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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN77-2; FRL-5933-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans,

and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve an ozone maintenance

plan submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request

and a redesignation request submitted by the State of Indiana for the

purpose of redesignating Vanderburgh County (Evansville) from marginal

nonattainment to attainment of the one-hour ozone national ambient air

quality standard. Besides being based on information contained in the

State's redesignation request, the approval of this redesignation

request is also based on review of the ozone data for this area over

the three most recent years, 1995 through 1997. EPA finds the State's

maintenance plan and redesignation request to be acceptable and notes

that, based on the most recent three years of ozone data, the area is

currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard. This action does not

address the area's attainment of the recently promulgated eight-hour

ozone standard, which will be addressed in future rulemaking.

DATES: This action is effective December 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's redesignation request and maintenance

plan, EPA's analyses (technical support documents and proposed and

final rulemakings), and public comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking

are available for inspection at the following address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

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

visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Public Law 101-549, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Pursuant

to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),

Vanderburgh County, Indiana was designated as nonattainment for the

one-hour ozone standard and was classified as marginal (see 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991)).

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted

an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan as a SIP revision

for Vanderburgh County on November 4, 1993. On July 8, 1994 (59 FR

35044), EPA published a direct final rulemaking approving the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone

standard. On the same day, a proposed rulemaking was also published in

the Federal Register which established a 30-day public comment period

for the redesignation approval and noted that, if adverse comments were

received regarding the final rulemaking, EPA would withdraw the direct

final rulemaking and would address the comments through a revised final

rulemaking. EPA received adverse comments, and published a withdrawal

of the direct final rulemaking on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44040).

Subsequent to the July 8, 1994 direct final rulemaking, EPA was

informed by IDEM that a possible violation of the ozone standard had

been monitored at a privately-operated industrial site owned by the

Aluminum Corporation of America (Alcoa) in Warrick County. Warrick

County (designated as attainment for ozone) adjoins Vanderburgh County

to the east. Because Warrick County can be considered to be a nearby

area downwind of Vanderburgh County on certain days, EPA questioned

whether the monitored violation in Warrick County should be considered

in any subsequent rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County. IDEM indicated its intent to investigate the high ozone values

and requested that EPA not act on the redesignation request pending the

outcome of that technical investigation. IDEM completed its

investigation and submitted the results to the EPA on June 5, 1995.

IDEM's investigation concluded that the Alcoa peak ozone concentrations

were unusual during the period of the monitored ozone standard

violation, were biased high (relative to peak ozone concentrations at

other area monitoring sites during the May through June, 1994 time

period), and were not

[[Page 64726]]

representative of the Vanderburgh County nonattainment area peak ozone

levels. IDEM recommended that EPA proceed with the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County to attainment so that the maintenance plan could

become federally enforceable.

Due to the large extent of additional data received after the July

8, 1994 direct final rulemaking and the extent of public comments on

that rulemaking, EPA concluded that it was appropriate to repropose

rulemaking for this redesignation action. EPA evaluated all available

information, including public comments on the July 8, 1994 direct final

rulemaking, and proposed to approve the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County to attainment of the ozone standard on March 14, 1997 (62 FR

12137).

Based on the available information at the time of the March 14,

1997 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to take final action approving

the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment if any of the

following three events occurred: (1) If Warrick County attained the

ozone standard prior to final rulemaking action by the EPA on the

Vanderburgh County redesignation; (2) if EPA determined that

Vanderburgh County did not significantly contribute to an ozone

nonattainment problem in Warrick County; or (3) if the EPA determined

that the information available is not sufficient to determine whether

or not Vanderburgh County significantly contributed to a nonattainment

problem in Warrick County. EPA also solicited public comment on whether

the 1994 Warrick County ozone standard violation data should be

excluded from consideration of the Vanderburgh County ozone attainment

status.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, replacing the one-hour, 0.12 parts

per million standard with an eight-hour, 0.08 parts per million

standard (62 FR 38856). EPA is in the process of developing guidance

and proposed rules to implement the new ozone standard based on a

Presidential Directive signed on July 16, 1997, and published in the

Federal Register on July 18, 1997. Today's action is a redesignation to

attainment for Vanderburgh County for the one-hour, 0.12 parts per

million standard and approval of the maintenance plan as it relates to

the one-hour standard only. EPA's decision to redesignate Vanderburgh

County to attainment and to approve the maintenance plan as a SIP

revision is based on the requirements of section 107 of the Act and

existing EPA policy and guidance as they pertain to the one-hour

standard. Today's decision does not in any way make a determination

regarding Vanderburgh County's attainment status for the newly

promulgated eight-hour standard. Decisions regarding the attainment

status of areas for the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS will be made by EPA

at a later date.

II. Current Air Quality

A violation of the one-hour, 0.12 parts per million ozone standard

occurs in an area when the annual average number of expected daily

exceedances of the ozone standard exceeds 1.0 at any site in the area

based on the most recent 3 years of ozone data. Therefore, the

condition for a violation of the ozone standard would generally require

that more than 3 exceedances of the ozone standard be monitored during

the 3 most recent years of monitoring at any site in the area.

To review the ozone data for possible ozone standard violations,

one must consider the defined ozone season for the area. The ozone

season is that portion of the year when one may expect relatively high

ozone concentrations exceeding the standard. Outside of this period,

ozone standard exceedances are rarely or never recorded. The

calculation of expected ozone standard exceedance rates takes into

account the potential for ozone standard exceedances on days during the

ozone season with invalid or missing data. For the State of Indiana,

including the Evansville area, the ozone season is defined in 40 CFR

Part 52 to be April through September.

Review of current ozone data for the period of 1995 through 1997

for the Evansville area, including Vanderburgh, Posey, and Warrick

Counties, shows that the one-hour ozone standard has not been violated

in the area during the most recent 3 years. Only a single exceedance of

the one-hour ozone standard was monitored in the area during this 3-

year period: 0.131 parts per million, recorded at the Booneville site

in Warrick County in 1995. IDEM, in an October 3, 1997 letter to the

EPA, confirmed that there were no current ozone standard violations in

the area and that the ozone data for the area through September, 1997

were quality assured. The October 3, 1997 letter listed the four

highest daily one-hour ozone concentrations at all ozone monitoring

sites in the Evansville area (including those in Posey, Vanderburgh,

and Warrick Counties) during each year for the 1995 through 1997

period, confirming the lack of ozone standard violations in the area

during this period.

