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

[IN77-1; FRL-5709-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans,

and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to approve the ozone maintenance plan

submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request and the

redesignation request submitted by the State of Indiana for the purpose

of redesignating Vanderburgh County (Evansville) from marginal

nonattainment to attainment for ozone. Ground-level ozone, commonly

known as smog, is an air pollutant which forms on hot summer days and

which harmfully affects lung tissue and breathing passages. The

redesignation to attainment of the health-based ozone air quality

standard is based on a request from the State of Indiana to redesignate

this area and approve its maintenance plan, and on the supporting data

the State has submitted in support of the requests. Under the Clean Air

Act, a designation can be changed if sufficient data are available to

warrant such a change, and a maintenance plan is put in place which is

designed to ensure the area maintains the ozone air quality standard

for the next ten years.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis

(Technical Support Documents) 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.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 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 (Evansville) was designated as

nonattainment for ozone and was classified as marginal (see 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991)).

I. Background

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted

an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for Vanderburgh

County (Evansville) on November 4, 1993. On July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35044),

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a

direct final rulemaking approving the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone. 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 direct final rulemaking,

the USEPA would withdraw the direct final rulemaking and would address

the adverse comments through a revised final rulemaking. The USEPA

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, the USEPA

was informed by the IDEM that a possible violation of the ozone NAAQS

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

Aluminum Corporation of America (Alcoa) in Warrick County. (At the time

IDEM contacted the USEPA concerning the possible violation, the State

had not yet completed quality assurance of the data. The violation, as

noted below, was subsequently quality-assured.) 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, the USEPA questioned

whether the monitored violation in Warrick County should be considered

in any subsequent rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh

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

values, and requested that the USEPA not act on the redesignation

petition pending the outcome of that technical investigation. IDEM

completed its investigation and submitted the results to the USEPA on

June 5, 1995. IDEM's investigation concluded that the Alcoa data are

unusual, are biased high (relative to peak ozone concentrations at

other monitors in the area during the May through June, 1994 time

period), and are not representative of the Vanderburgh County

nonattainment area. IDEM recommended that the USEPA should proceed with

the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment so that the

maintenance plan could become federally enforceable.

The USEPA Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed

rulemaking: (1) summarizes and evaluates the redesignation request; (2)

analyzes recent State data for monitors inside and outside of the

Evansville nonattainment area; (3) responds to public comments on the

July 8, 1994

[[Page 12138]]

rulemaking; and (4) reviews the State's and public's submittals and

technical concerns regarding the monitored ozone NAAQS violation in

Warrick County and its impact on the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County.

This notice summarizes USEPA's review and analysis of the

redesignation request. Details of the review and analysis are contained

in USEPA's TSD. Comments received from the public with regard to the

July 8, 1994 proposed rulemaking and received subsequent to that

proposal are also addressed in this notice.

II. USEPA'S General Comments and Conclusions

After a review of all available information, the USEPA believes it

is reasonable to repropose the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to

attainment and, thus, allow for formal public review and comment on

IDEM's technical support document and USEPA's evaluation. As described

below, the redesignation request for Vanderburgh County satisfies the

specific criteria of section 107(d)(3)(E). A critical issue, however,

concerns the ozone monitoring data indicating a violation of the ozone

standard in Warrick County, Indiana, a county that is part of the

Evansville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) but is not part of the

Evansville ozone nonattainment area. (The Evansville MSA consists of

Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties in Indiana and Henderson

County in Kentucky. The Evansville ozone nonattainment area consists

solely of Vanderburgh County. For the Evansville area, which is

classified as marginal nonattainment for ozone, the USEPA does not

require the entire MSA to be designated as nonattainment for ozone.)

Those data, which are discussed in detail later in this notice,

demonstrate that Warrick County has experienced a current violation of

the ozone NAAQS based on five exceedances of the ozone standard (0.12

parts per million, one-hour averaged, not to be exceeded on average

more than one day per year at any monitoring site in the area under

consideration) that were monitored in May and June of 1994. No

violations of the ozone NAAQS have been monitored in Vanderburgh County

itself since the 1988-1990 period.

