Clean Air Reclassification and Notice of Potential Eligibility for Attainment Date Extension, Missouri and Illinois; St. Louis Nonattainment Area; Ozone

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[MO 061-1061; IL187-1; FRL-6311-8]

Clean Air Reclassification and Notice of Potential Eligibility

for Attainment Date Extension, Missouri and Illinois; St. Louis

Nonattainment Area; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the St. Louis nonattainment area

[[Page 13385]]

(hereinafter referred to as the St. Louis area) has failed to attain

the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or

standard) by November 15, 1996, the date set forth in the Clean Air Act

(CAA or Act) for moderate nonattainment areas. If EPA takes final

action on the finding as proposed, the St. Louis area would be

reclassified as a serious nonattainment area.

EPA is also issuing a notice of the St. Louis area's potential

eligibility for an attainment date extension, pursuant to EPA's

``Guidance on Extension of Air Quality Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas'' (hereinafter referred to as the extension policy)

(Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation) issued July 16, 1998. The extension policy applies where

pollution from upwind areas interferes with the ability of a downwind

area to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard by the

dates prescribed in the CAA. EPA proposes to finalize the

reclassification of the St. Louis area only after the area has had an

opportunity to qualify for an attainment date extension under the

extension policy.

As an alternative to reclassification for areas affected by

transport, the extension policy provides that an area, such as St.

Louis, is eligible for an attainment date extension if it can make

submissions that meet certain conditions. Missouri and Illinois are

working together to comply with the conditions for receiving an

extension so that the St. Louis area can avoid reclassification. If

Missouri and Illinois make submittals in response to the extension

policy, EPA will address the adequacy of those submittals in a

subsequent rulemaking action. If the submittals meet the provisions for

an extension, the attainment date for the St. Louis area would be

extended, and the area would not be reclassified.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Aaron J. Worstell, Air

Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101; or to J. Elmer Bortzer,

Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, IL 60604.

Copies of the St. Louis area monitored air quality data analyses,

guidance on extension of attainment dates in downwind transport areas,

state submittals requesting attainment date extension, and other

relevant documents used in support of this proposal are available at

the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Air Programs Branch, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507;

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron J. Worstell, EPA Region VII,

(913) 551-7787 or Jay Bortzer, EPA Region V, (312) 886-1430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

Since the CAA's inception in 1970, EPA has set NAAQS for six common

air pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The CAA requires these

standards be set at levels that protect public health and welfare with

an adequate margin of safety. These standards present state and local

governments with the air quality levels they must meet to achieve clean

air. Also, these standards allow the American people to assess whether

or not the air quality in their communities is healthful.

What is the NAAQS for ozone?

The NAAQS for ozone is expressed in two forms which are referred to

as the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Table 1 summarizes the ozone

standards.

Table 1.--Summary of Ozone Standards

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

Standard Value Type Method of Compliance

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

1-hour................ 0.12 ppm.............. Primary and secondary... Must not be exceeded on average more

than one day per year over any 3-year

period.

8-hour................ 0.08 ppm.............. Primary and secondary... The 3-year average of the annual

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour

average ozone concentration measured

at each monitor within an area.

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

The 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm has existed since 1979 and

was included with the 1990 CAA amendments. The 8-hour ozone standard,

which replaces the 1-hour standard, was recently adopted by EPA on July

18, 1997 (62 FR 38856). However, the 1-hour ozone standard continues to

apply for existing nonattainment areas until such time as EPA

determines that an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR

50.9(b)). It is the classification of the St. Louis area relative to

the 1-hour ozone standard that is addressed in this document.

What is the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area?

The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is an interstate area which

includes cities and counties in both Missouri and Illinois as follows:

Madison County, Monroe County, and St. Clair County in Illinois; and

Franklin County, Jefferson County, St. Charles County, St. Louis City,

and St. Louis County in Missouri.

Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each ozone area designated

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to enactment of the

1990 CAA amendments, such as the St. Louis area, was designated

nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990

amendments. Under section 181(a) of the Act, each ozone area designated

nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of

law as ``marginal,'' ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' or

``extreme,'' depending on the severity of the area's air quality

problem. The design value for an area, which characterizes the severity

of the air quality problem, is represented by the highest design value

at any individual ozone monitoring site (i.e., the highest of the

fourth highest 1-hour daily maximums in a given three-year period with

complete monitoring data). Table 2 provides the design value ranges for

each nonattainment classification. Ozone nonattainment areas with

design values between 0.138 and 0.160 ppm, such as the St. Louis area

(which had a

[[Page 13386]]

design value of 0.156 ppm in 1989), were classified as moderate. These

nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR

Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991).

Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Classifications

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

Area class Design value (ppm) Attainment date

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

Marginal................................ 0.121 up to 0.138............... November 15, 1993.

Moderate................................ 0.138 up to 0.160............... November 15, 1996.

Serious................................. 0.160 up to 0.180............... November 15, 1999.

Severe.................................. 0.180 up to 0.280............... November 15, 2005.

Extreme................................. 0.280 and above................. November 15, 2010.

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

In addition, under section 182(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, states

containing areas that were classified as moderate nonattainment were

required to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to provide for

certain controls, to show progress toward attainment, and to provide

for attainment of the ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable

but no later than November 15, 1996. Moderate area SIP requirements are

found primarily in section 182(b) of the CAA.

Why is EPA Proposing To Reclassify the St. Louis Area?

In regard to reclassification for failure to attain, section

182(b)(2)(A) of the Act provides that:

Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including

any extension thereof) for an ozone nonattainment area, the

Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value (as of

the attainment date), whether the area attained the standard by that

date. Except for any Severe or Extreme area, any area that the

Administrator finds has not attained the standard by that date shall be

reclassified by operation of law in accordance with table 1 of

subsection (a) to the higher of--

(i) the next higher classification for the area, or

(ii) the classification applicable to the area's design value as

determined at the time of the notice required under subparagraph (B).

No area shall be reclassified as Extreme under clause (ii).

Furthermore, section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides that:

The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register,

no later than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying each

area that the Administrator has determined under subparagraph (A) as

having failed to attain and identifying the reclassification, if any,

described under subparagraph (A).

In the case of St. Louis, EPA has yet to make the determination

described in section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

Table 3 lists the average number of days when ambient ozone

concentrations exceeded the 1-hour ozone standard at each monitoring

site in the St. Louis area for the period 1994-1996. The ozone design

value for each monitor is also listed for the same period. A complete

listing of the ozone exceedances for each monitoring site, as well as

EPA's calculations of the design values, can be found in the docket

file. The data in Table 3 show that for 1994-1996 seven monitoring

sites in the St. Louis area averaged more than one exceedance day per

year. Therefore, pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA, EPA

proposes to find that the St. Louis area did not attain the 1-hour

standard by the November 15, 1996, deadline.

Table 3.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the St. Louis Area (1994-1996)

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

Average

Number of number of

expected expected Site design

Site days over exceedance value (ppm)

standard days per

(1994-1996) year

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

Missouri Sites:

Arnold--29-099-0012.......... 5.0 a 1.7 0.126

West Alton--29-183-1002...... 9.9 a 3.3 b 0.136

Orchard Farms--29-183-1004... 3.6 a 1.2 0.133

South Lindbergh--29-189-0001. 3.0 1.0 0.124

Queeny Park--29-189-0006..... 6.1 a2.0 0.129

55 Hunter--29-189-3001....... 3.0 1.0 0.123

3400 Pershall--29-189-5001... 3.0 1.0 0.118

Rock Road--29-189-7002....... 5.0 a1.7 0.125

South Broadway--29-510-0007.. 1.0 0.3 0.108

River DesPeres c--29-510-0062 1.0 1.0 0.101

1122 Clark--29-510-0072...... 0.0 0.0 0.089

Newstead--29-510-0080........ 1.0 0.3 0.108

Illinois Sites:

Alton--17-119-0008........... 4.0 a 1.3 0.127

West Division--17-119-1009... 2.0 0.7 0.110

Poag Road--17-119-2007....... 3.1 1.0 0.124

North Walcott--17-119-3007... 4.0 a 1.3 0.125

East St. Louis--17-163-0010.. 1.0 0.3 0.108

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

a A violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedances is

greater than 1.05.

b Represents the 1996 design value for the St. Louis area.

c Site discontinued at end of 1995 ozone season.