Based on the current ozone monitoring data, it has been determined

that the ozone standard has been attained in the Evansville area. As

noted in the proposed rulemaking (62 FR 12138), this, along with

approval of Indiana's maintenance plan and the State having met the

redesignation requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, forms

the basis for final approval of IDEM's redesignation request for

Vanderburgh County. It should be noted that the lack of an ozone

standard violation for the period of 1995 through 1997 moots the issues

surrounding the ozone standard violation monitored in 1994 at the Alcoa

site.

III. Responses to Public Comments

EPA received 20 sets of comments on the March 14, 1997 proposed

rulemaking, including 89 individual comments with significant overlap

(the comments have been grouped into several general categories and are

addressed below in summary form). All of these comment sets contained

comments generally critical of EPA's proposed approval of the

redesignation or of the proposed technical basis for the approval. The

following discussion addresses the comments with one general exception.

Those comments addressing EPA's treatment of the 1994 Alcoa ozone

standard violation or emission contributions to that standard violation

are not generally addressed, since those comments are rendered moot by

the 1995 through 1997 monitored ozone data demonstrating attainment of

the standard at the Alcoa site and at other sites in the Evansville

area as a whole.

A. Air Quality and Designation Timing

1. Comment

Several commenters note that EPA and IDEM failed to redesignate

Vanderburgh County to nonattainment in 1988 or 1989 following a

violation of the ozone standard in the 1986 through 1989 time period.

The commenters note that, had EPA or IDEM done so, Vanderburgh County

would have been subject to stationary source Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) requirements under the pre-1990 CAA.

Response

It is true that a monitor in Vanderburgh County recorded a

violation of the one-hour ozone standard during the 1987-1989 time

period. The decisive ozone standard exceedance was recorded in 1989 and

was not reported in quality assured form to the EPA until the last half

of 1989,

[[Page 64727]]

in keeping with quality assurance and data reporting requirements.

During 1990, EPA was considering how to address the new ozone

standard violation in the Evansville area. Under the CAA prior to its

1990 revision, EPA could not unilaterally redesignate an area to

nonattainment without an initiating request from the State containing

the area. EPA could, however, request a SIP revision under section 110

of the CAA to address an air quality problem despite the lack of a

nonattainment designation. Under section 110 of the CAA, this ``SIP-

call'' can require the State to address the problem in a timely manner,

but cannot prescribe specific measures, such as the adoption of RACT

rules, which can only be required in areas specifically designated as

nonattainment.

Before a SIP-call could be used in the Evansville area, the CAA was

revised. Under section 182 of the revised CAA, Vanderburgh County was

classified as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone. Under section

182(a) of the revised CAA, sources located in marginal ozone

nonattainment areas are not subject to new RACT requirements (sources

in marginal nonattainment areas are subject only to correction of

existing RACT regulations). It should also be noted that the SIP-call

process would have extended well past the November 15, 1990 adoption

time of the CAA revisions.

2. Comment

A commenter concurs with EPA's proposed rule that, if no ozone

standard violation is monitored in Vanderburgh County or in its

downwind environs during the 1995 through 1997 time period, the Clean

Air Act would allow Vanderburgh County to be redesignated to attainment

of the ozone standard. The commenter believes, however, that no action

should be taken to redesignate Vanderburgh County until all of the data

have been quality assured, demonstrating that there have been no ozone

standard violations through 1997 and through the entire 1995-1997

period. To do otherwise would be premature and probably illegal. Other

commenters also oppose the redesignation of Vanderburgh County until

all of the data in the region, including Warrick County, demonstrate

monitored attainment of the ozone standard.

Response

As noted above, on October 3, 1997, IDEM confirmed that the 1997

ozone data for Vanderburgh, Posey, and Warrick Counties had been

quality assured through September (the end of the defined ozone

season). The 1995 through 1997 ozone data demonstrate that no violation

of the ozone standard has occurred in the Evansville area, including in

Posey and Warrick Counties, during the most recent 3 years.

B. Regional Air Quality Impacts

1. Comment

Commenters note that industrial source emissions must be ``cleaned-

up'' in Vanderburgh County as well as in its surrounding counties

before the area can be redesignated to attainment. The commenters

believe that a regional ozone problem exists in the area. The

commenters state that emission reductions in Vanderburgh County only

would not be sufficient to address the regional ozone problem of the

Evansville area (Vanderburgh, Gibson, Posey, and Warrick Counties).

Response

As noted above, attainment of the ozone standard has been monitored

in the entire area. This was accomplished without the implementation of

a region-wide emission reduction program mandating controls beyond

emission reductions already required in the area, such as those

resulting from the implementation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission

Control Program (FMVCP).

With regard to the regional nature of the area's peak ozone

concentrations, it should be noted that the Ozone Transport Assessment

Group (OTAG) process has reached closure, with the participating States

recommending a range of possible Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

emission reduction requirements to the EPA. On November 7, 1997 (62 FR

60318), the EPA proposed rulemaking that would require States to meet

statewide NOX emission budgets. The implementation of

requirements to attain the NOX emission budgets in the

eastern United States should significantly reduce the amount of ozone

transported into the Evansville area or generated by Evansville

emissions and transported to downwind areas. Assuming that the

rulemaking is finalized, the State of Indiana is expected to reduce

regional NOX emissions to comply with the allowed

NOX emission budget. These NOx emission

reductions should reduce regional ozone levels.

In addition, the commenters cite no policy requiring such a region-

wide emission reduction. Since Vanderburgh County is a marginal

nonattainment area, the CAA does not require emission reductions over a

larger region, such as a metropolitan statistical area.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that, when the State was asked to put a monitor

in Posey County in 1988, the State refused, saying that what happened

in Vanderburgh County from an emissions control standpoint would also

happen in the contiguous counties. The commenter believes that, in

reality, the State only contemplated emission controls in Vanderburgh

County, for which the nonattainment designation was imposed. The

commenter believes that this restriction of emission controls was wrong

given that emissions in surrounding counties exceed those in

Vanderburgh County.

Response

Based on Indiana's 1990 base year Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

emissions inventory for the Evansville area, emissions of VOC in

Vanderburgh County exceeded those from any of the surrounding counties.

Based on this fact and the fact that, at the time of the designation of

Vanderburgh County as nonattainment for ozone, the ozone standard

violation was limited to Vanderburgh County, it was appropriate to

assume that the emission control measures should focus on Vanderburgh

County. In addition, since only Vanderburgh County was designated as

nonattainment for ozone, it was reasonable to focus attention on

emission controls there.

The commenters provide no data showing that emissions of VOC in the

surrounding counties, on a county-by-county basis or as an area total,

exceed those in Vanderburgh County.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that, in 1988, the commenter was assured by the

State that, if Vanderburgh County was designated as nonattainment for

ozone, all of the surrounding counties would be given the same

designation. Only Vanderburgh County, however, was proposed for the

nonattainment status. To the commenter, it appears that political and

industrial interests in the counties surrounding Vanderburgh County

were able to persuade the State to make only Vanderburgh County

nonattainment. Meanwhile, EPA and IDEM have refused to discuss ozone

precursor emission controls for the surrounding counties.