The validity and significance of the monitoring data showing a

violation at the Alcoa site in Warrick County has been the subject of

much review and analysis by both the IDEM and the USEPA. In its TSD

reviewing the Alcoa data and data from other ozone monitoring sites in

the area during the period of the 1990 ozone NAAQS violation, the IDEM

contends that, although the Alcoa data have met quality assurance

criteria, the data are unusual, are biased high, and are not

representative of the Evansville nonattainment area. The USEPA,

however, has reviewed the data and has concluded that the data have met

the USEPA's quality assurance criteria, are valid, are acceptable for

review of attainment status.

The USEPA has also reviewed the data and other pertinent

information in an effort to determine whether and to what extent

emissions from Vanderburgh County contributed to the ozone NAAQS

violation in Warrick County. The USEPA conducted this evaluation

because Warrick County adjoins Vanderburgh County and because section

107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act defines a nonattainment area as an

area that either itself violates a standard that contributes to a

standard violation in a nearby area. If the USEPA were to conclude that

Evansville does contribute significantly to nonattainment of the ozone

standard in Warrick County, the language of section 107(d)(1)(A)(i)

would present an obstacle to taking final action redesignating

Vanderburgh County to attainment.

The USEPA intends to take final action approving the redesignation

of Vanderburgh County to attainment if any of the following three

events occur. First, if Warrick County attains the ozone standard prior

to final action by the USEPA on this redesignation request, the USEPA

would no longer need to consider the issue of any possible contribution

of Vanderburgh County to violations in Warrick County. This could occur

following the 1997 ozone season (April through October) as the standard

violation in Warrick County was monitored in 1994; and USEPA's

methodology for determining attainment of the ozone NAAQS involves the

consideration of data only from the most recent three years. Second,

the USEPA could take final action approving the Vanderburgh County

redesignation request if it determines that Vanderburgh County does not

significantly contribute to an ozone nonattainment problem in Warrick

County. Third, the USEPA could approve the Vanderburgh County

redesignation request if the USEPA determines that the information

available is not sufficient to determine whether or not Vanderburgh

County contributes significantly to a nonattainment problem in Warrick

County.

To complete its review process, the USEPA also seeks comment on

whether or not the Warrick County ozone standard violation data should

be excluded from consideration of the Vanderburgh County ozone

attainment status. Comments on this issue will allow the public to

address IDEM's proposed basis for approval of the Evansville

redesignation request. In addressing this issue, commenters should also

take into consideration and respond to the facts that the Warrick

County ozone standard violation has been quality assured and that the

Clean Air Act and USEPA policy require the consideration of the ozone

standard violation when reviewing the attainment status of Vanderburgh

County.

The USEPA requests comment on all of these issues in light of the

information and data in the docket, including the analyses of the data

and other information performed by IDEM and USEPA. The USEPA will

carefully and fully evaluate those comments and the issues they raise

before taking final action regarding the Vanderburgh County

redesignation request.

At this time, the state of the science of predicting and

understanding the formation and transport of ozone in the Evansville

MSA is incomplete. The USEPA does not have the benefit of ozone

modeling information for the Evansville MSA, such as would be provided

by the use of the Urban Airshed Model. The USEPA recognizes that the

State of Indiana, along with 36 other states, is actively involved in

the super-regional ozone modeling analyses being conducted through the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). Although the Evansville MSA

has been included in the national Regional Oxidant Modeling (ROM)

modeling domain and in the OTAG modeling domain, the scope of these

models is regional in nature and is not conclusive as to the impact of

emissions from Vanderburgh County on ozone formation in the Evansville

MSA.

The USEPA encourages the State of Indiana to follow through on its

commitment to implement early the contingency measures provided for in

the maintenance plan for Vanderburgh County and to consider emission

controls beyond the boundaries of Vanderburgh County as a means to

assure future good air quality in Warrick County. The USEPA notes the

commitment made by the State of Indiana to implement contingency

measures even prior to their being triggered under provisions of the

maintenance plan and to work with the local Evansville community and

[[Page 12139]]

surrounding areas to adopt additional emission control programs and

regulations and to submit these regulations as a revision to the State

implementation plan. The USEPA is relying on the State to follow

through on that commitment in order to obtain additional emission

reductions that will provide greater assurance of good air quality in

the Evansville MSA in the future.

