. Louis area to attainment. In addition, 
NOX emission control measures (with the exception of NSR, 
which will be replaced by PSD) which are currently in place will remain 
as SIP requirements following redesignation to attainment. Illinois 
will continue to implement and enforce its statewide NOX 
emission control regulations adopted to comply with the NOX 
SIP call. This rulemaking, however, finalizes a NOX RACT 
waiver for the Metro-East St. Louis area. NOX RACT has never 
been part of the Illinois SIP. This redesignation does not jeopardize 
any NOX emission control regulations expected and part of 
the SIP for the Metro-East St. Louis area or for the State of Illinois.
    Comment 45: The redesgination of the St. Louis area to attainment 
should not weaken the impetus to rapidly address NOX 
transport to downwind areas. These efforts are critical to addressing 
the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the St. Louis and downwind areas. 
Any revisions to SIP requirements would have to meet the applicable 
provisions of the Act and be approved by the EPA.
    Response 45: As noted above, the redesignation of the St. Louis 
area to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard will have no effect 
on the implementation of the statewide NOX control rules in 
Illinois. In addition, irregardless of the attainment status of the St. 
Louis area for the one-hour ozone standard, EPA will proceed with 
making its decision as to whether the eastern portion of Missouri must 
meet specific NOX SIP call requirements. EPA will closely 
review any proposed changes in the NOX emission control 
programs which are currently in place in the Metro-East St. Louis area 
and in Illinois to ensure that the proposed changes will not adversely 
affect the attainment of the NAAQS in the St. Louis area and in 
downwind ozone nonattainment areas.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 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

[[Page 25466]]

(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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2003. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
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, Ozone.

    Dated: April 30, 2003.
Thomas V. Skinner,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraph (ee) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.726  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ee) Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the Illinois Portion of 
the St. Louis Area--On December 30, 2002 Illinois submitted Maintenance 
Plan for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis Nonattainment Area. The 
plan includes 2014 On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Budget of 10.13 tons 
per ozone season weekday of VOCs and 18.72 tons per ozone season 
weekday NOX to be used in transportation conformity.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  81.314 the table entitled ``Illinois-Ozone (1-Hour 
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for St. Louis Area to read 
as follows:


Sec.  81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                                        Illinois--Ozone (1-hour standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Designation                         Classification
           Designated area           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Date \1\                   Type             Date \1\       Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
St. Louis Area:
    Madison County..................  May 12, 2003...........  Attainment
    Monroe County...................  May 12, 2003...........  Attainment
    St. Clair County................  May 12, 2003...........  Attainment
 
                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-11524 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P