Response

Designation of Vanderburgh County only and not the entire

metropolitan area as nonattainment for ozone is

[[Page 64728]]

entirely consistent with the requirements for marginal nonattainment

area designations under section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the CAA. IDEM acted

within the requirements and limits of the CAA in selecting only

Vanderburgh County as the marginal ozone nonattainment area. This

decision was supported given that the ozone standard violation in the

1987 through 1989 period was limited to Vanderburgh County, and that

the VOC emissions of Vanderburgh County exceeded those of any of the

surrounding counties at that time.

4. Comment

A commenter states that, according to section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of

the CAA, the State and the Administrator are required to find that an

area is nonattainment if it does not meet (or contributes to ambient

air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) an air quality

standard. The commenter believes that clearly Posey, Gibson, and

Warrick County emissions contributed to the ozone standard violation

that occurred in Vanderburgh County. The entire area should have been

designated as nonattainment for ozone.

Response

In addition to responses to similar comments above, it is noted

that no modeling data or similar ozone production and transport

analyses exist which would indicate that emissions from Posey, Gibson,

and Warrick Counties contributed to the 1988-1989 ozone standard

violation in Vanderburgh County. Until such data are made available,

one can not draw this conclusion other than through speculation. Given

the data available and the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of

the CAA (this section of the CAA only defines minimum nonattainment

area sizes for areas classified as serious or above for ozone, the

State is given more discretion in selecting the size of nonattainment

areas for areas classified as marginal or moderate nonattainment), EPA

believes that the State of Indiana acted in keeping with the

requirements of the CAA in selecting only Vanderburgh County as the

nonattainment area.

C. Ozone Transport Assessment Group

1. Comment

Commenters question the need for the EPA to rely on OTAG-related

emission reductions (expected to be required through future

rulemaking), since these emission reductions are not yet tangible and

are not sufficient to avoid ozone problems during hot summers. Reliance

on ``possible'' future emission reductions from OTAG while ignoring the

Alcoa ozone standard violation is incongruous and explains why poor air

quality continues in the Evansville area.

Response

Although EPA mentioned the potential benefits from OTAG-related

emission reductions in the proposed rulemaking, it did not rely on

these future emission reductions as a basis for the proposed

redesignation of Vanderburgh County. The Evansville area has attained

the ozone standard without these emission reductions. In addition, the

State's maintenance plan for this area shows continued maintenance of

the ozone standard without considering the impacts of these emission

reductions.

In discussing the OTAG-related emission reductions expected in the

near future, the EPA was simply noting that these emission reductions

would lower the background ozone concentrations in the Evansville area,

further lowering the ozone concentrations in the area. Such decreases

in ozone concentrations would act to reduce the risk of future

violations of the one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards. The State of

Indiana actively participated in the OTAG process and is expected to

reduce NOX emissions to comply with the resulting

NOX emission budget. This NOX emission reduction

is expected to reduce area ozone levels and transport of ozone into

downwind areas.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that EPA's reliance on emission reductions

resulting from OTAG is unacceptable until EPA is sure what rules will

come out of the OTAG process. It is the commenter's understanding that

the OTAG process has nearly broken down. Deadlines have been missed. It

is not clear what ozone precursor emission reductions will result from

this process. In addition, EPA does not offer proof that OTAG controls

will be implemented or that resulting emission reductions will be of

sufficient quantity to achieve the ozone standard in the Evansville

area. To rely on conjecture that OTAG emission reductions will occur is

not consistent with the Congressional intent of making the air healthy

in the Evansville area.

Response

As noted above, the EPA has not relied on OTAG-related emission

reductions to attain the ozone standard in the Evansville area. The

area has attained the ozone standard without such future emission

reductions.

The OTAG process has not broken down. The OTAG process has reached

closure, and the OTAG States have recommended a range of possible

NOX emission reduction requirements to the EPA. EPA proposed

a SIP-call on November 7, 1997 in response to the recommendations of

OTAG. Therefore, it is likely, assuming that the rulemaking is

finalized, that significant NOX emission reductions in the

eastern half of the United States will result from the OTAG process.

These emission reductions should also lower ozone levels in the

Evansville area in the future, but are not being relied on to meet or

to maintain the one-hour ozone standard in the Evansville area.

D. Source Growth and the Maintenance Plan

1. Comment

Several commenters believe that the maintenance plan submitted with

Indiana's redesignation request is outdated and should be updated to

reflect the emission increases that have occurred or are expected to

occur in the region as a result of source growth. The commenters note

the source impacts of new sources, such as A.K. Steel, the Casino Aztar

River Boat (indirect traffic growth), and the Toyota truck plant to be

located in neighboring Gibson County. The commenters believe that these

new sources lead to increases in population, vehicle miles traveled,

and industrial emissions, invalidating the existing maintenance plan.

The commenters state that EPA should review the maintenance plan in

light of these new emissions and that the maintenance plan submitted in

1993 is obsolete.

Response

Although the maintenance plan was submitted in 1993, prior to the

source growth noted by the commenters, and uses 1990 as the attainment

base year, EPA sees no reason to disapprove the maintenance plan based

on source growth in recent years. This conclusion is based on several

reasons. First, despite any source growth, Vanderburgh County is

currently attaining the ozone standard and has continuously attained

the standard throughout the period during which the redesignation

request has been pending. To the extent that the Alcoa monitor

indicated nonattainment during this period, the nonattainment problem

was not monitored in Vanderburgh County itself, but rather in

neighboring Warrick County (current data shows that Warrick County is

also

[[Page 64729]]

attaining the one-hour ozone standard). Therefore, the source growth

has not prevented attainment of the standard in Vanderburgh County.

Second, in the case of the future emissions from the Toyota truck

plant, IDEM, through the source permit development process, has

evaluated the ozone impacts of these emissions on the Evansville area,

including potential impacts on critical ozone monitoring sites in

Warrick County. The State has concluded that increased ozone precursor

emissions from this facility will not cause an ozone standard violation

at any of the monitoring sites. Finally, the maintenance plan submitted

by IDEM contains provisions for addressing unexpected emission

increases. As noted in the March 14, 1997 proposed rulemaking (62 FR

12141), IDEM commits to periodically review area emissions and to

conduct a review of the ozone impacts of increasing emissions if the

VOC, NOX, or Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions in the area

increase above the 1990 level. If the review indicates that the

increased emissions have the potential to cause a violation of the

ozone standard, IDEM would determine and adopt the emission controls

needed to eliminate the potential air quality problem. Therefore,

increasing emissions should not present a problem for maintenance of

the ozone standard in this area as long as IDEM implements the

maintenance plan.