In support of this approach, the IDEM has attended meetings with

the Evansville community to discuss the ozone concentrations in the

area and appropriate control measures to reduce emissions of ozone

forming chemicals. A broad-based community group called the Action

Committee for Ozone Reduction Now (ACORN) has recommended four measures

to be voluntarily adopted by the State and local authorities to reduce

emissions. These four measures are: (1) high volume low pressure paint

gun change outs for auto body refinishing and paint spraying

operations; (2) Stage I gasoline vapor recovery; (3) pollution

prevention and education task force; and (4) less polluting gasoline.

ACORN suggests that all remedial ozone reduction measures shall apply

to people and industry in Vanderburgh County and adjacent counties. The

USEPA believes that these measures applied in the Evansville area will

contribute to continued attainment of the ozone standard in Vanderburgh

County and will contribute to improved air quality in the downwind

communities.

The USEPA recently published an Advanced Notice of Intent (ANI)

describing the OTAG process referred to above and setting forth USEPA's

plans to take action in 1997 to require that control measures be

adopted and implemented to reduce emissions that are transported to

other areas and contribute to high ozone concentrations downwind of the

emission sources (see 62 FR 1420 (January 10, 1997)). IDEM has

committed to participate actively in this process and to implement

emission control measures resulting from this process. This effort

should lead to regional ozone precursor reductions that may

significantly reduce the transport of ozone into the Evansville area

and may result in further emission reductions within the Evansville

area itself. A redesignation of Evansville to attainment would not

impede the implementation of any emission controls resulting from the

OTAG process or USEPA's anticipated actions.

The USEPA believes that emission reductions occurring as a result

of USEPA's anticipated actions in 1997, early implementation of

contingency measures committed to by the State of Indiana, and

implementation of measures proposed by ACORN will provide additional

assurance that the air quality in Vanderburgh County and its downwind

environs will be improved, and that future violations of the ozone

NAAQS will not occur in these areas.

III. Technical Review

A. Redesignation Review Criteria

Under the CAA, designations can be changed if sufficient data are

available to warrant such change. The CAA provides the requirements for

redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section

107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (1) the Administrator

determines that the area has attained the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS); (2) the Administrator has fully approved the

applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3)

the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due

to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable

Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and

enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section

175A; and (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements

applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.

The USEPA has provided guidance on processing redesignation

requests in documents including the following:

1. ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

2. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.

3. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas

Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On

or after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.

4. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response

to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air

Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.

5. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,

September 4, 1992.

6. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, June 1, 1992.

7. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57

FR 13498), April 16, 1992.

B. Review Of The Redesignation Request

1. The area must have attained the Ozone NAAQS.

For ozone, an area may be considered as attaining the NAAQS if

there are no violations, as determined in accordance with the

regulation codified at 40 CFR Sec. 50.9, based on three (3) consecutive

calendar years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation occurs

when the ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1.0)

average expected exceedance per year at any site in the area. An

exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds

0.12 parts per million (ppm). The data should be collected and quality-

assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the

Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be

available to the public for review.

The redesignation request for Evansville relies on ozone monitoring

data for the years 1990 through 1996, to show that Evansville is

attaining the NAAQS for ozone. IDEM has collected quality assured data

in Vanderburgh County at two locations (or monitoring sites) for the

period of 1990 through 1996 showing attainment of the ozone standard.

In general, the USEPA considers the three most recent years of data for

a redesignation request and the three most recent years of data from

these two sites have no exceedances of the ozone standard. These data

are quality assured and are recorded in the AIRS. In addition, ozone

monitoring data has been collected at two sites in Warrick County as

downwind monitoring sites for Evansville. The two monitors at Boonville

and Tecumseh High Schools also demonstrate attainment of the ozone

standard. The PSD industrial monitoring site at Alcoa has collected

valid data which recorded a violation of the ozone standard for the

[[Page 12140]]

most recent three years of data (1994-1996).

As discussed above, there are issues concerning the role of

emissions from Vanderburgh County in contributing to a violation of the

ozone NAAQS monitored in 1994 in Warrick County. As stated there, the

USEPA is requesting comment on these issues.

2. The Area must have a fully approved SIP under Section 110(k); and

the Area must have met all applicable requirements under Section 110

and Part D.

Before Vanderburgh County (Evansville) may be redesignated to

attainment for ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable

requirements of section 110 and Part D. USEPA interprets section

107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that, for a redesignation request to be

approved, the State must have met all requirements that became

applicable to the subject area prior to or at the time of the

submission of the redesignation request.

