Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Western Area Power Administration
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
MO ID: [MO 182-1182; FRL-7494-5]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard, St. Louis Area; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, and Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, State of Missouri
DATES: This rule is effective May 12, 2003.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (St. Louis area) has attained the 1hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area includes the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. Louis City in Missouri and the counties of Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair in Illinois. This determination is based on three years of complete, qualityassured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2000 through 2002 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 1hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. EPA is also determining that certain ozone attainment demonstration requirements, along with certain other related requirements of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), are not applicable to the St. Louis area.
EPA is also approving a request from the state of Missouri,
submitted on December 6, 2002, to redesignate the St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS. In approving this request EPA is
also approving the state's plan for maintaining the 1hour ozone NAAQS
through 2014, as a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP). EPA is also finding adequate and approving the state's 2014
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and nitrogen oxide compounds (NO
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What actions are we taking and when are they effective? III. Why are we taking these actions to redesignate the area? IV. What are the effects of redesignation to attainment of the 1 hour NAAQS?
[[Page 25419]]
V. What comments did we receive and what are our responses? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
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 found at 68 FR 4836 reinstated
and made effective a prior EPA finding that the St. Louis ozone
nonattainment area did not attain the 1hour ozone standard by November 15, 1996 (based on 19941996 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 state implementation plan revisions 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, which corrected a table entry (68 FR
7410). In the proposed rule found at 68 FR 4847, EPA proposed to
determine that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area has attained the
1hour ozone standard based on complete, qualityassured monitoring
data for 2000 through 2002. In addition, the proposed rule proposed to
approve requests from the states of Missouri and Illinois to
redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment with the 1hour ozone
NAAQS, proposed to determine that certain requirements of the CAA are
not applicable, proposed to approve the states' maintenance plans as
revisions to the SIP, and proposed to find adequate and approve the
2014 motor vehicle emission budgets for volatile organic compounds and
nitrogen oxide compounds for transportation conformity purposes. In the
proposed rule found at 68 FR 4842, EPA proposed to approve a revision
to the state implementation plan for the inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program operating in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area.
This rule is EPA's final action finding that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1hour ozone standard, as well as EPA's final action on the January 30, 2003, proposal found at 68 FR 4847 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, EPA's finding that the area has attained the NAAQS applies to the entire nonattainment area, and we are publishing that finding in this rule. In another rule published today, EPA references this finding and takes separate action on a similar redesignation request and SIP submission by Illinois. See 67 FR 49600, July 31, 2002 (Reinstatement of Redesignation of Kentucky Portion of CincinnatiHamilton area) for additional discussion of these issues.
The history for this action has been set forth in detail in the proposed rulemaking published January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847, 48484849), and is summarized below.
The Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area includes Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties and St. Louis City. The Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area includes Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties (collectively referred to as the MetroEast area).
The St. Louis area was designated as an ozone nonattainment area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Under section 107(d)(4)(A) of the CAA, on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the St. Louis area was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area as a result of monitored violations of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS during the 19871989 period. On January 30, 2003, EPA reclassified the area to a serious nonattainment area, effective January 30, 2003.
The states adopted and implemented emission control programs
required under the CAA to reduce emissions of VOC and NO
On December 6, 2002, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) submitted a Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for
the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area along
with a request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis
nonattainment area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS. Included in
the Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Missouri
Portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area is a plan to maintain the
1hour ozone NAAQS for at least the next 10 years, and the 2014 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.
II. What Actions Are We Taking and When Are They Effective?
After consideration of the comments received in response to the January 30, 2003, proposal, as described in section V below, we are taking the following actions:
A. Determination of Attainment
EPA is determining that the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, consisting of both the Missouri and the Illinois portions of the area, has attained the 1hour ozone standard.
EPA is also determining that certain attainment demonstration
requirements (section 172(c)(1) of the CAA), along with certain other
related requirements, of part D of title I of the CAA, specifically the
section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement (measures needed to mitigate a state's
[[Page 25420]]
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) multistate
attainment demonstration requirement, are not applicable to the St. Louis area.