As additional insurance toward maintenance of the standard, it

should be noted that, based on the adopted maintenance plan, if

increasing emissions do cause a future violation of the standard, IDEM

is committed to select emission control measures from the contingency

measure list for implementation toward attainment of the ozone

standard.

Finally, it is noted that the commenters have presented no air

quality analyses to demonstrate that the new sources (or indirect

sources) in the area have the potential to cause future violations of

the ozone standard. The EPA continues to find Indiana's maintenance

plan to be acceptable.

2. Comment

Because of recent source growth in Vanderburgh County and in

Southwestern Indiana, a commenter believes that the EPA should not

redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone standard

until the State implements an equitable program that regulates

hydrocarbon emissions (VOC emissions) from industrial sources.

Response

Under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, EPA may not approve the

redesignation of an area to attainment of a standard until the State

has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and

part D of the CAA. As stated in the proposed rulemaking for the

Vanderburgh County redesignation, the EPA believes that the State of

Indiana has complied with the requirements of the CAA as they pertain

to the Evansville ozone situation (the CAA requirements, as noted

above, do not require additional VOC emission controls for industrial

sources in the Evansville area). In addition, as noted above, the area

has attained the one-hour ozone standard without the implementation of

additional VOC emission controls on industrial sources. Therefore, EPA

has no basis for requiring additional emission controls on industrial

sources.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that he had expected the 1990 ozone nonattainment

designation for Vanderburgh County to have resulted in emission

reductions in the area. Instead of emission reductions, the commenter

believes that the available information points to industrial and mobile

source growth. The commenter believes that local economic development

efforts have increased since Vanderburgh County became nonattainment

for ozone with resulting increases in the number of polluting

industries.

Response

Responses to comments 1 and 2 of this subsection generally address

this comment. With regard to the last point of the comment, there is no

evidence that local economic development efforts have focused on

attracting polluting industries to Vanderburgh County since Vanderburgh

County became nonattainment for ozone. In fact, it should be noted that

a Toyota truck plant has chosen to locate in Gibson County (an ozone

attainment area) rather than in Vanderburgh County, where a larger

labor force may be found. The nonattainment designation of Vanderburgh

County, thus, may have been a factor in the location of this plant

outside of Vanderburgh County. Therefore, the commenter's last point is

not supported.

4. Comment

Commenters note that EPA's and IDEM's use of 1990 as a base year

for the maintenance plan is not an accurate reflection of the current

conditions. The commenters state that Evansville's economy has

significantly changed in the last few years, and it follows that ozone

precursor emission data would be very different if data from 1994 and

1995 were used for decision making in 1997 and 1998. The commenters

believe that the current data should be used as a matter of policy and

common sense.

Response

As noted above, Indiana's maintenance plan for the Evansville area

commits the State to periodically review the area's emissions and to

take action if the VOC, NOX, or CO emissions in Vanderburgh

County increase to levels above those in 1990. If emissions have

significantly increased in a manner previously not accounted for in the

maintenance plan, a periodic review of the emissions should detect this

growth and should lead to corrective actions, if determined to be

needed to prevent an ozone standard violation. In addition, it should

be noted that the choice of 1990 as the maintenance demonstration base

year was appropriate when IDEM prepared the redesignation request in

1993.

Also as noted above, the area is currently attaining the ozone

standard. If emissions have increased to above-1990 levels, this would

imply that emission levels higher than those in 1990 could be sustained

without violating the ozone standard. Requiring the maintenance plan to

be revised to incorporate the higher emissions would not result in a

requirement for additional emission controls to compensate for the

increase in emissions, but would allow one to assume that emissions

exceeding the 1990 levels (assuming emissions have increased to levels

above the 1990 levels) would not cause a violation of the one-hour

ozone standard. The current maintenance plan encourages the State to

maintain lower emissions in the area.

5. Comment

A commenter notes that, according to recent press releases, several

firms, including GE Plastics in Posey County and American Steel

Extrusion in Vanderburgh County, have applied to IDEM for permits to

increase VOC emissions with no offsets from other sources as required

by the Act.

Response

This is not an issue relevant to the redesignation at hand, but,

instead, is relevant to new source review requirements. The commenters

should address this issue through comments on the new source permits

when they are reviewed under Indiana's source

[[Page 64730]]

permitting procedures. Indiana allows for public review of such new

source permits.

In addition, if the emissions in the area do increase as result of

the source permit revisions, IDEM would have to take these emission

increases into account under the periodic emissions review covered by

the maintenance plan. If the emissions increases are determined to have

a potential to cause a future ozone standard violation, the State would

have to activate emission control measures to mitigate the problem.

Finally, it should be noted that, since Vanderburgh County is being

redesignated to attainment for ozone, new sources will not be required

to obtain future offsets for new source growth.

6. Comment

A commenter notes that the EPA has failed to meet the tests

required under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. The commenter

believes that the EPA has erred in not meeting the test of section

107(d)(3)(E)(i) since there is a current (1994) violation of the ozone

standard in the Evansville area. The EPA has also erred in not meeting

the test of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), which sets the requirement that

permanent and enforceable emission reductions be shown to be

responsible for the observed improvement in air quality. The commenter

questions how the EPA can make a declaration of the connection between

emission reductions and air quality given that no SIP has ever been put

into place for the Evansville area as was required by the Clean Air Act

when Vanderburgh County was designated as nonattainment for ozone.

The commenter notes that during the years of 1988 through 1993,

when the area was first recommended for redesignation to attainment,

the only reductions in ozone precursors came about as a result of a

serious economic slump. Several VOC emitters shut down, resulting in

the improved air quality observed. As soon as the local economy

rebounded, monitors in the area again showed exceedances of the

standard, including the Warrick County ozone standard violation.

The commenter notes that, in the past several years, there has been

a large economic development, which will cause further air quality

deterioration. The Toyota truck plant in Gibson County has been

permitted to emit 3,490 tons of VOC per year just seven miles north of

Vanderburgh County. The General Electric facility in Posey County has

undergone substantial growth. A soybean processing plant is scheduled

for construction in Posey County that will emit as much as 1,400 tons

of VOC per year. In addition, in Posey County, the Countrymark Refinery

is increasing emissions to near-capacity levels.

In Warrick County, the Alcoa facility has increased emissions

significantly. In addition, a new cold rolled steel facility (A.K.

Steel) is under construction with plans to add a hot rolled mill in the

next phase of expansion.

