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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN15-4-6647; FRL-5096-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1994, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) published direct final rulemaking approving the

redesignation of St. Joseph, Elkhart, Marion, and Vanderburgh Counties,

Indiana to attainment of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) and their accompanying maintenance plans as State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. On the same day (July 8, 1994), a

proposed rule was also published which established a 30-day public

comment period noting that, if adverse comments were received regarding

the direct final rule, the USEPA would withdraw the direct final rule

and publish an additional final rule to address the public comments.

Adverse comments were received during the public comment period and the

USEPA published a withdrawal of the direct final rule on August 26,

1994. This final rule summarizes these comments and USEPA's responses

and finalizes the approval of the redesignation of St. Joseph, Elkhart

and Marion Counties. However, due to preliminary, non-quality

industrial assured ozone data recently received from the State of

Indiana for Warrick County, (which is adjacent to Vanderburgh County)

indicating that a violation of the ozone standard may have occurred in

1994, USEPA is not finalizing the approval of the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County at this time. The USEPA will address the Vanderburgh

County redesignation request when an evaluation of these monitoring

data are available.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will be effective November 30, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and USEPA's

response are available for inspection at the following address: (It is

recommended that you telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Regulation Development

Section (AR-18J), Regulation Development Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312)

886-6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

The redesignation requests and maintenance plans discussed in this

rule were submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) for the following ozone nonattainment areas: South

Bend/Elkhart (St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties, submitted on September

22, 1993); and Indianapolis (Marion County, submitted on November 12,

1993). On July 8, 1994, (59 FR 35044) USEPA published a direct final

rule approving the redesignation requests and maintenance plans as

revisions to the Indiana ozone SIP. On the same day, USEPA published a

proposed rule noting that if adverse comments were received regarding

the direct final rule, the USEPA would withdraw the direct final rule

and publish another final rule addressing the public comments (For

further information refer to 59 FR 35044 and 59 FR 36731). Adverse

comments were received regarding the direct final rule and USEPA,

therefore, withdrew the direct final rule on August 26, 1994, (59 FR

44040). The final rule contained in today's Federal Register addresses

the comments which were received during the public comment period and

announces USEPA's final action regarding the redesignation of St.

Joseph, Elkhart and Marion Counties. The State of Indiana has provided

the USEPA with preliminary, non-quality assured ozone data for Warrick

County (which is adjacent to Vanderburgh County) indicating that a

violation of the ozone standard may have occurred in 1994. During four

days in 1994, June 18 through June 21, ozone standard exceedances may

have been recorded at an Alcoa operated facility site (AIRS site 18-

173-0002). The USEPA will defer final rulemaking on the redesignation

of Vanderburgh County until an evaluation of these monitoring data are

available for this period. Based on evaluation of these data, the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment will have to be

reconsidered. USEPA will summarize and respond to the adverse comments

received regarding the Vanderburgh County redesignation in a subsequent

final rulemaking action.

II. Public Comments and USEPA Responses

The following discussion summarizes and responds to the comments

received regarding the redesignation of St. Joseph, Elkhart, and Marion

Counties.

Comment

A commenter notes that, in reviewing Indiana's ozone redesignation

request, the USEPA should consider the transport of ozone and ozone

precursors into nonattainment areas currently part of the Lake Michigan

Ozone Control Program (LMOP) (also referred to as the Lake Michigan

Ozone Study [LMOS] area). Given the ongoing concerns about the control

of transported ozone and ozone precursors as part of the attainment

strategies being considered for the LMOP area, the commenter believes

the Indiana ozone nonattainment areas (as well as those of Illinois,

Michigan, and Wisconsin) should not be redesignated to attainment until

the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) has conducted and

completed an analysis of the ozone impacts of controlling transported

ozone precursors.