On January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847), EPA proposed that the St. Louis area had attained the standard based on 20002002 monitoring data. With this finding, EPA also proposed that certain requirements, including an attainment demonstration, were no longer applicable as the area had attained the standard. EPA has explained at length in other actions its rationale for the reasonableness of this interpretation of the CAA and incorporates those explanations by reference. See (67 FR 49600) (CincinnatiHamilton, Kentucky, July 31, 2002); (66 FR 53095) (PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 37879) (CincinnatiHamilton, Ohio and Kentucky, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) (ClevelandAkronLorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 36723) (July 18, 1995) Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 3183231833) (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).
EPA reiterates the position set forth in its prior rulemaking actions and in the January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4847) proposed rulemaking for the St. Louis area. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA contains various air quality planning and SIP submission requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the provisions regarding Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment demonstrations, along with other certain other related provisions, not to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three consecutive years of complete, qualityassured, air quality monitoring data). EPA interprets the general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I (sections 171 and 172) not to require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations or section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. As explained in a memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Area Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995, EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the more specific attainment demonstration and related provisions of subpart 2 in the same manner. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996).
The attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) require that the plan provide for ``such specific annual reductions in emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA.'' If an area has, in fact, monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been reached'' (57 FR 13564). Upon attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts to the maintenance of the NAAQS and the development of a maintenance plan under section 175A.
Similar reasoning applies to other related provisions of subpart 2. The first of these are the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA has previously interpreted the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those ``contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date'' (57 FR 13564).
The state must continue to operate an appropriate network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data relied upon to determine that the area is attaining the ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's AIRS) for the St Louis ozone nonattainment area from the 2000 to 2002 ozone seasons. EPA has also reviewed the preliminary data collected to date for the 2003 ozone season (for St. Louis, the ozone season is April 1 through October 31 of each year). On the basis of this review, EPA has determined that the area has attained the 1 hour ozone standard during the 20002002 period and continues to attain the standard, and therefore is not required to submit an attainment demonstration and a section 172(c)(9) contingency measure plan, nor does it need any other measures to attain the 1hour ozone standard. B. Redesignation of Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Area to Attainment
Although EPA is determining that the entire St. Louis nonattainment area has attained the 1hour ozone standard, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to take final action related to Missouri's request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area and take final action related to Illinois' request to redesignate the Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area in separate rulemaking actions being published today. In the January 30, 2003, proposal, EPA stated that it was considering publishing separate rulemakings for Missouri and Illinois (68 FR 4848). We received one comment in support of publishing separate rulemakings and no adverse comments. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking the following actions with respect to the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area:
EPA is approving a request from the state of Missouri to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, EPA is taking the following actions:
1. Approving Missouri's plan for maintaining the 1hour ozone NAAQS through 2014, as a revision to the Missouri SIP;
2. Finding adequate and approving the 2014 MVEBs of 47.14 tons per
ozone season weekday for VOC and 68.59 tons per ozone season weekday for NO
transportation conformity purposes; and,
3. Determining that the attainment demonstration (and related contingency measure requirements) and reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements of the CAA are not applicable.
C. Effective Date of These Actions
EPA finds that there is good cause for this determination of
attainment, redesignation to attainment and SIP revision 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 CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate
[[Page 25421]]
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.''
In addition, as indicated above, the January 30, 2003, final rule
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 Missouri will be relieved of the
obligation to develop and submit these SIP revisions. In addition, the
Missouri rules adopted to meet the requirements of title V of the CAA,
provide that in a ``serious'' area, stationary sources with potential
emissions of VOCs and NO
reclassification to a serious nonattainment area will be relieved of
the requirement to submit title V permit applications. In a separate
rulemaking, EPA is redesignating the Illinois portions of the St. Louis
area to attainment. Additional requirements specific to the Illinois
portion of the St. Louis area are described in that separate rulemaking
and are also being lifted as a result of that portion's redesignation
to attainment. EPA finds that good cause exists for this final rule
being immediately effective since it relieves the state of Missouri as
well as stationary sources of certain restrictions which would otherwise apply.