Within Vanderburgh County, power plants which operated at limited

capacity are gearing toward total capacity operation due to the

deregulation of the electric utility industry. The Evansville area

sports the largest concentration of coal-fired power plants in the

United States, with 3 of the top 10 plants in the United States located

within this area.

The Casino Aztar River Boat has led to significantly higher vehicle

traffic within the last year. In addition, growth in the retail sector

during the last two years has led to significant traffic growth.

All of these facts concerning source growth dispute any EPA

declaration that reductions in ozone precursors have taken place in

this area.

Response

At the time IDEM submitted the redesignation request in 1993, VOC

and NOX emission reductions had occurred, contributing to

the air quality improvement observed subsequent to 1988. These emission

reductions have occurred primarily through source closures, which IDEM

has made permanent and enforceable through the termination of source

permits, and through mobile source emission reductions pursuant to the

Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVCP). At the time of

the redesignation request submittal, it was appropriate to give credit

to these permanent and enforceable emission reductions as contributors

to the observed air quality improvement in the Evansville area.

With regard to recent emission impacts from new source growth, it

is acknowledged that such source growth has occurred. It is noted,

however, that this does not constitute a problem for Indiana's

maintenance plan. The maintenance plan for the area contains

contingency measures triggered by increases in emissions exceeding the

1990 attainment year emissions levels. If the periodic review of VOC

and NOX emissions shows increases to levels exceeding the

1990 levels, IDEM has committed to initiate a study of the impact of

the emissions increase on air quality and to take action in terms of

additional emission controls if the analyses indicate the emission

increases have a potential to cause a future ozone standard violation.

Therefore, the maintenance plan contains safeguards against the impacts

of unexpected emission increases, and the EPA sees no reason at this

time to disapprove the maintenance plan on the basis of any recent

emission increases.

It is noted that the maintenance plan did assume some future growth

in emissions would occur as a result of changes in the economy and,

nonetheless, demonstrated maintenance of the ozone standard in

Vanderburgh County for 10 years into the future. Moreover, despite any

recent emission increases from new source growth, the 1995 through 1997

ozone data demonstrate continuing attainment of the ozone standard in

Vanderburgh County and current attainment of the ozone standard in

surrounding counties. Although part of this attainment may be due to

favorable meteorology, it must be noted that this attainment period

includes 1995, a year particularly noted for meteorological conditions

favorable to high ozone concentrations. Despite this, ozone standard

exceedances were not prevalent in the Evansville area during this

period (a single ozone standard exceedance of 0.131 parts per million

was recorded at the Booneville site in 1995, with no other exceedances

in the area). Obviously, the growth in VOC emissions did not contribute

to an ozone standard violation in 1995 despite favorable meteorological

conditions. Equally important, despite new source growth, no ozone

standard exceedances were recorded in the area during the 1995 through

1997 period. These observations argue against the concerns of the

commenter regarding the impacts of new source growth.

Although the emission increases resulting from source growth bear

watching through the maintenance plan, the fact that these emission

increases exist does not lead to the conclusion that the maintenance

plan is flawed or should be disapproved.

E. Action Committee for Ozone Reduction Now

The proposed rulemaking described a public forum process used in

the Evansville area to select contingency measures for possible

adoption and implementation. Although this public forum has resulted in

the selection of possible emission control measures which may further

improve ozone levels in the Evansville area, it should be noted that

the State has not relied on these measures to attain the one-hour

[[Page 64731]]

standard, the EPA has not relied on these measures as a basis for its

approval of Indiana's redesignation request for Vanderburgh County.

The group formed to carry out the selection of possible control

measures was given the title of the Action Committee for Ozone

Reduction Now (ACORN). The following comments relate to EPA's

discussion of ACORN and the selected emission control measures.

1. Comment

A commenter notes that, through participation in the ACORN process,

the following concerns may be raised with regard to the resulting

emission control measures:

a. There are no requirements for enforcement of the proposed

emission reductions;

b. The proposed emission reductions do not address the regional

nature of the ozone problem in Vanderburgh County. The commenter

believes that the high ozone levels monitored in Vanderburgh County may

be attributed to ozone precursor emissions outside of Vanderburgh

County; and,

c. The proposed emission reductions do not address the ozone

impacts of the area's expanding population, increasing traffic, and

increasing industrial emissions.

Response

The following addresses the three issues:

a. The ACORN process, as discussed in the proposed rulemaking led

to recommendations for the following four emission control measures:

(1) High volume low pressure (HVLP) paint gun change outs for autobody

refinishing and paint spraying operations; (2) Stage I gasoline vapor

recovery during loading of underground storage tanks at gasoline

service stations; (3) establishment of a pollution prevention and

education task force; and (4) use of less polluting gasoline. To

implement measures (1), (2), and (4) in an enforceable manner, the

State must adopt the measures in the form of enforceable regulations.

IDEM has informed the EPA that the State is in the process of adopting

measures (1) and (2), and are giving further consideration to measure

(4), which is not being processed for adoption at this time.

Implementation and enforcement of the measures in the future will help

maintain the ozone concentrations in the area at below-standard levels.

The third measure, establishment of a pollution prevention and

education task force, may not lead to specific regulations, but will

probably lead to a list of suggested pollution prevention procedures.

Since pollution prevention procedures may be applied to many sources

and source categories, it is impossible for the State to develop

emission control regulations for all or most source categories. The

State, however, may take an active role in promoting the use of such

procedures. It is not clear at this time whether the pollution

prevention task force has actually been established or, if so, whether

the task force has made specific recommendations for pollution

prevention measures. In addition, it should be noted that this process

may be community-based, with local residents and industries taking the

lead rather than the State;

b. See responses to comments in subsection B. above; and

c. See responses to comments in subsection D. above.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that, since Vanderburgh County was redesignated

as nonattainment for ozone, no formal program was implemented to reduce

ozone levels, and nothing has been done to implement the ACORN

proposals.

Response

As noted in the proposed rulemaking, since Vanderburgh County is

classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area and since the area

was not subject to RACT rule correction requirements or to vehicle

inspection/maintenance program correction requirements, the State is

not required by the CAA to develop new emission control regulations for

this area. The State has met all requirements relevant to the marginal

nonattainment status of this area.

With regard to the implementation of the ACORN proposals, see the

response above.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that reliance on IDEM, local officials, and ACORN

for local controls is unacceptable for several reasons. First, the

ACORN proposals are minimal in scope and the ACORN process has broken

down. Second, the ACORN emission reductions, if they occur, are

voluntary pollution prevention techniques. Although the voluntary

approach has been available in the past, industries have failed to

reduce emissions. The commenter believes that the voluntary emission

reductions must be backed by RACT requirements on any industry that

fails to make a documented effort to reduce emissions.