USEPA Response

Although the 1991 field study conducted for LMOS produced high

ozone concentrations aloft near the upwind edge of the LMOS modeling

domain, implying transport of relatively high ozone concentrations into

the LMOS domain, the 1991 field study did not establish the source(s)

of the transported ozone. No studies have been conducted demonstrating

that the Indiana nonattainment areas are the source areas responsible

for the transported ozone. As there is currently no conclusive evidence

that these Indiana areas are responsible for the transported ozone,

USEPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to continue the

nonattainment classification of these areas. USEPA further notes that

these areas remain subject to obligations under sections 110(a)(2)(A)

and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (Act) to deal with ozone

transport even after redesignation to attainment.

It should be noted that the LADCO States are conducting modeling

analyses which will allow an assessment of the ozone impacts of

controlling emissions in attainment areas as well as in ozone

nonattainment areas. In addition, the USEPA is considering analyzing

the impacts of some national controls covering both attainment areas

and nonattainment areas through the use of the Regional Oxidant Model,

which can cover a larger domain than the Urban Airshed Model used in

LMOS and LMOP. The results of these modeling analyses may lead to new

emission control requirements for attainment areas.

Comment

A commenter notes that the State of Indiana has not fully predicted

the impact of future transportation projects and their effects on

Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and mobile source emissions growth.

Specifically, the State of Indiana is planning to build a new four-lane

highway between Marion and Vanderburgh Counties. In addition, the City

of Indianapolis has recently proposed changes to its public

transportation system, including the elimination of routes. Conformity

analyses have not been performed for either of these proposals. The

commenter argues that the September 4, 1992 redesignation guidance from

USEPA's Director of the Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, requires that the State prove that its

State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions are consistent with the

Act's section 176(c)(4) conformity requirements.

USEPA Response

The USEPA conformity rule (58 FR 62218) requires the States to

conduct conformity analyses for both nonattainment areas and attainment

areas subject to maintenance plans. The State is currently drafting its

conformity rule to comply with USEPA's conformity rule. Therefore, any

major federally funded and State funded projects in the areas

redesignated to attainment by this action will be addressed through

State conformity analyses and will be subject to the emissions budget

established by the applicable maintenance plan. The Indianapolis-

Evansville highway and any major modifications in public transportation

will be subject to conformity analyses after Marion County is

redesignated to attainment. If the changes to the public transportation

system are minor, they are not required to be subject to conformity

analyses.

Comment

A commenter has noted that the State has not shown that the

improvements in air quality (occurring after the violation period of

1987 through 1989) are due to permanent and enforceable emission

reductions as required in section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the Act. The

commenter argues that the September 4, 1992 USEPA redesignation policy

guidance is clear in requiring analysis of whether the improved air

quality has resulted in part from either unique meteorological

conditions or adverse economic conditions. Air quality improvements due

to these air quality impacts are not permanent, and, therefore, are not

creditable. These aspects have been neglected in both the State

redesignation request and in USEPA's subsequent rulemaking.

USEPA Response

The September 4, 1992 USEPA policy guidance referred to by the

commenter states that ``[a]ttainment resulting from temporary

reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdown due

to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable

meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to

permanent and enforceable emission reductions.'' Neither the State nor

the USEPA has neglected these issues in preparing and analyzing

Indiana's redesignation request. Rather, the USEPA believes that the

State has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality

resulting in the attainment of the ozone standard is not due to

temporary economic downturn or unusually favorable meteorology. As

explained below, the State has made an adequate demonstration that the

improvement in air quality in these Counties leading to attainment of

the ozone standard was not due to temporary reductions in emission

rates or to unusually favorable meteorology.

With respect to the issue of temporary emission reductions due to

economic downturn, the USEPA noted in the July 8, 1994 direct final

rulemaking (59 FR 35048), that the State has shown that attainment of

the ozone standard is attributable to permanent and enforceable

emission reductions that have occurred in Elkhart, Marion, and St.