[[Page 13387]]

As discussed later in this document, because EPA has now

interpreted the CAA to allow for an extension of the attainment date

based on an understanding of transport data not available at the time

of St. Louis' original attainment date, EPA believes it is fair to

allow the states an opportunity to apply and qualify for an attainment

date extension before EPA finalizes its finding and the area is

reclassified.

This proposal details the following reasons which support EPA's

decision to proceed in this manner:

1. The Agency has concluded that this is the best way of

reconciling the Act's provisions with respect to ozone transport with

the provisions governing graduated attainment dates and with the

reclassification provisions. The Act shows congressional intent that

transport be considered when the Agency acts to reclassify an area, and

a reluctance to subject an area to greater controls than necessary to

bring local sources into compliance.

2. St. Louis has been shown to be affected by ozone transport from

upwind areas.

3. St. Louis is now monitoring air quality data that, were it being

newly classified, would entitle it to the classification of a marginal

nonattainment area. However, if it were reclassified, it would be

required to impose the controls which are normally demanded only for an

area with serious levels of air pollution.

4. Missouri and Illinois have committed to submit an attainment

demonstration by November 1999 which includes all the local control

measures required under the Act for moderate nonattainment areas,

demonstrating attainment when upwind controls are expected to be

implemented.

Furthermore, in this proposal EPA's recognition that the area

should be given an opportunity to qualify for an extension is balanced

by EPA's action in moving forward with the process of reclassification

in the event that the states are unsuccessful in demonstrating that

they satisfy the criteria for an extension.

Can an Extension of the Moderate Area Attainment Date Be Granted for

the St. Louis Area?

The attainment date specified in the Act for moderate nonattainment

areas, such as St. Louis, is November 15, 1996. Two separate mechanisms

exist for an area to obtain an extension of this date. First, pursuant

to section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, the state may request, and EPA may

grant, up to two one-year attainment date extensions. EPA may grant an

extension if: (1) the state has complied with the requirements and

commitments pertaining to the applicable implementation plan for the

area, and (2) the area has measured no more than one exceedance of the

ozone standard at any monitoring site in the nonattainment area in the

year in which attainment is required.

On October 2, 1996, Missouri submitted a request for a one-year

extension of the attainment date. However, eight exceedances of the 1-

hour ozone standard occurred in the St. Louis area in 1996 (refer to

Table 4). Two of these exceedances occurred at the Alton monitoring

site in Illinois. Although this was the only monitoring site recording

more than one exceedance in 1996, under section 181(a)(5) of the Act,

the St. Louis area failed to qualify for an attainment date extension

based on 1996 air quality data.

Table 4.--Ozone Exceedances in the St. Louis Area--1996

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

Site ID Site type Date PPM

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

Missouri Sites:

Arnold--29-099-0012................. SPM June 20, 1996.............. 0.133

West Alton--29-183-1002............. NAMS June 13, 1996.............. 0.135

Orchard Farms--29-183-1004.......... SLAMS June 28, 1996.............. 0.147

S. Lindbergh--29-189-0001........... SLAMS June 20, 1996.............. 0.130

S. Broadway--29-510-0007............ SLAMS June 20, 1996.............. 0.131

Illinois Sites:

North Walcott--17-119-3007.......... SLAMS June 13, 1996.............. 0.135

Alton--17-119-0008.................. SLAMS June 13, 1996.............. 0.128

Alton--17-119-0008.................. SLAMS June 14, 1996.............. 0.127

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

There exists, however, another mechanism for obtaining an extension

of the attainment date under the extension policy for areas which are

affected by downwind transport of ozone and ozone precursors. This

extension policy reconciles section 181(b)(2) with other provisions of

the CAA to authorize attainment date extensions for downwind transport

areas that can make appropriate showings. The section that follows

discusses the extension policy in detail.