III. Why Are We Taking These Actions To Redesignate the Area?
EPA has determined that the St. Louis area has attained the 1hour ozone standard. In addition, EPA has determined that the state of Missouri has demonstrated that the criteria for redesignation of the Missouri portion of the area from nonattainment to attainment 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 implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA has determined that the St. Louis area has attained the applicable NAAQS. EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the Missouri 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 Missouri portion of the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A. Missouri has met all requirements applicable to the Missouri portion of the area under section 110 and part D.
By finding that the maintenance plan provides for maintenance of
the NAAQS through 2014, EPA is hereby finding adequate and approving
the 2014 MVEBs contained within the maintenance plan. The MVEB for
NO
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 Redesignation to Attainment of the 1Hour NAAQS?
These actions determine that the area attained the 1hour ozone standard and that certain other related requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement (measures needed to mitigate a state's failure to achieve reasonable further progress toward, and attainment of, a NAAQS), the section 182 attainment demonstration and rate of progress requirements, and the section 182(j) multistate attainment demonstration requirement are not applicable to the St. Louis area. EPA's determination that the St. Louis area has met the 1hour ozone standard relieves the states from the obligation to meet certain additional requirements, which apply to areas not attaining that standard.
EPA notes that the area is likely to be designated nonattainment for the 8hour 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 1hour standard for the St. Louis area.
Approval of the Missouri redesignation request changes the official
designation for the 1hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for the
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area, including the City of St Louis,
and the Counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis
from nonattainment to attainment. It also incorporates into the
Missouri SIP a plan for maintaining the 1hour ozone NAAQS through
2014. The plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 1hour ozone NAAQS, and includes VOC and
NO
V. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?
We received five letters regarding the January 30, 2003, proposed
rule found at 68 FR 4847. Four of the letters generally supported the
rulemaking action. Two of the four letters in support of the rulemaking
action raised issues to which EPA is responding in this section. One of
the five letters contained adverse comments. 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 Missouri portion of the area.
Comments relating specifically to the Illinois portion of the area are
addressed in the final rule for Illinois published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
A. Comment 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 ozone standard is set forth in section II.A above. EPA has
further found that the area has met all of the five criteria [[Page 25422]]
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.
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 on Labor Day weekend in 2002 are ``hopelessly contaminated'' due to voluntary emission reductions undertaken by industry and others.
Response 2: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that one
criterion for redesignation to attainment is that EPA must determine
that the NAAQS has been attained. The regulations at 40 CFR part 58
specify data collection and quality assurance procedures. For ozone, an
area is attaining the 1hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H. The
regulation at 40 CFR 50.9 states ``the standard is attained when the
expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average
concentrations above 0.12 part per million is equal to or less than 1
as determined by appendix H.'' Appendix H states, ``The basic principle
in making this determination is relatively straightforward. . . . In
its simplest form, the number of exceedances at a monitoring site would
be recorded for each calendar year and then averaged over the past 3
calendar years to determine if this average is less than or equal to
1.'' The monitoring data for the St. Louis nonattainment area
demonstrate that the estimated number of exceedances per year averaged
over three years (2000 through 2002) is 1.0 or less at all monitoring
sites in the area. In the case of St. Louis, all of the data collected
are reviewed, quality assured and submitted to EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) database. EPA conducts a number of activities to determine that
the data meet the data collection and quality assurance procedures of 40 CFR part 58 including the following:
EPA ensures that the state (and local agencies) is performing quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) checks properly through systems
audits as required per 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. During these systems
audits EPA ensures that states are properly calibrating instruments,
properly performing precision and span checks on instruments, and
properly conducting audits of the instruments as required in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A.