Joseph Counties. These emission reductions have resulted from source

closures, implementation of emission controls on stationary sources

(this included added emission reductions resulting from the correction

of reasonably available control technology regulations in response to

regulation deficiencies previously noted by the USEPA), implementation

of the federal motor vehicle emission control program, and

implementation of gasoline reid vapor pressure restrictions (Indiana

implemented USEPA reid vapor pressure requirements, lowering reid vapor

pressure limits to 9.0 pounds per square inch by 1992). All of these

controls are permanent and enforceable. In the case of source closures,

the source permits associated with these sources have been terminated

and will not be reissued. Substantial emission reductions have occurred

as a result of the imposition of permanent and enforceable emission

controls, and it is USEPA's judgment that these reductions, rather than

reductions attributable to any temporary economic downturn, are

primarily responsible for the improvement in air quality that led to

the attainment of the ozone standard in these Counties. The continued

attainment status of these Counties in the years since the 1990-1992

period further indicates that temporary adverse economic conditions in

the 1990-1991 period were not a significant factor in the attainment of

the ozone standard in these Counties.

With respect to the issue of unusual meteorology, the State has

compared the average meteorological parameters of maximum daily

temperatures, daily mean wind speeds, percents of possible sunshine,

and percents of relative humidity for the periods of May through

August, 1990 through 1992, with the 30-year (1961-1990) norms for these

parameters. In all three areas considered for redesignation, the 1990-

1992 averages for these parameters agreed with those for the 30-year

norms with only minor differences. Based on averaged parameters, it can

be concluded that the 1990-1992 period was not atypically nonconducive

to ozone formation. Thus, the State has adequately demonstrated that

the air quality improvement was not due to unusually favorable

meteorology.

Comment

A commenter notes that the failure to require correction of the

State's part D New Source Review (NSR) program as a condition for

approval of the area redesignations is in conflict with the Act and

with USEPA guidance. The commenter notes that the USEPA rulemaking

statement that part D NSR requirements are not generally applicable

upon redesignation to attainment conflicts with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)

and is not justified in the USEPA guidance. The commenter notes that,

although the USEPA September 4, 1992 policy memorandum implied that

there is some flexibility in replacing part D NSR requirements with

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, a

subsequent USEPA September 17, 1993 policy clarification memorandum

eliminated this flexibility.

The commenter also notes that the USEPA redesignation rulemaking

erroneously allows the removal of existing part D NSR requirements,

such as the requirements for offsets and Lowest Achievable Emission

Rates (LAER). All of these existing programs disappear or are replaced

by a part C PSD program. The commenter argues that the redesignations

to attainment are not acceptable unless the NSR part D requirements are

retained as contingency measures. It is noted that PSD for sources of

ozone precursors does not require emission offsets for new sources,

only requires Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emission

controls rather than LAER, and has different source emission thresholds

than does part D NSR. The implication is that shifting to PSD from part

D NSR will weaken emission control requirements without adequate

safeguards.

The commenter notes that the statement in the redesignation

rulemaking that the section 175A(d) requirement (that all SIP measures

be converted to contingency measures) should not apply to part D NSR

because of the differing use of the term ``measure'' at section 161 of

the Clean Air Act is irrelevant. The relevance of the part C (section

161) reference to a part D NSR requirement is questionable. The

allusion to USEPA's historical practices do nothing to negate the

explicit imperatives of the Clean Air Act and other USEPA guidance.

The commenter goes on to state that based on USEPA's logic in

eliminating the part D NSR requirement, any and all other applicable

part D requirements, including those which have been previously met and

even relied upon in demonstrating attainment, could be eliminated

without an analysis demonstrating that maintenance would be protected.

USEPA Response

USEPA believes that the areas that are the subject of Indiana's

redesignation request may be redesignated to attainment notwithstanding

the lack of a fully approved NSR program meeting the requirements of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the absence of such an NSR

program from the contingency plan. This view, while a departure from

the past policy, has been set forth by the USEPA as its new policy in a

memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation (``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for

Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' October 14, 1994).

USEPA believes that its failure to insist on a fully approved NSR

program as a pre-requisite to redesignation to attainment is

justifiable as an exercise of the Agency's general authority to

establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. See Alabama

Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Under

Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, the Agency has the authority to establish

de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements where the application

of the statutory requirements would be of trivial or no value

environmentally.