Vanderburgh County is covered by a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

approved under section 110 of the CAA. Indiana has implemented this SIP

in Vanderburgh County.

In the case of marginal ozone nonattainment areas, such as

Vanderburgh County, the section 172(c)(1) Reasonably Available Control

Measures were superseded by section 182(a)(2) Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) requirements, which did not require newly-

designated marginal ozone nonattainment areas to submit RACT

corrections. See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I, 57

FR at 13503, and the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT fix-up

rulemaking published at 58 FR 49458. Thus, no additional RACT

submissions were required for Vanderburgh County to be redesignated.

Also, by virtue of provisions of section 182(a), marginal areas were

not required to submit a demonstration that the SIP provides for

attainment.

The section 172(c)(3) base year emissions inventory requirement has

been met by the submission and approval of the 1990 base year inventory

required under subpart 2 of part D, section 182(a)(1). (50 FR 31544,

(June 20, 1994)). Indiana submitted a SIP revision covering regulations

requiring the submittal of annual emission statements by facilities

with potential VOC emissions equal to or exceeding 25 tons per year. A

direct final rulemaking approving this SIP revision was published on

June 10, 1994 (59 FR 29953).

As for the section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirement,

USEPA has determined that areas being redesignated to attainment need

not comply with the NSR requirement prior to redesignation, provided

that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D

NSR in effect. A memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, titled

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

Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' fully describes the rationale

for this view, and is based on the Agency's 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). Once the area is

redesignated to attainment, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) program, which has been delegated to Indiana, will become

effective immediately. Additionally, the USEPA has approved a NSR

revision to the Indiana SIP which meets the requirements of part D of

the Act. See 59 FR 51108 (October 7, 1994). This NSR SIP revision

became effective in December 1994.

(a) Section 176 Conformity Requirements

Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to

establish criteria and procedures to ensure that, before they are

taken, Federal actions conform to the air quality planning goals in the

applicable State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies

to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or

approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act

(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal

actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the

conformity revisions to be submitted by the States must be consistent

with Federal conformity regulations that the Act required the USEPA to

promulgate. Congress provided for the State revisions to be submitted

one year after the date of promulgation of final USEPA conformity

regulations.

The USEPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations

on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and general conformity regulations

on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that

States adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in

the SIP for areas designated as nonattainment or subject to a

maintenance plan approved under section 175A of the Act. Pursuant to 40

CFR 51.396 of the transportation conformity rule and 40 CFR 51.851 of

the general conformity rule, the State of Indiana is required to submit

a SIP revision containing conformity criteria and procedures consistent

with those established in the Federal rule. However, the federal

transportation conformity regulations are currently being amended for

the third time. Indiana intends to submit transportation conformity

regulations when the federal regulations complete rulemaking. Because

the redesignation request was submitted before these SIP revisions came

due, they are not applicable requirements under section

107(d)(3)(E)(v).

Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless

of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement

conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet adopted, the

USEPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being

applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request.

For the reasons just discussed, the USEPA believes that the ozone

request for Vanderburgh County may be approved notwithstanding the lack

of fully approved State transportation and general conformity rules.

See also the Tampa, Florida ozone redesignation of December 7, 1995 (60

FR 62748).

(b) Subpart 2 Requirements

Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the requirements

of section 182(a) of subpart 2. Indiana has met all of the applicable

requirements of that subsection with respect to the Evansville area.

The emissions inventory required by section 182(a)(1) has been

approved. (See 59 FR 31544 (June 20, 1994)). The emission statement SIP

required by section 182(a)(3)(B) has been approved. (See 59 FR 29953

(June 10, 1994)). As noted above, RACT corrections were not required

under section 182(a)(2) for areas such as Vanderburgh County that were

not designated nonattainment until after the 1990 CAA Amendments.

Similarly, section 182(a)(2) does not require the submission of an

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) SIP revision for Vanderburgh County

since the area was not required to have an I/M program before the

enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Finally, the State need not

comply with the requirements of section 182(a) concerning revisions to

the part D NSR program in order for the Vanderburgh County area to be

redesignated for the reasons explained above in connection with the

discussion of the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement.