EPA chooses several hourly ozone values and tracks those data points
from their collection at the monitor through their data handling
procedures, including QA/QC procedures, to its final destination in the AQS database.
To ensure quality data, as required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix A,
prior to the start of ozone season each year, EPA certifies at least
one primary standard ozone photometer for each of the state and local
agencies. These primary ozone photometers stay in the state/local
laboratories. Transfer standard photometers are verified against the
primary photometer and are used to calibrate the ozone analyzers in the
field. Thus, all of the data collected is traceable back to EPA's primary photometer.
EPA, as well as the quality assurance groups of the state and local
agencies, conduct audits on the ozone instruments collecting the data.
These audits are required to be performed quarterly as per 40 CFR part
58, appendix A. EPA audits each ozone instrument at least once per
ozone season. This ensures that the instrument is operating properly
and collecting accurate data, and it also acts as a check on the state
and local quality assurance groups to make sure that the audits they have conducted are accurate.
As required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, Precision and Span checks
are performed every two weeks by the agency operating the instrument.
EPA believes that any voluntary measures which may have been taken by industry and others over a two or threeday period in this three year time period do not render the air quality monitoring data unrepresentative of the air quality. The data would only be ``contaminated'' if there had been an error with respect to collection and quality assurance of the data, which there was not. The commenter offers no information indicating data collection was improper. In addition, even if these activities by the community were relevant to whether the area had attained, there is no evidence that emissions were actually reduced to an extent which would have a significant effect on ozone levels. See response to comment 18 below regarding further discussion on the ``voluntary reductions'' during the Labor Day weekend in 2002. In fact, as explained in the January 30, 2003, proposal at 68 FR 48564858, and in section V.D. below, the monitored improvements in air quality were due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. For example, as explained further in response to comment 19, the Missouri centralized motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program began in April 2000, the first year of the 20002002 time period. The use of reformulated gasoline began in 1999 and achieved additional reductions during the 20002002 time period. The monitoring data accurately reflected actual air quality conditions. See response to comment 19 below regarding EPA's conclusion that improvements in air quality are attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in ozone precursor emissions.
Comment 3: EPA's proposal ignores the second component discussed in a September 4, 1992, redesignation guidance document from John Calcagni entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) to EPA regional offices, that the determination of attainment should rely not only on monitored values, but on supplemental EPAapproved modeling. For St. Louis, monitored data runs directly counter to air quality modeling. The modeling supported the contention that the NAAQS could be attained only in 2004 after all control measures are adopted. Thus, the monitored attainment is a ``fluke'' explainable by factors other than the success of the pollution control measures. In addition, based on 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: The commenter cites a policy memorandum entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo), which states that there are two components in determining that an area has met the section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement. This policy states the following:
The state must show that the area is attaining the applicable NAAQS. There are two components involved in making this
demonstration which should be considered interdependently. The first
component relies upon ambient air quality data. * * * The second
component relies upon supplemental EPAapproved air quality modeling. No such supplemental modeling is required for
O
[[Page 25423]]
(ozone) nonattainment areas seeking redesignation * * * (pages 2 and 3).
This document explains that supplemental modeling may be needed, for example, in sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide areas, where emissions are localized and a small number of monitors may not be representative of air quality (page 3). In contrast, ozone is not a localized pollutant, and the St. Louis area has an extensive monitoring network consisting of nineteen monitors operating each year from 2000 through 2002 as described in EPA's proposal at 68 FR 4850. Therefore, consistent with the language in the policy and the rationale in calling for modeling in some cases for some pollutants and not in other cases, modeling is not required as part of this redesignation. Neither section 107(d)(3)(E) nor the policy referenced by the commenter requires 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. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the monitored data runs counter to air quality modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), and the redesignations for Pittsburgh (66 FR 53094, October 19, 2001), and Cincinnati (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000). See response to comments 10, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 37 below regarding further discussion of modeling issues.