Response

The ACORN process has not broken down and has reached conclusion

with the recommendation of the four emission control measures discussed

above. These measures have the potential to produce significant

emission reductions. Stage I emission controls, use of cleaner fuels,

and use of HVLP spray guns have the potential to produce significant

emission reductions if supported by State adopted regulations.

Pollution prevention, if aggressively pursued and promoted, also has a

potential for significant emission reductions. Regardless of the

emission controls selected, the emission controls will be useful in

offsetting the impacts of source growth and will lower the potential

for future ozone standard exceedances. (These emission reductions will

contribute toward attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard.)

With regard to RACT, because of the marginal ozone nonattainment

classification of Vanderburgh County and section 182(a) of the CAA,

RACT is not required in Vanderburgh County. In addition, because of the

attainment of the ozone standard during the 1995 through 1997 period,

the implementation of RACT is not needed to attain the one-hour ozone

standard.

4. Comment

A commenter notes that EPA's proposed redesignation is loaded with

supposition, hope, and wishes that the paper pushing of industries and

ACORN will pay off in attaining and maintaining the standard. The

proposed redesignation, however, misses the point of the CAA which is

to improve the health of humans. No amount of wishing will change the

ill health that local residents experience in the summer months, when

industrial emissions are trapped by the meteorological inversions that

are common in the area. Calling the area ``attainment'' will not reduce

one pound of pollution and will hasten degradation of the region's air

by allowing massive increases in pollution in the one county that is

nonattainment.

Response

The Clean Air Act, in part D, specifies the minimum requirements

for State ozone control plans for various ozone classifications. The

State of Indiana has met the requirements for marginal areas in

Vanderburgh County. Given the 1995 through 1997 attainment of the ozone

standard and the State's compliance with SIP requirements, Vanderburgh

[[Page 64732]]

County qualifies for the designation of attainment.

5. Comment

While the commenter participated in the ACORN process and endorses

the recommendations it has made, the commenter notes that it was the

belief of the ACORN participants that the proposals that came out of

the process would do little to actually reduce ozone precursors. In

addition, nowhere in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking nor in its

associated technical support document does the EPA offer any concrete

evidence that the air quality will be improved to healthful levels as a

result of the recommendations of ACORN, even if fully implemented.

The commenter notes that ACORN provided only the ``lowest common

denominator'' approach and offered a bare minimum emission control

proposal on which the group could reach consensus. The commenter

believes this allowed the industry to write its own regulations because

the industrial sector of the ACORN group stifled the solutions offered

by the citizen representatives.

For EPA to claim that ACORN's recommendations reflect the desire of

the community is dishonest. It was apparent to the commenter that ACORN

was used by IDEM to achieve a no-action, minimal result that would

satisfy the industry and appease the public.

Response

As noted above, the 1995 through 1997 ozone data demonstrate that

the Evansville area has attained the ozone standard without the

implementation of the ACORN recommendations. EPA is not relying on the

impacts of the ACORN-related controls to justify the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone standard. Nonetheless, it

must also be noted that source growth is anticipated in this area. (EPA

sees no data countering IDEM's source growth estimates for Vanderburgh

County contained in the maintenance plan. Much of the large source

growth has occurred outside of Vanderburgh County. The maintenance plan

only deals with emission changes within Vanderburgh County. EPA does

not require the State to consider source growth outside of the existing

nonattainment area as part of the maintenance plan.) Although not yet

quantified, it must be recognized that the ACORN measures, if

implemented, have the potential to offset source growth impacts.

Insufficient data are available to allow the EPA or IDEM to

determine the full extent of the emission impacts of ACORN's

recommendations. Until adopted regulations are in place and pollution

prevention recommendations have been selected, it is impossible to

determine all of the emission impacts. Nonetheless, assuming that

emission control regulations are adopted, it must be concluded that the

ACORN recommendations could lead to significant emission reductions.

EPA has never stated that the ACORN recommendations represent the

wishes of the entire public in the Evansville area. Since ACORN had

wide representation from government, industry, and the public, it must

be assumed that some people involved in the ACORN process may have

raised some objections to the recommended emission control measures or

may have recommended emission controls not finally selected. The

indication that the ACORN recommendations are a consensus opinion

implies some level of dissent on selected emission control measures as

well as on the emission control measures not selected.

6. Comment

A commenter notes that the reliance on Pollution Prevention (P2),

if it is ever implemented, as a voluntary measure to gain nearly two-

thirds of the total ACORN-recommended emission reduction is very

suspect. Throughout the ACORN process, proponents of the P2 approach

informed the officials that P2 is purely ``market driven'' and would

carry no cost to anyone except the cost to local government for

staffing a P2 office to provide education and support for P2 efforts.

The commenter believes that this supposition can not be supported.

It is obvious that market driven P2 has been available in the

area's history to cure the area's air pollution problem. If P2 can be

achieved at no cost to industry, it would have already been in place

for economic reasons. The fact is that P2 is little more than a hope,

wish, and dream for most of the area's industry and it will require

substantial capital investment for whomever takes this path.

The commenter believes EPA's reliance on a voluntary emission

reduction program in an area with a history of resisting air pollution

controls does not comply with the intent of the CAA. The commenter

believes that P2 should be backed up with a requirement for the

implementation of RACT for sources that fail to make a good faith

effort to reduce their emissions using P2 techniques. The imposition of

RACT gives industries incentives to implement P2 techniques.

Response

P2 programs are designed to reduce emissions through process

changes that should be economically advantageous to the industries,

such as process changes to reduce waste and the need for raw materials,

lowering production costs. If P2 programs are successfully established,

some industries should take advantage of the programs from an economic

standpoint.

The EPA has never placed significant reliance on voluntary programs

in areas with continuing air quality problems and ozone classifications

requiring definitive emission controls under the CAA. Nonetheless, the

EPA has seen the merit in promoting P2 programs as supplements to other

controls. Since P2 programs are intended to provide industries with

economic incentives to reduce emissions, one can assume that the

industries will adopt such programs if the programs are implementable

and well understood by the industrial representatives. P2

implementation does require significant efforts to document P2

approaches and to properly educate the applicable industries.

Significant up-front investments may be needed, but should result in

long term payoffs through lowered production costs. EPA acknowledges

that such efforts may not be easy or quickly embraced by the

industries.

Again, as already indicated above, RACT cannot be required in the

Evansville area given the area's marginal ozone classification.

7. Comment

With regard to the proposal of ACORN relative to paint spray guns,

a commenter notes that, according to local automobile refinishing shop

owners, the proposal to require HVLP painting guns is virtually

unenforceable. The commenter believes that the proposed ordinance will

simply require such establishments to have only one HVLP apparatus in

each of the refinishing shops with no requirement for the complete

conversion of the painting operations.