[[Page 12141]]

3. The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the SIP, federal

measures and other permanent and enforceable reductions.

Implementation of VOC emission controls, such as the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emission Control Program, and permanent, enforceable emission

reductions from source closures have led to VOC emission reductions. A

listing of major source VOC emissions for 1988 and 1990 shows that

stationary source VOC emissions in Vanderburgh County declined by 339

tons per year (approximately 1.1 tons per day) between 1988 and 1990.

Permanent VOC emission reductions due to source closures and

implementation of emission controls totaled 570 tons per year in the

same period (some of this emission reduction was offset by source

growth). Indiana asserts that these point source emission reductions

are permanent and enforceable. Indiana further states that it will not

renew the permits of closed sources, will require these sources to

undergo review under PSD or NSR requirements if they seek to restart,

and will prohibit these facilities from banking the pre-closure

emissions against future source growth.

4. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan meeting the

requirements of Section 175A.

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance

plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.

The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance

of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after

redesignation. A September 4, 1992, USEPA memorandum from the Director

of the Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, to Directors of Regional Air Divisions regarding

redesignation provides further guidance on the required content of a

maintenance plan.

An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five areas:

the attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring

network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.

The attainment emissions inventory identifies the emissions level in

the area which is sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS, and includes

emissions during the period when the area attained the NAAQS (the first

three year period when a violation of the NAAQS was not recorded).

Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that future emissions will not

exceed the level established by the attainment inventory. Provisions

for continued operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring

network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The State must show

how it will track and verify the progress of the maintenance plan.

Finally, the maintenance plan must include contingency measures which

ensure prompt correction of any violation of the ozone standard. The

Act also requires [section 175(b)] a second SIP revision eight years

after an area is redesignated to attainment to assure maintenance of

the NAAQS for an additional 10 years beyond the first 10 year

maintenance period.

The details of the Evansville maintenance plan are reviewed in the

April 26, 1994 TSD, which concludes that the maintenance plan meets all

of the applicable requirements. The State commits to continue

monitoring of ozone during the 10-year maintenance period. Any changes

in the monitoring systems will be subject to USEPA approval.

To help verify maintenance of the standard, the State commits to

require stationary sources to annually submit information on their

emissions in accordance with the States emission statement rule (326

IAC 2-6). Data from these emission statements and other data sources

will be used to determine if emissions have exceeded 1990 base year

levels.

Finally, the State has selected a joint set of possible contingency

emission control measures and a 2-level approach for triggering of

contingency measures. A level I response occurs in the event that the

ozone NAAQS is violated. This response entails conducting an analysis

to determine the level of control measures needed to assure expeditious

future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Measures that could be

implemented quickly would be selected so as to be in place within 12

months after the State is aware of a NAAQS violation. (Note that the

State has not preselected specific contingency measures to be

implemented in case a level I response is required.) A level II

response would be implemented in the event that: (a) The monitored

ambient levels of ozone exceed 0.115 ppm more than once in any year at

any site in the redesignated area; (b) the level of VOC, Oxides of

Nitrogen (NOX), or Carbon Monoxide (CO), emissions increase above

the 1990 (attainment) emissions level; or (c) the level of total VOC

emissions for any future year has increased above the level recorded in

the prior year sufficiently so that an increase of the same magnitude

in the following year could result in a level of emissions exceeding

those recorded in 1990 by five percent or more. A level II response

would consist of a study to determine whether the noted trends are

likely to continue, and if so, to determine control measures necessary

to reverse the trends, taking into consideration ease and timing of

implementation as well as economic and social considerations. The

contingency portion of the maintenance plan for the Evansville area was

found to be acceptable. In addition, demonstration of maintenance was

successfully made through emission projections through 2006. (Note that

the use of 2006 covers a period extending for ten ozone seasons from

now and complies with USEPA redesignation policy given the State's

November 4, 1993 submittal date for a complete redesignation request

and the State's assumption of a two-year period for USEPA's processing

of the rulemaking on the redesignation request.) See the April 26, 1994

TSD for a summary of the contingency measures the State has identified.