Commenter's contention that attainment cannot be reached until at least 2004 is addressed below in response to comments 21 and 24.
In addition, the correlation between air quality improvements and permanent and enforceable emission reductions, demonstrating that monitored attainment is not a ``fluke'' is described in detail in the proposal and section V.D below.
The ozone modeling approaches used do not support any direct comparisons between ozone modeling results and monitored ozone concentrations for years other than a monitored and modeled base period. Although statistical comparisons are made between monitored ozone data and modeled base period ozone concentrations to validate ozone modeling results, ozone models are not designed to explicitly model ozone concentrations at specific locations or to exactly predict future ozone concentrations that can be compared to monitored ozone concentrations on a sitebysite basis. Ozone models are designed to primarily predict the relative impacts of emission changes on future peak ozone levels assuming the same meteorological conditions that are modeled for the base period. Such modeling techniques produce results with considerable uncertainty (relative to time and locationspecific monitored ozone concentrations) when one actually compares future modeled results with monitored ozone concentrations for the same years. The commenter errs in trying to force comparisons not supported by the existing science.
What the modeling results do imply is that, as regional
NO
Comment 4: The monitored data do not support a conclusion of continued attainment since the trend is toward increases in exceedances because 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 exceedances that occurred in 2002 occur in 2003 or 2004, the area will again violate the onehour ozone standard.
Response 4: See response to comment 20 below for our detailed response to the comment relating to air quality trends. The determination of attainment, as explained in the January 30, 2003, proposal, in section II.A. above, and in response to comment 2, is based on the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) and EPA's regulation which defines attainment of the ozone standard. The regulatory definition is based on design values over a 3year period, not on yeartoyear trends within the threeyear period. It would be inconsistent with the regulation to adopt an additional criterion for determining attainment.
It should be noted that a ``worsening'' ozone trend for the St. Louis area can only be discerned for the 20002002 period by combining the annual number of exceedances for all monitoring sites in the area (by totaling the number of exceedances for each year for all monitoring sites combined). This approach is technically flawed. The ozone standard is based on assessing the peak ozone data for each monitoring site individually not by cumulating the data for all sites. Review of the yearly exceedance data for each monitoring site, as given in Table 1 in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule (68 FR 4850) and in response to comment 20 below, shows that no consistent ozone exceedance rate trend can be established for the individual monitoring sites for this period. For example, the West Alton site experienced one ozone exceedance per year with no up or down trend. The Wood River monitor in Illinois increased from zero exceedances in 2000 to one exceedance in 2001 and back down to zero exceedances in 2002. Many monitors continued to record zero exceedances throughout the 20002002 period as noted above. Some monitors, which recorded zero exceedances in 2000 and 2001, recorded one or two exceedances in 2002, hardly a consistent, robust trend. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, on a monitorbymonitor basis, which is the basis for assessing compliance with the 1hour ozone standard, there is no consistent ``worsening'' trend in peak ozone concentrations.
Comment 5: EPA asserts that the data is ``quality assured'' but provided no explanation. EPA must demonstrate that the data is quality assured. EPA must document the adequacy of the states' quality assurance plan. Also, the commenter questions whether the data relied on for the attainment determination was qualityassured since it was entered in AIRS earlier than usual.
Response 5: As indicated in the response to comment 2 above, the regulations at 40 CFR part 58 specify data collection and quality assurance procedures. The Calcagni memo on page 2 specifies that the data should be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS in order for it to be available to the public for review. The monitoring data for the St. Louis area was quality assured and entered into AIRS in accordance with these requirements.
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 58 specifies the quality assurance
requirements for state and local air monitoring stations. The
regulation at 40 CFR 58.35(c) requires that the monitoring data be
entered into AIRS within 90 days after the end of the calendar quarter
in which it is collected. Thus, monitoring data collected through
September 2002 must be quality assured and entered into AIRS by
December 31, 2002. Monitoring data for October 2002 must be quality assured and entered into AIRS by March 31, 2003.