What is EPA's new policy regarding extension of attainment dates for

downwind transport areas?

A number of areas in the country that have been classified as

``moderate'' or ``serious'' are affected by pollutants that have

traveled downwind from other areas. For these downwind areas, transport

of pollutants from upwind areas has interfered with their ability to

meet the ozone standard by the dates prescribed by the CAA. As a

result, many of these areas, such as the St. Louis area, find

themselves facing the prospect of being reclassified, or ``bumped up,''

to a higher classification (e.g., from ``moderate'' to ``serious'') for

failing to meet the ozone standard by the specified date.

For some time, EPA has recognized that pollutant transport can

impair an area's ability to meet air quality standards. As a result, in

March 1995 a collaborative, Federal-state process to assess the ozone

transport problem was begun. Through a two-year effort known as the

Ozone Transport Assessment

[[Page 13388]]

Group (OTAG), EPA worked in partnership with the 37 easternmost states

and the District of Columbia, industry representatives, academia, and

environmental groups to develop recommended strategies to address

transport of ozone-forming pollutants across state boundaries.

On November 7, 1997, EPA acted on OTAG's recommendations and issued

a proposal (the proposed NOX SIP call, 62 FR 60318)

requiring 22 states and the District of Columbia to submit state plans

addressing the regional transport of ozone. These state plans, or SIPs,

will decrease the transport of ozone across state boundaries in the

eastern half of the United States by reducing emissions of nitrogen

oxides (a precursor to ozone formation known as NOX). EPA

took final action on the NOX SIP call on October 27, 1998

(63 FR 57356). EPA expects the final NOX SIP call will

assist many areas in attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.

On July 16, 1998, in consideration of these factors and the

realization that many areas are unable to meet the CAA mandated

attainment dates due to transport, EPA issued the extension policy. In

this policy the attainment date for an area may be extended provided

that the following criteria are met: (1) the area must be identified as

a downwind area affected by transport from either an upwind area in the

same state with a later attainment date or an upwind area in another

state that significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment (by

``affected by transport,'' EPA means an area whose air quality is

affected by transport from an upwind area to a degree that affects the

area's ability to attain); (2) an approvable attainment demonstration

must be submitted with any necessary, adopted local measures and with

an attainment date that shows that it will attain the 1-hour standard

no later than the date that the reductions are expected from upwind

areas under the final NOX SIP call and/or the statutory

attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the

boundary conditions reflecting those upwind reductions; (3) the area

has adopted all applicable local measures required under the area's

current classification and any additional measures necessary to

demonstrate attainment, assuming the reductions occur as required in

the upwind areas; (4) the area must provide that it will implement all

adopted measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the

date by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be

achieved.

EPA contemplates that when it acts to approve such an area's

attainment demonstration, it will, as necessary, extend that area's

attainment date to a date appropriate for that area in light of the

schedule for achieving the necessary upwind reductions. The area would

no longer be subject to reclassification or ``bump-up'' for failure to

attain by its original attainment date under section 181(b)(2).

Is the St. Louis Area Eligible for an Attainment Date Extension Under

the Extension Policy?

EPA believes that the St. Louis area is affected by upwind

transport. In fact, according to the final NOX SIP call, the

St. Louis area is affected by transport of pollutants from upwind areas

to an extent that the area's ability to meet the 1-hour ozone standard

is impaired. Therefore, EPA believes that the first of the transport

criteria can be satisfied. However, before the St. Louis area can

qualify for an attainment date extension under the extension policy,

the remainder of the criteria specified in the extension policy must be

met.