In this context, the issue presented is whether the Agency has the

authority to establish an exception to the requirement of section

107(d)(3)(E) that USEPA has fully approved a state implementation plan

meeting all of the requirements applicable to the area under section

110 and part D of Title I of the Act. Plainly, the NSR provisions of

section 110 and part D are requirements that were applicable to the

Indiana areas seeking redesignation at the times of submission of the

requests for redesignation. Thus, on its face, section 107(d)(3)(E)

would seem to require that the State has submitted and USEPA has fully

approved an NSR program meeting the requirements of the Act before the

areas could be redesignated to attainment.

Under the Agency's de minimis authority, however, it may establish

an exception to an otherwise plain statutory requirement if its

fulfillment would be of little or no environmental value. In this

context, it is necessary to determine what would be achieved by

insisting that there be a fully approved NSR program in place prior to

the redesignation of the Indiana areas. For the following reasons,

USEPA believes that requiring the adoption and full approval of an NSR

program prior to redesignation would not be of any significant

environmental value in this case.

Indiana has demonstrated that maintenance of the ozone NAAQS will

occur even if the emission reductions expected to result from an NSR

program due to emission offsets do not occur. The emission projections

made by Indiana to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS considered

growth in point source emissions (along with growth for other source

categories) and were premised on the assumption that PSD would be in

effect, rather than NSR, during the maintenance period. Under NSR,

significant point source emissions growth would not occur. Indiana

assumed that NSR would not apply after redesignation to attainment,

and, therefore, assumed source growth factors based on projected growth

in the economy and in the areas' populations. (It should be noted that

the growth factors assumed may be overestimates under PSD, which would

restrain source growth through the application of best available

control techniques.) Thus, contrary to the assertion of the commenters,

Indiana has demonstrated that there is no need to retain NSR as an

operative program in the state implementation plan during the

maintenance period in order to provide for continued maintenance of the

NAAQS. (If this demonstration had not been made, NSR would have had to

have been retained in the state implementation plan as an operative

program since it would have been needed to maintain the ozone

standard.)

The other purpose that requiring the full approval of an NSR

program might serve would be to ensure that NSR would become a

contingency provision in the maintenance plan required for these areas

by sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(d). These provisions require

that, for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it must receive

full approval of a maintenance plan containing ``such contingency

provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the

State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs

after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Such

provisions shall include a requirement that the State will implement

all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned

which were contained in the State implementation plan for the area

before redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' Based on this

language, it is apparent that whether an approved NSR program must be

included as a contingency provision depends on whether it is considered

as a ``measure'' for the control of the pertinent air pollutants.

As USEPA noted in the proposed rulemaking regarding these

redesignation requests, the term ``measure'' is not defined in section

175A(d) and Congress utilized that term differently in different

provisions of the Act with respect to the PSD and NSR permitting

programs. For example, in section 110(a)(2)(A), Congress required State

implementation plans to include ``enforceable emission limitations and

other control measures, means, or techniques * * * as may be necessary

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.'' In

section 110(a)(2)(C), Congress required that State implementation plans

include ``a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures

described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and

construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the

plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards

are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and

D.'' (Emphasis added.) If the term ``measures'' as used in sections

110(a)(2) (A) and (C) had been intended to include PSD and NSR there

would have been no point to requiring that State implementation plans

include both measures and preconstruction review under parts C and D

(PSD and NSR). Unless ``measures'' referred to something other than

preconstruction review under parts C and D, the reference to

preconstruction review programs in section 110(a)(2)(C) would be

rendered mere surplusage. Thus, in sections 110(a)(2) (A) and (C), it

is apparent that Congress distinguished ``measures'' from

preconstruction review. On the other hand, in other provisions of the

Act, such as section 161, Congress appeared to include PSD within the

scope of the term ``measures.''