[[Page 25424]]
Monitoring data collected in a calendar quarter can be quality assured
and entered into AIRS at any time prior to 90 days after the end of that quarter.
The monitoring data is quality assured and entered into AIRS by the state and local agencies in the St. Louis area. The regulation at 40 CFR 58.20 requires states to adopt and submit to EPA revisions to the SIP which provide for meeting the requirements of appendix A. On September 27, 1984 (49 FR 38103), EPA approved Missouri's Air Quality Monitoring Plan. EPA stated in this September 27, 1984, rulemaking that ``the Missouri Air Quality Monitoring Plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 58.20.'' On March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15136), EPA approved Illinois' Air Quality Surveillance Plan. EPA stated in this March 4, 1981, rulemaking that EPA has reviewed the plan and ``it meets the requirements of * * * EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 58.'' As part of the September 27, 1984, and March 4, 1981, rulemakings the public was provided the opportunity to review and comment on Missouri's and Illinois' quality assurance procedures. Pursuant to the Calcagni memo, page 3, and upheld in Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d. 426, 437), an EPA action on a redesignation request does not mean that earlier issues with regard to the SIP will be reopened. Thus, there is no requirement to present quality assurance procedures in this rulemaking.
In addition to Missouri's Air Quality Monitoring Plan and Illinois'
Air Quality Surveillance Plan, EPA reviewed and approved the States'
Quality Management Plans (QMP). Under the states' QMP, the state and
local agencies conducting the ambient monitoring develop Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPP). It is through the QMP and QAPP that EPA
reviewed and approved the states' and local agencies' quality assurance
procedures. In order to verify that the state and local agencies
followed these procedures and that the data meets the data collection
and quality assurance procedures of 40 CFR part 58, EPA conducted the actions listed in the response to comment 2 above.
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 promulgated 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 to become part of the contingency measure. 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 partial, conditional, or limited approval (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.'' This comment relates to the issue of which requirements are ``applicable,'' rather than whether the SIP is fully approved. 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 CAA 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 which requirements are applicable in reviewing a redesignation request. As stated in the January 30, 2003, proposed rule (page 4851), the September 4, 1992, Calcagni memo (see ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirement. Under this interpretation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. Areas may be redesignated even though they have not adopted measures that come due after the submission of a complete redesignation request. A detailed discussion of EPA's rationale for this interpretation is contained in the rule redesignating DetroitAnn Arbor, 60 FR 12459, 1246512466 (March 7, 1995). Pursuant to the January 30, 2003, final rule reclassifying the St. Louis area to ``serious'' (68 FR 4836), the serious nonattainment area requirements are due on January 30, 2004. The final rule has not been timely challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA. Thus, the serious nonattainment area requirements due date is January 30, 2004. Since the serious area requirements are not yet due, the SIP is not deficient because the serious area requirements have not been included. EPA policy and a reasonable application of sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) allow for an area to be redesignated even though the area has not adopted measures which are not yet due. EPA has consistently applied this policy and interpretation in other redesignations including the DetroitAnn Arbor redesignation cited above.
In addition, there is no requirement in section 107(d)(3)(E) that states must ``claim'' (or demonstrate) 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 request is made. EPA's action to reclassify the area to a serious nonattainment area was published in the Federal Register after both states had submitted their redesignation requests to attainment, and it established a deadline for submission of the serious area requirements which had not yet passed, and still remains in the future. Thus, Missouri was not required to include in its request a ``claim'' that the state cannot complete the serious area requirements.
Finally, the Calcagni memo discusses the statutory requirement that the state must implement all measures included in the SIP prior to redesignation (pages 1213). (In response to comment 32, EPA discusses 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 to an area, and already contained in a 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 St. Louis, for the reasons discussed above, and are
not included in the SIP for St. Louis, the guidance in the Calcagni
memo and in a memorandum entitled ``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'' dated
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memo), relating to mechanisms for converting part D measures into contingency measures is
[[Page 25425]]
not relevant for purposes of this redesignation.