In October 1998, EPA notified the Governors of Missouri and

Illinois of the availability of the extension policy. EPA also

requested that, if they wished to demonstrate their eligibility for the

extension policy, the Governors respond to EPA with a letter committing

their respective states to meet the requirements necessary to qualify

for an attainment date extension under the policy by November 15, 1999.

On November 23, 1998, Missouri submitted a letter to EPA providing

a commitment to meet the requirements of the extension policy.

Similarly, on December 15, 1998, Illinois submitted a letter to EPA

providing a commitment to meet the requirements of the extension

policy. (EPA's letters notifying the Missouri and Illinois Governors of

the extension policy, and the respective responses are included in the

docket for this rulemaking.)

EPA's review of the Missouri and Illinois SIPs for the St. Louis

area indicates that Missouri and Illinois must submit the following in

order to meet the requirements set forth in the extension policy:

1. A technical analysis establishing the influence of transport on

ozone levels within the St. Louis area. This requirement can be met by

citing the analysis contained in EPA's aforementioned NOX

SIP call.

2. Regulations or negative declarations addressing certain CAA

requirements pertaining to reasonably available control technology

(RACT) for major sources emitting volatile organic compounds (VOC).

Note that this applies only to Missouri since the Illinois SIP has

fully addressed VOC RACT.

3. Regulations addressing the CAA's requirements pertaining to RACT

for major sources of NOX. EPA believes that this requirement

can be met by adopting regulations that will achieve reductions in

NOX emissions consistent with the NOX SIP call.

4. An attainment demonstration meeting the criteria set forth in

the extension policy.

In addition, the states must submit SIP revisions addressing all

other local control measures required for moderate nonattainment areas

and any additional measures necessary for attainment. All measures must

also be implemented in accordance with the time frames set forth in the

extension policy.

What Progress Has Been Made by Missouri and Illinois To Meet the

Extension Policy So That an Attainment Date Extension Can Be Obtained?

Missouri and Illinois have already done extensive work toward

meeting the extension policy. Several major portions of the extension

policy have already been satisfied, and Missouri and Illinois have

already made substantial progress toward compliance with the criteria

for obtaining an attainment date extension.

Regarding the first item, EPA believes that Missouri and Illinois

can establish the influence of transport on ozone levels within the St.

Louis area by citing the analysis contained in EPA's NOX SIP

call.

Regarding the second item, Illinois has already submitted

regulations or negative declarations fully addressing VOC RACT controls

for major VOC sources. Missouri has also addressed VOC RACT for most

major VOC sources, but there are some RACT categories for which

Missouri has not yet submitted regulations or negative declarations.

Regarding the third item, EPA believes that Missouri and Illinois

will be able to meet NOX RACT by adopting regulations

consistent with the NOX SIP call. Missouri and Illinois are

currently developing an emissions inventory and drafting regulations in

response to the NOX SIP call.

Regarding the fourth item, Missouri and Illinois are currently

working to develop an approvable attainment demonstration. The states

have initiated the steps leading to a final attainment demonstration

and have committed to completing and submitting the attainment

demonstration by November 15, 1999.

[[Page 13389]]

What Actions Have Illinois and Missouri Taken to Improve Air Quality in

the St. Louis Area?

EPA has approved, and Illinois has implemented, VOC emission

reductions as part of the states' 15 percent rate-of-progress plan

(ROPP or 15 percent plan) (see 62 FR 66279). Illinois has implemented

VOC controls including: (1) requiring the lowering of Reid Vapor

Pressure of gasoline to 7.2 pounds per square inch (decreased

volatility); (2) transportation control measures; (3) automobile

refinishing emission control regulations; (4) marine vessel loading

emission control regulations; (5) tightened RACT standards and emission

cutoffs for various industrial source categories; (6) underground

gasoline storage tank breathing emission controls; (7) organic chemical

batch process RACT regulations; and (8) expansion of basic vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M) area coverage. Illinois has

implemented an enhanced vehicle I/M program and cold-cleaner degreasing

regulations, which should further reduce VOC emissions in the Illinois

portion of the St. Louis area. Illinois has adopted and implemented a

contingency plan resulting in additional VOC control measures.