Response

The EPA has been informed by IDEM that the State of Indiana is in

the process of developing a regulation to require the use of HVLP units

in the larger automobile refinishing shops. The EPA sees no reason why

the State would be unable to produce a regulation requiring the use of

HVLP units for all applicable coating operations. Naturally, the State

may wish to exclude smaller shops from the application requirements of

such a rule.

[[Page 64733]]

F. New Ozone Standard

1. Comment

Commenters question the need for a redesignation now just prior to

promulgation of a new ozone standard (this comment was prepared prior

to the July 18, 1997 promulgation of the revised ozone standard). The

commenters question whether this is to permit new industries to develop

before the new standard goes into effect.

Response

The designation being considered in this action is pertinent to

only the one-hour standard. Designations for the eight-hour standard

will be made in the future in accordance with the process for

designating areas under the new standard and this redesignation

rulemaking action has no relevance for that future designation action.

Moreover, it would be inappropriate to maintain the one-hour

nonattainment designation, if no longer applicable, on the assumption

that the Evansville area might be designated as nonattainment for the

eight-hour ozone standard in the future.

2. Comment

A commenter states that, taken within the context of the proposed

(now promulgated) ozone standard, it does not make sense to proceed

with the redesignation of Vanderburgh County under the one-hour

standard. It appeared to the commenter that the EPA was proposing the

redesignation so that it could occur prior to the implementation of the

new ozone standard, providing the EPA with an additional three years of

time before strict enforcement of whatever changes in the ozone

standard are made. The commenter notes that this undermines the efforts

of local citizens to clean up the air quality in the area.

Response

As noted above, the original one-hour ozone standard and the new

eight-hour ozone standard are considered to be separable in terms of

requiring emission controls and determining the area's attainment

status. To do otherwise would result in the Evansville area being

arbitrarily treated differently than other areas in the country which

are currently attaining the one-hour standard or for which the one-hour

standard may be revoked on the basis of air quality data attaining the

one-hour standard (see discussion below regarding the revocation of the

one-hour standard).

G. Toxics and Health Concerns

1. Comment

A resident, who lives close to the Alcoa facility in Warrick

County, believes that the toxic emissions from this company are very

harmful and detrimental to the local environment, including causing

pitting and dark spots on building surfaces. The commenter believes

that many residents in the area suffer with breathing problems.

Response

The EPA is very concerned about breathing problems caused by toxic

emissions and other air pollutants. It is recommended that the

commenter contact both EPA and IDEM with specific information on this

problem to allow further considerations. Nonetheless, it should be

noted here that the issue at hand is the ozone attainment status of

Vanderburgh County. The EPA is unaware of any data linking air

pollutant emissions from the Alcoa facility with an ozone standard

violation in the Evansville area (including Warrick County) during the

3 most recent years.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that evidence of increased respiratory distress

is mounting in area residents and that there is evidence that air

quality is often the cause of a sickness that crosses the socioeconomic

and age related population strata. This sickness is referred to by area

doctors as the ``Evansville Crud,'' an upper respiratory malady that

depletes body energy and causes coughing and fluid drainage from the

respiratory system.

Response

EPA acknowledges that air pollution may be causing some respiratory

problems in residents in this area. It is not clear that these problems

are due to the impacts of ozone, which is the focus of this rulemaking.

The commenter provides no data linking elevated ozone concentrations to

the observed health problems. The EPA sees no reason to delay the

redesignation based on the summarized health problems. The commenter is

encouraged to work with health experts and IDEM to determine the actual

pollutants responsible for the health problems and to determine the

appropriate emission control measures.

3. Comment

A commenter believes that EPA and IDEM have failed to demonstrate

that the respiratory health of Vanderburgh County residents has

improved due to improved air quality. Although the commenter realizes

that such a test is not required by the CAA, the commenter believes

that, since the ozone standard is health-based, some criteria for

assessing the impact of unhealthful air on a population could be

warranted in lieu of proof that emissions have been reduced. Since it

is clear that emissions have not been reduced in and around Evansville,

some quantitative criteria based on health impacts should be offered to

justify the redesignation to attainment.

Response

A redesignation action requires EPA to determine that certain

statutory criteria have been met. EPA has made those findings here,

including the finding that the one-hour standard has been attained.

Monitoring attainment of the one-hour standard is an indicator of

improved air quality. Given that the ozone monitors in the Evansville

area, including all ozone monitors in Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick

Counties, have indicated attainment of the ozone standard, one can

conclude, based on the one-hour standard, that ozone levels are lower

now than in 1988 or 1994, when violations of the one-hour standard were

monitored in the area.

4. Comment

A commenter notes that, if the EPA and IDEM had done their jobs

eight years ago when Vanderburgh County went out of compliance with the

ozone standard in 1988, her daughter and thousands of others may not

have developed asthma in the first place. She notes that RACT on

industrial sources should have been put in place under the pre-1990

Clean Air Act and thinks that, if this had been done, air quality would

have been better by now. She thinks EPA and IDEM have stalled in

enforcing emission controls to benefit polluting industries and only

respond favorably to the wishes of the industries.

Response

The EPA and IDEM have sought to comply with the current

requirements of the CAA. Because of the time involved in redesignating

areas to nonattainment of the standard, and the additional time for the

State to develop air quality plans and regulations and to implement

those regulations, RACT rules could not have been adopted until well

after the 1990 revision of the CAA. The revised CAA set forth limited

emission control requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas,

such as Vanderburgh County, eliminating the requirement to implement

new RACT rules in this area. In any event, Vanderburgh County is

currently in

[[Page 64734]]

attainment of the standard and qualifies for redesignation to

attainment.

5. Comment

A commenter asserts that the EPA is not using current data in the

determination of the amount of pollution in the area. The commenter

questions what EPA thinks the TRI database is for, and wants to know if

the EPA is familiar with the thousands of journals which are reporting

alarming increases in many diseases related to pollution. The commenter

asserts that EPA and IDEM are violating the rights of citizens by not

cleaning up pollution.

Response

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database identifies the sources

and emission rates of known hazardous compounds and heavy metals. Only

to the extent that some of these compounds are VOC does the TRI

database provide information relating to ozone precursor emissions.

TRI-based VOC emissions are only a subset of the total VOC emissions

involved in the formation of ozone. Generally, TRI-VOC emissions are

already incorporated into the larger ozone-related VOC emission

inventories maintained by the State and by the EPA.