Comment 7: The proposed rulemaking suggests that a SIP meeting the serious area requirements need not be fully approved because such a plan is not yet due. 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 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was to reinstate this submission date.
Response 7: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires that the applicable SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k). As discussed in the response to comments 6 and 8, the applicable SIPs for the St. Louis area are fully approved, and the serious area requirements have not yet become 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 section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). As stated in the January 30, 2003, final rule at 68 FR 4838, on November 25, 2002, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a June 26, 2001, rule extending the St. Louis area's attainment date, 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 CAA, EPA reinstated the nonattainment determination and reclassification contained in the March 19, 2001, rulemaking (66 FR 15585). In the January 30 rule, EPA also 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). The January 30, 2003, final rule was not challenged and this redesignation rulemaking does not reopen the January 30 rulemaking. 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 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the reclassification of the St. Louis area to serious should have been made retrocative to 1997, with the serious area measures due in 1998. This argument is not only outside the scope of this rulemaking as explained previously, but it was rejected by both Courts (See, Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d, 63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). The Courts rejected the notion that retroactive SIP submission dates should be imposed because they would have passed before the area had notice and opportunity to meet the deadlines. See also, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia Determination of Nonattainment (68 FR 3410, January 24, 2003). As explained above, EPA's determination that the serious area requirements are not ``applicable'' with respect to this redesignation because they are not yet due is consistent with the CAA, with the January 30, 2003, final rule, with applicable EPA policy, with relevant judicial decisions, and with a long history of prior redesignation actions.
Comment 8: There is no ``fully approved'' or even a 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. EPA is hereby providing a response regarding the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area. See the rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this comment as it pertains to the Illinois 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
herein. See also the discussion in section II.A concerning the
inapplicability of certain requirements. In the June 26, 2001, rule,
EPA took the following relevant actions: approved Missouri's and
Illinois' 1hour ozone attainment demonstration; found that the St.
Louis ozone nonattainment area met the RACM requirements of the CAA;
found that the contingency measures identified by the states of
Illinois and Missouri are adequate; approved the Illinois and Missouri MVEBs; approved an exemption from the oxides of nitrogen
(NO
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 Missouri which are applicable for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), and is determining that the other submissions are not applicable.
Therefore, the SIP is ``fully approved'' for all applicable requirements.
Comment 9: EPA attempted to assert that the Missouri and Illinois SIPs ``can be considered to be approved.'' This is a ``pseudo approval'' and an attempt by EPA to escape the simple straightforward statutory requirement to have 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 SIP. 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. EPA is hereby providing a response
regarding the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area. See the
rulemaking in today's Federal Register regarding redesignation of the [[Page 25426]]
Illinois portion of the St. Louis area for EPA's response to this
comment as it pertains to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area.
The use of the phrase ``can be considered to be approved'' (see the January 30, 2003, proposed rule at 68 FR 4851, 4852) was merely a statement the SIPs will meet the section 110 requirements and as such ``can be considered to be approved'' if EPA were to approve certain plan elements, described in the proposed rulemakings. On January 30, 2003, EPA published two proposed rules found at 68 FR 4842 and 68 FR 4847. As part of these proposals, EPA proposed to approve revisions to Missouri's I/M rule. In today's Federal Register, EPA is taking final action approving Missouri's I/M rule. By taking these actions, EPA now concludes that Missouri's SIP is approved. The use of the quoted phrase was not intended to escape a statutory requirement. In fact, it recognized EPA's obligation to complete rulemakings in order to approve SIPs, and it recognized that EPA could not determine that the SIP was fully approved until it took final action to approve the remaining SIP elements. All of the SIP elements which are applicable to the St. Louis area for purposes of redesignation have either been approved in previous rulemakings (see response to comments 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 for a discussion of these prior rulemakings) or are approved in rulemakings published today.