The state of Missouri has also taken a number of actions to improve

air quality in the St. Louis area. As part of its 15 percent ROPP, the

state adopted many of the same VOC RACT regulations as Illinois.

Missouri has also adopted and implemented a contingency plan which

included additional VOC control measures. In July 1998, the Governor of

Missouri requested to opt in to the reformulated gasoline (RFG)

program. EPA proposed to establish an implementation date for RFG based

on the Governor's request in a Federal Register notice published on

September 15, 1998 (see 63 FR 49317). EPA expects to take final action

on the RFG opt-in in the near future. In addition, the state of

Missouri is proceeding with implementation of an upgraded I/M program

for motor vehicles. The state released its request for proposals to

operate the program in October 1998. Based on this request and on the

previous I/M SIP submission, EPA proposed to conditionally approve the

I/M program provided that it begins operation by April 2000 (see 64 FR

9460). This program is a major part of the 15 percent plan and will

result in a significant reduction in emissions when implemented in the

coming years. EPA also notes that St. Louis is an area which

implemented a Stage II vapor recovery program in the 1980s.

If EPA finalizes its proposed rulemaking reclassifying the St. Louis

area, what would be the area's new classification?

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that, when an area is

reclassified for failure to attain, its reclassification be the higher

of the next higher classification or the classification applicable to

the area's ozone design value at the time the notice of

reclassification is published in the Federal Register. The design value

of the St. Louis area at the time of the proposed finding of failure to

attain is based on air quality monitoring data from 1996 through 1998.

This design value is 0.131 ppm, as derived from the West Alton

monitoring site, and the classification of ``marginal'' nonattainment

would be applicable to it. By contrast, the next higher classification

for the St. Louis area is ``serious'' nonattainment. Since ``serious''

is a higher nonattainment classification than ``marginal,'' under the

statutory scheme the area would be reclassified to serious

nonattainment. Refer to Table 5 below.

Table 5.--Air Quality Monitoring Data for the St. Louis Area (1996-1998)e

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

Average number of

Number of expected expected Site design value

Site days over standard exceedance days (ppm)

(1996-1998) per year

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

Missouri Sites:

Arnold--29-099-0012............................. 3.2 b 1.1 0.118

West Alton--29-183-1002......................... 4.4 b 1.5 c 0.131

Orchard Farms--29-183-1004...................... 2.3 0.8 0.118

S. Lindbergh-Gravois a--29-189-0001............. 3.5 b 1.2 0.119

Queeny Park--29-189-0006........................ 1.2 0.4 0.110

55 Hunter--29-189-3001.......................... 1.2 0.4 0.109

3400 Pershall--29-189-5001...................... 2.2 0.7 0.117

Rock Road--29-189-7002.......................... 1.2 0.4 0.116

South Broadway--29-510-0007..................... 2.2 0.7 0.107

River DesPeres d--29-510-0062................... .................. .................. ..................

1122 Clark--29-510-0072......................... 1.2 0.4 0.094

Newstead--29-510-0080........................... 0.0 0.0 0.107

Illinois Sites:

Alton--17-119-0008.............................. 2.0 0.6 0.116

W. Division--17-119-1009........................ 0.0 0.0 0.110

Poag Road--17-119-2007.......................... 1.0 0.3 0.118

N. Walcott--17-119-3007......................... 2.0 0.6 0.117

E. St. Louis--17-163-0010....................... 1.2 0.4 0.098

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

a Data from the S. Lindbergh and Gravois monitoring sites have been combined.

b A violation occurs when the average number of expected exceedances is greater than 1.05.

c This value represents the current design value for the St. Louis area.

d Site discontinued at end of 1995 ozone season.

e Note that fourth quarter 1998 air quality data was not available and is not reflected in this table. Any

change in the calculated design values or expected exceedances is insignificant.