Contrary to the comments in this proceeding, USEPA does not believe

that the fact that Congress used the undefined term ``measure''

differently in different sections of the Act is ``irrelevant.'' Rather,

this indicates that the term is susceptible to more than one

interpretation and that USEPA has the discretion to interpret it in a

reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. Inasmuch as Congress

itself has used the term in a manner that excluded PSD and NSR from its

scope, USEPA believes it is reasonable to interpret ``measure,'' as

used in section 175A(d), not to include NSR. That this is a reasonable

interpretation is further supported by the fact that PSD, a program

that is the corollary of NSR for attainment areas, goes into effect in

lieu of NSR.\1\ This distinguishes NSR from other required programs

under the Act, such as enhanced inspection and maintenance and

reasonably available control technology, which have no corollary for

attainment areas. Moreover, USEPA believes that those other required

programs are clearly within the scope of the term ``measure.''\2\

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

\1\USEPA is not suggesting that NSR and PSD are equivalent, but

merely that they are the same type of program.

\2\USEPA also notes that, in the case of the Indiana areas, the

possible contingency provisions include volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission offsets for new and modified major sources; VOC

emission offsets for new and modified minor sources; increasing the

ratio of emission offsets required for new sources; and VOC controls

on new minor sources (less than 100 tons per year). Furthermore,

Indiana's construction permit program requires that, prior to

constructing any source in any attainment or nonattainment area in

the State, it must be demonstrated that the resultant emissions will

not exacerbate an existing air quality violation or cause a new

violation. This is consistent with USEPA's PSD requirements as

specified at 40 CFR 52.21(k) and is provided for in Indiana's State

implementation plan (see 40 CFR 52.793(b)).

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

USEPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that USEPA's logic

in treating NSR in this manner means that other applicable part D

requirements, including those that have been previously met and

previously relied upon in demonstrating attainment, could be eliminated

without an analysis demonstrating that maintenance would be protected.

As noted above, Indiana has demonstrated that maintenance would be

protected with PSD in effect, rather than NSR. Thus, USEPA is not

permitting NSR to be removed without a demonstration that maintenance

of the standard will be achieved. Moreover, USEPA has not amended its

policy with respect to the conversion of other State implementation

plan elements to contingency provisions, which is that they may be

converted to contingency provisions only upon a showing that

maintenance will be achieved without them being in effect. Finally, as

noted above, USEPA believes that the NSR requirement differs from other

requirements, and does not believe that the rationale for the NSR

exception extends to other required programs.

The position taken in this action is consistent with USEPA's

current national policy. That policy permits redesignations to proceed

without otherwise required NSR programs having been fully approved and

converted to contingency provisions provided that the area

demonstrates, as has been done in this case, that maintenance will be

achieved with the application of PSD rather than NSR.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

The State of Indiana has met the requirements of the Act revising

the Indiana ozone SIP. The USEPA approves the redesignation of St.

Joseph, Elkhart and Marion Counties, Indiana to attainment of the ozone

NAAQS. Final determination is being withheld for Vanderburgh County at

this time. Further consideration of the Vanderburgh County

redesignation will be made upon completion of the quality assurance of

the Alcoa monitoring site data.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, USEPA may certify 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 government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of

the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by December 30, 1994. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect

the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does

it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be

filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: October 14, 1994.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart P--Indiana

2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.777 Control strategy: Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *

(f) Approval. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management

submitted two ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans

requesting the ozone nonattainment areas to be redesignated to

attainment for ozone: South Bend/Elkhart (St. Joseph and Elkhart

Counties), submitted on September 22, 1993; Indianapolis (Marion

County), submitted on November 12, 1993. The redesignation requests and

maintenance plans meet the redesignation requirements in section

107(d)(3)(d) of the Act as amended in 1990. The redesignations meet the

Federal requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a

revision to the Indiana Ozone State Implementation Plan for the above

mentioned counties.

* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7871q.

2. In Sec. 81.315 the Indiana--Ozone table is amended by revising

the entries for ``Indianapolis Area'' and ``South Bend-Elkhart Area''

to read as follows:

Sec. 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

Indiana--Ozone

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

Designation Classification

Designated areas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type

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

* * * * * * *

Indianapolis Area:

Marion County................................... November 30, 1994........... Attainment........

* * * * * * *

South Bend-Elkhart Area:

Elkhart County.................................. November 30, 1994........... Attainment........

St. Joseph County............................... November 30, 1994........... Attainment........

* * * * * * *

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

\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 94-26428 Filed 10-28-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P