The emissions summary for VOC and NOX are provided below for

the Vanderburgh County area:

Table 1.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day

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

Point Area Mobile Off-Road

Year sources sources sources mobile Biogenic Totals

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

1990.......................................... 12.76 12.46 25.25 7.50 8.37 66.34

1995.......................................... 13.74 12.82 20.77 7.74 8.37 63.44

2000.......................................... 14.73 13.18 16.29 8.00 8.37 60.57

2006.......................................... 15.91 13.61 10.91 8.28 8.37 57.08

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

2007.......................................... 16.11 13.68 10.01 8.33 8.37 56.50

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

[[Page 12142]]

Table 2. NOX Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day

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

Point Area Mobile Off-Road

Year sources sources sources mobile Biogenic Totals

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

1990.......................................... 2.78 2.14 14.11 7.70 n.a. 26.73

1995.......................................... 2.98 2.27 13.31 7.86 n.a. 26.42

2000.......................................... 3.18 2.41 12.52 8.02 n.a. 26.13

2006.......................................... 3.42 2.57 11.56 8.21 n.a. 25.76

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

2007.......................................... 3.46 2.60 11.40 8.24 n.a. 25.70

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

Note that the 2007 emission estimates were derived by the USEPA using

source growth rates provided by the State.

The State commits to continuing the operation of the monitors in

the area. It will also track the maintenance of the area by regularly

updating the emissions inventory for the area.

If the monitored air quality levels exceed the NAAQS, the

contingency plan will be triggered. In addition, Indiana is required to

submit a revision to the maintenance plan eight years after

redesignation to attainment which demonstrates that the NAAQS will be

maintained for a second 10 year period.

5. Implementation of All Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the

Act

As indicated above, all requirements of the Act applicable to this

area have been met through SIP revision submittals. These SIP revisions

have been approved through final rulemaking.

IV. Responses to Comments on the July 8, 1994 Direct Final

Rulemaking

Five sets of comments were received concerning the July 8, 1994

direct final rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to

attainment of the ozone standard. The summarized comments and USEPA's

responses are presented below:

Comment: A commenter objects to redesignating Vanderburgh County to

attainment because of Vanderburgh County's lack of past performance in

dealing with the area's ozone problem. In support of this position, the

commenter submitted several newspaper articles and an organization

publication noting the lack of such action on the part of Vanderburgh

County/Evansville officials. The commenter is concerned that

designating Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone NAAQS will

only exacerbate an already existing problem.

Response: During the years of 1990 through 1993, quality assured

ozone monitoring data were collected at six sites in Indiana and at two

sites in Kentucky within or in the proximity of the Evansville

nonattainment area. No violations of the ozone standard were monitored

during this period. Therefore, the area's ozone levels have shown

improvement over the 1987-1989 ozone standard violation levels, which

were the basis for the nonattainment designation for Vanderburgh

County. At the time of the redesignation request, sufficient ``clean''

air quality data existed to support the redesignation request. Air

quality data through 1996 from monitors within the Vanderburgh County

nonattainment area continue to show attainment of the ozone standard.

Vanderburgh County is currently a marginal ozone nonattainment

area. The Act provides only minimal ozone precursor reduction

requirements (the correction of deficient rules and 1.1 for 1 offsets

for major new sources) for such an area. Since emission control rules,

such as RACT for stationary sources, were not previously required and

are not currently required for the Evansville area, leaving the

nonattainment designation in place for the area would not result in

significant new emission reduction requirements for this area.

Reductions in emissions have been gained through vehicle per mile

emission rate decreases through the implementation of the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emission Control Program (these emission rate decreases are

offset in part by increases in vehicle miles traveled). In addition,

permanent source closures have occurred in the area as noted in the

State's demonstration of maintenance. The USEPA believes these emission

reductions will tend to result in improved air quality.

Comment: A commenter objects to the redesignation because the

commenter believes ozone levels in the vicinity of the Evansville area

are higher than those reported for Vanderburgh County. The commenter,

referencing several newspaper articles, believes that ozone levels are

not measured in the areas of highest ozone concentrations.

Response: The USEPA has reviewed ozone data for the Vanderburgh

County nonattainment area, as well as data from outside the

nonattainment area in evaluating the redesignation request. The ozone

concentrations being reported to the public in the newspaper articles

referenced by the commenter were only from Vanderburgh County monitors

and did not include data from adjoining counties, outside of the

nonattainment area. Ozone is also monitored at three sites in adjoining

Warrick County. It is noted that higher peak ozone concentrations may

be found in Warrick County. The extent, however, of the impact of

emissions from Vanderburgh County on ozone concentrations in Warrick

County is unclear.