What would reclassification mean for the St. Louis area?

Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the new attainment deadline for

moderate ozone nonattainment areas reclassified to serious under

section 181(b)(2) would be as expeditious as practicable but no later

than the date applicable to the new classification, i.e., November 15,

1999. However, for the reasons given above, EPA does not expect to take

final action on this proposed reclassification until

[[Page 13390]]

after November 15, 1999. This will allow the states adequate time to

make a demonstration that an extension of the attainment date, instead

of a reclassification, would be appropriate under the extension policy.

As a practical matter, even if EPA were to reclassify the St. Louis

area immediately, there would likely be insufficient time for the

states to submit new attainment demonstrations and actually demonstrate

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15 of this year. If

the St. Louis area is reclassified, and if EPA does not act to

reclassify the area until after its November submittal, it will plainly

be too late for the area to demonstrate attainment by a date that will

have already passed. EPA believes that the practical impossibility of

meeting the November 1999 deadline for serious areas requires EPA to

establish a new attainment date for the area. Therefore, in this

document EPA discusses options for establishing a new attainment date

in the event that the area is reclassified to serious.

November 1999 is a date that is impossible to set as a date for the

area to attain and for the states to have made SIP submissions. Since

it is impossible, the principles underlying what EPA does for areas

that must submit 15 percent plans after the deadline for submission has

passed should apply here. Consistent with what EPA has done with

respect to setting new applicable deadlines for those plans, EPA

believes that a deadline that is as expeditious as practicable would be

appropriate.

Section 182(i) states that the Administrator may adjust applicable

deadlines (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment

is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency for submission of the

new requirements applicable to an area which has been reclassified. (An

area reclassified to serious is required to submit SIP revisions

addressing the serious area requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard

in section 182(c).) Where an attainment date has already passed or is

otherwise impossible to meet, EPA believes that the Administrator may

also adjust an attainment date to assure fair and equitable treatment

consistent with the provisions in section 182(i), notwithstanding the

parenthetical clause. EPA also notes another provision of the Act in

section 110(k)(5) pertaining to findings of SIP inadequacy that allows

the Administrator to adjust attainment dates when such dates have

passed. Although this latter provision is not directly applicable to a

reclassification, EPA believes that the provision illustrates a

recognition by Congress of limited instances in which it becomes

necessary to adjust attainment dates, particularly where it is

otherwise impossible to meet the statutory date.

One option is to construct a schedule consistent with recent

reclassifications of other areas. EPA has recently reclassified other

moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including Santa Barbara,

California; Phoenix, Arizona; and Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. In these

cases, the new attainment date is November 15, 1999. The most recent

reclassification was for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. EPA published the

notice reclassifying this area on February 18, 1998, thereby providing

approximately 21 months for the area to attain the standard. EPA thus

concluded that 21 months was an adequate period for a moderate

nonattainment area to attain the standard where the new attainment date

had not yet lapsed but where there was less time remaining than the Act

had contemplated. EPA here suggests, as an option, an attainment date

that is in keeping with this time frame and that would allow the area

an opportunity to make submissions to meet the serious area

requirements and implement measures to attain the standard. Applying

this approach to the St. Louis area would result in a new attainment

date 21 months from publication of the final reclassification notice.

Another option would be to set an attainment date that takes into

account the impact of transport on the area, even though the area must

be reclassified because it has failed to meet the criteria for the

attainment date extension policy. This attainment date would coincide

with the date set for upwind area reductions under the NOX

SIP call, or 2003. Although the St. Louis area, if reclassified, would

have to meet the requirements for a serious area, under this option it

would not be held responsible for emission reductions necessary to

compensate for transported pollution. This option would then be

consistent with EPA's approach of allocating responsibility for

pollution fairly among the states. EPA solicits comments on the

appropriateness of the options discussed above and whether a shorter or

later attainment date would be more appropriate.