The EPA is aware of the growing number of journal entries

indicating adverse health effects due to various pollutants. Several

thousand articles and study reports were reviewed in conjunction with

the recent tightening revisions of the ozone and fine particulate

standards. Within the constraints of the CAA, the EPA is taking action

to provide additional protection for individuals subject to the harmful

effects of air pollution. Nonetheless, the issue here is whether or not

Vanderburgh County (and its downwind environs) continues to violate the

one-hour ozone standard. The data indicate that this is not the case.

With regard to the tightened standards, the Evansville area will be

independently evaluated for attainment of these standards in the

future. If the area is found to be violating one or both of these

standards, additional emission control measures may be warranted at

that time.

H. Miscellaneous Comments

1. Comment

A commenter contends that the maintenance plan seems to lack

concrete plans of action and is not legally enforceable. The commenter

doubts the merits of such a plan and fails to see how it will protect

the public's health from future ozone standard violations.

Response

The maintenance plan outlines the procedures that the State will

take if a future violation of the one-hour ozone standard occurs or if

the VOC emission total in Vanderburgh County increases to a level

exceeding the 1990 attainment year level (see a discussion later in

this rulemaking for possible impacts of an anticipated revocation of

the one-hour ozone standard). In the event of an ozone standard

violation, it is clear that the State, within one year of the

determination of the ozone standard violation, must select additional

emission reduction controls sufficient to prevent future ozone standard

violations. The maintenance plan lists a number of emission control

measures that the State will consider for implementation and

elimination of the air quality problem. The State is free to select the

appropriate emission control strategy, but must demonstrate to the EPA

that the emission controls will be adequate to prevent future ozone

standard violations, and must adopt such measure or measures within the

year following the confirmation of the ozone standard violation. In the

case of emission increases above the attainment year level, the State

must initiate a study to determine if additional emission controls are

needed to prevent a future ozone standard violation. EPA views these

commitments to be adequate and enforceable.

2. Comment

A commenter states that putting Vanderburgh County on the

attainment list is ``false advertisement.'' This implies that

Vanderburgh County could continue ignoring its air quality problems.

Controlling emissions from gasoline and use of low pressure paint shop

sprayers may be well and good, but industry should also clean up its

emissions. These emissions reductions should occur throughout the

entire region.

Response

The regional control component of this comment has been dealt with

in responses to regional control comments above.

Again, it is noted that the CAA does not require RACT controls in

the Evansville area. This is due to the fact that Vanderburgh County

has been classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area.

Redesignating Vanderburgh County to attainment is not ``false

advertisement,'' since it recognizes the improvement in ozone levels in

the Evansville area. It should also be noted that the redesignation

does not send the signal that the State or local officials can simply

forget about the impacts of the area's emissions on ozone levels. The

State will need to continue to track ozone levels and VOC emissions in

the area and will need to take corrective actions if future ozone

standard violations occur or if future VOC emissions climb above

attainment levels.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that neither IDEM nor EPA has done anything to

require further NOX emission reductions (beyond those

required under title IV of the CAA) from coal-fired electric power

plants both in the immediate region as well as in downwind areas in

southern Illinois and Kentucky.

Response

This is the purpose of the OTAG-related SIP-call referenced in the

proposed rulemaking and earlier in this final rulemaking. To reduce the

impacts of ozone and ozone precursor transport, such NOX

emission reductions will be required in the near future. As noted

above, on November 7, 1997 EPA published a proposed rulemaking that

will require States in the eastern half of the United States to reduce

NOX emissions to achieve prescribed NOX budgets.

The State of Indiana was an active participant in the OTAG process,

which led to the NOX emission budget proposed for Indiana.

IV. Ozone Standard Revocation

On July 16, 1997, President Clinton concurred with the EPA on the

revision of the ozone standard to an eight-hour averaged level. As part

of that concurrence, President Clinton requested the EPA to revoke the

one-hour standard for areas currently attaining the ozone standard.

This standard revocation was to occur within a 90 day period following

the concurrence (the standard revocation had not occurred at the time

of the publication of the current action).

The revocation, as planned by the EPA, will consider 1994 through

1996 data in selecting appropriate areas for revocation.

Based on 1994 through 1996 data, Vanderburgh County may be subject

to revocation of the one-hour standard.

If the revocation of the one-hour standard becomes effective for

Vanderburgh County, the attainment status designation for this area

will be replaced by a notification of the revocation of the one-hour

standard.

[[Page 64735]]

Future rulemaking and guidance on EPA's transition policy (policy

addressing the transition from the application of the one-hour ozone

standard to the eight-hour ozone standard) will address the

implications of this standard revocation for the area's maintenance

plan and other ozone-related emission control requirements.

V. Conclusions

None of the public comments reviewed here warrants reversal of

EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to

attainment of the one-hour ozone standard and approval of the State's

maintenance plan for this area as a SIP revision. Monitoring of ozone

for the 1995 through 1997 period in Vanderburgh County and its

adjoining Posey and Warrick Counties shows no violations of the one-

hour ozone standard, demonstrating that this area has attained the one-

hour ozone standard.

As noted above, on July 18, 1997 the EPA promulgated a revised

eight-hour standard for ozone. The current rulemaking makes no

judgments regarding the attainment of the revised ozone standard in the

Evansville area. The attainment status of this area relative to the new

ozone standard will be addressed in a future rulemaking.

VI. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request and the ozone

maintenance plan submitted by Indiana on November 4, 1993 as they apply

to Vanderburgh County. EPA is, therefore, redesignating Vanderburgh

County to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. The EPA has

completed its analysis of the redesignation request and SIP revision

request based on a review of the materials presented and in

consideration of the current, 1995 through 1997, ozone data in the

area, including ozone monitoring data in Posey, Vanderburgh, and

Warrick Counties.

In taking this action, the EPA has taken into consideration all

relevant public comments on the March 14, 1997 proposed rulemaking.

None of the public comments were found to form the basis for a reversal

of the proposed approval.

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 the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

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

604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant 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.

Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)

of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical

area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. EPA

certifies that the approval of the redesignation request will not

affect a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated here does

not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 February 9, 1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds, and

Nitrogen dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

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 et seq.

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

follows:

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

* * * * *

(s) Approval--On November 4, 1993, the State of Indiana submitted a

maintenance plan and a request that Vanderburgh County be redesignated

to attainment of the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

[[Page 64736]]

ozone. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the

redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act

as amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal requirements of

section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Indiana

ozone State Implementation Plan.

* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. In Sec. 81.315 the ozone table is amended by revising the entry

for ``Evansville Area: Vanderburgh County'' to read as follows:

Sec. 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

Indiana--Ozone

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

Designation Classification

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

Date Type Date Type

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

* * * * * *

*

Evansville area: Vanderburgh December 9, 1997 Attainment. ..................... .....................

County.

* * * * * *

*

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

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-32188 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P