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). In this decision, the Court vacated
the June 26, 2001, rule and remanded to EPA for entry of a final rule
that reclassifies St Louis as a serious nonattainment area for ozone.
Although the Court's opinion addressed only EPA's action extending the
attainment date for St. Louis, the Court's order vacated the other EPA
actions in the rulemaking as well. EPA has approved all SIP elements
that are applicable to the St. Louis area and is determining that
certain others are not applicable. This is not a ``pseudoapproval'' of
the SIP elements, but a determination that because certain requirements
(e.g., the attainment demonstration and RACM) are not applicable, they
need not be approved. (See response to comment 8 for more discussion of
the requirement for a fully approved SIP.) The applicable requirements
which were approved prior to the June 26, 2001, action (e.g., VOC RACT,
NO
In acting upon a redesignation request, EPA may 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 St. Louis area has a fully approved SIP. See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992, page 3 (Calcagni memo). The Calcagni memo allows for approval of SIP elements and redesignation to occur simultaneously, and EPA has frequently taken this approach in its redesignation actions. See (66 FR 53096) (PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 37879) (CincinnatiHamilton, Ohio, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) (ClevelandAkronLorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 3183231833) (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI).
Comment 10: The SIPs fail to meet the section 110 requirements
because the ``inapplicable ``moderate'' area'' requirements contained
in the SIPs do not provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS because modeling shows that the plan does not
provide for attainment until 2004. Furthermore, Missouri has failed to meet the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements related to the
NO
Response 10: EPA finds that the Missouri SIP meets the section 110 requirements. See the January 30, 2003, proposal and the responses to comments 8 and 9 for further discussion.
Submissions under the NO
At this time, Missouri is not subject to the NO
The SIP call budget for Missouri was proposed on February 22, 2002
(67 FR 8396), but has not yet been finalized. For this reason alone, it
is not an applicable requirement. In addition, the NO
Thus, we do not agree that the NO
[[Page 25427]]
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
Comment 11: The state SIPs fail to meet the part D requirements of the CAA. EPA asserts that certain requirements of part D are not applicable because monitoring data shows 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: Section II.A of this document, discussing the
rationale for EPA's determination of attainment and suspension of
certain requirements, addresses the applicability of the part D
requirements. The part D requirements 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 source), RFP, emissions
inventory, identification and quantification of allowable emissions for
major new or modified stationary sources, permits for new and modified
major stationary sources, 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 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. Subpart 2 requirements
include attainment demonstration, 1990 base year inventory and periodic
emissions inventories updates, emission statements, rateofprogress
plans, VOC RACT, RACM, stage II vapor recovery, I/M, and NO
As stated in the response to comment 8 above, the Missouri 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 each state's RFP, permitting programs, and VOC RACT rules as meeting the requirements of part D. Missouri's SIP has regulations requiring annual emission statements from major sources. Missouri has submitted complete emission inventories. Missouri has approved general conformity rules pursuant to section 176. In addition, Missouri has approved transportation conformity rules. EPA is approving in this action Missouri's maintenance plan which includes adequate contingency measures. Thus, Missouri has met the applicable part D requirements of the CAA. Note that also as stated in the response to comment 8, by finding that the St. Louis area has attained the standard, the attainment demonstration and RACM requirements are no longer applicable requirements. See also the final rule for Illinois describing how the MetroEast St. Louis area has met the applicable requirements.
As indicated in comment 3 above, neither section 107(d)(3)(E) nor EPA policy referenced by the commenter requires 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 37879Cincinnati redesignation for additional discussion of this issue. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d. 426 upholding this interpretation.) However, as explained in detail in comment 3, 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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Tony Petruska, (913) 551-7637, (petruska.anthony@epa.gov).
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 44 CFR Part 64 10 CFR Part 50 49 CFR Part 571 47 CFR Part 76