If the St. Louis area is reclassified, EPA must also address the

schedule by which Illinois and Missouri are required to submit SIP

revisions meeting the serious area requirements. One option is to

require that the states submit SIP revisions containing all of the

serious area requirements no later than one year after final action on

the reclassification. This submission would include a new attainment

demonstration and all additional measures required by section 182(c) of

the Act. The additional measures include, but are not limited to, the

following: (1) attainment and reasonable further progress

demonstrations; (2) an enhanced vehicle I/M program; (3) clean-fuel

vehicle program; (4) a 50 ton-per-year major source threshold; (5) more

stringent new source review requirements; (6) an enhanced monitoring

program; and (7) contingency provisions. If the submission shows that

the area can attain the standard sooner than the attainment date

established in a final reclassification notice, EPA would adjust the

attainment date to reflect the earlier date, consistent with the

requirement in section 181(a)(1) that the standard be attained as

expeditiously as practicable. EPA solicits comments on the appropriate

schedule for submitting these SIP revisions.

What action is being taken by EPA?

Today EPA is proposing to find that the St. Louis area has failed

to attain the ozone 1-hour air quality standard by the date prescribed

by the CAA for moderate nonattainment areas, or November 15, 1996. If

EPA finalizes this finding, the St. Louis area will be reclassified by

operation of law from moderate nonattainment to serious nonattainment.

If Missouri and Illinois fulfill the requirements of the extension

policy by November 15, 1999, EPA will not finalize the proposed finding

of failure to attain, and consequently, the St. Louis area will not be

reclassified to serious nonattainment. However, if Missouri or Illinois

fail to meet the requirements of the extension policy by November 15,

1999, EPA will finalize the finding of failure to attain, and the St.

Louis area will be reclassified to serious nonattainment at that time.

EPA believes that this approach is reasonable since it (1) ensures

that the local control measures mandated by the CAA for moderate

nonattainment areas, such as VOC and NOx RACT, are achieved;

(2) takes into consideration the transport of pollutants into the St.

Louis area which impair the ability of the area to meet the air quality

standards; and (3) harmonizes the St. Louis area attainment date with

the schedule for emissions reductions in upwind areas associated with

the NOx SIP call.

Finally, if the St. Louis area does attain the 1-hour standard at

some time in the future, then the area would be eligible for revocation

of the 1-hour

[[Page 13391]]

standard, and any classification would no longer be applicable.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

Review.''

B. E.O. 12875

Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that

creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires

EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's proposal would not create a mandate on state, local, or

tribal governments. It would not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. The SIP submission requirements are not judicially

enforceable. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O.

12875 do not apply to this proposal.

C. E.O. 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This proposal is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,

and it does not establish a further health or risk-based standard

because it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based

standard.

D. E.O. 13084

Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by

statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct

compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government

provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs

incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble

to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the

nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's proposal would not significantly or uniquely affect tribal

governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that

the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposal will not have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because a finding of failure to attain under

section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, and the establishment of a SIP submittal

schedule for the reclassified area, do not, in and of themselves,

directly impose any new requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex

Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

(agency's certification need only consider the rule's impact on

entities subject to requirements of the rule). Instead, this proposal

proposes to make a determination and to establish a schedule for states

to submit SIP revisions and does not propose to directly regulate any

entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must, unless otherwise prohibited by law, prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-

effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to today's action because the

proposed determination that the St. Louis area failed to reach

attainment does not, in-and-of-itself, constitute a Federal mandate

because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity. In

addition, the CAA does not permit EPA to consider the types of analyses

described in section 202, in determining whether an area has attained

the ozone standard or qualifies for an extension. Finally, section 203

does not apply to today's proposal because the SIP submittal schedule

would affect only the states of Missouri and Illinois, which are not

small governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: March 5, 1999.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region VII.

Dated: March 10, 1999.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 99-6652 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P