Ozone, at relatively high concentrations, and its precursors, most

notably VOC and NOx, can be transported over considerable distances

downwind of a precursor source area. Maximum ozone levels are generally

found 15 to 30 (or more) miles downwind of the sources of ozone

precursors. Given this, IDEM considered the 1990 through 1993 ozone

data from Vanderburgh County and counties surrounding Vanderburgh

County in the redesignation request submitted on November 4, 1993.

These data showed no violation of the ozone NAAQS prior to the 1994

ozone season. The USEPA considers the area covered in IDEM's data

analysis to be adequate.

Comment: A commenter objects to the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County for two reasons. The first reason is the low use of Evansville

buses. The commenter believes that improving the quality of the

Evansville bus service will increase ridership and contribute to

improving air quality. The second reason is based on the commenter's

concerns about the chemicals being emitted by industries in the

Evansville area. The commenter is concerned that some emissions are

toxins and carcinogens and that this problem should be addressed before

the area is redesignated to attainment of the ozone standard.

Response: The USEPA agrees with the commenter that improved bus

service and increased citizen usage of buses would help to reduce the

emission of ozone precursors. USEPA encourages improvements in bus

service and greater

[[Page 12143]]

usage to reduce pollutant emissions. Such actions, however, cannot be

mandated by the USEPA. State and local agencies are generally free to

choose the mixtures of transportation control measures used to control

pollutant emissions. In addition, since the Evansville area is

classified as marginal nonattainment for ozone, the Act does not

require such emission controls.

While the USEPA shares the commenter's concerns over chemicals

emitted by industries (some of the VOC which act as ozone precursors

are possible toxins and carcinogens), control of air toxins and

carcinogens is addressed under separate provisions of the Act (section

112) and is expected to result in a decline in these emissions in the

future. The designation of an area as attainment or nonattainment for

ozone is only for the purpose of controlling ozone. For redesignation

purposes, USEPA evaluates, among other factors, whether the State has

met all applicable requirements for the area under Title I, section 110

(State Implementation Plans) and part D (nonattainment plan provisions

under section 172(c)). USEPA has determined that the State has met

these requirements. While the control of air toxins is the subject of

section 112 of the Act, not the SIP program, the USEPA encourages

States to take VOC and toxins/carcinogens into account when selecting

control measures to help assure maximum environmental benefits from

emission control measures. The USEPA, however, cannot compel such

actions under the Act for the purposes of controlling ozone levels.

Comment: Commenters argue that the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County to attainment is disapprovable on the following bases:

1. The State, at the time of the redesignation request submittal,

had failed to correct the State's part D New Source Review (NSR)

regulations. The State has failed to meet the Act's requirement that

the SIP must comply with Act and be fully approved at the time the

redesignation request is submitted;

2. The State has failed to demonstrate that the air quality

improvements in the Evansville area are due to permanent and

enforceable emission reductions. The commenters argue that a 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 temporary changes in

economic conditions. Air quality improvements due to these air quality

impacts are not permanent, and, therefore, are not creditable;

3. The State has failed to fully predict the impacts of future

transportation projects on growth in vehicle miles traveled and on

mobile source emissions; and

4. The USEPA has failed to consider the impacts on downwind ozone

transport caused by the redesignation and the associated loss of

emission control requirements.

Response: The following presents USEPA's responses to each of the

comments above in the order given:

1. USEPA believes that nonattainment areas can be redesignated to

attainment of the ozone standard notwithstanding the lack of a fully

approved NSR program meeting the requirements of the Act and the

absence of such an NSR program from the contingency plan. USEPA

believes that not requiring a fully approved NSR program as a

prerequisite to the submittal of the State's request for redesignation

is justifiable as an exercise of the USEPA'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). A

memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, titled ``Part D New Source Review

(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment,'' fully describes the rationale for this view, and is based

on the Agency's authority to establish de minimis exceptions to

statutory requirements. Once the area is redesignated to attainment,

the PSD program, which has been delegated to Indiana, will become

effective immediately. Additionally, it is noted that the USEPA has

approved a NSR revision to the Indiana SIP which meets the requirements

of part D of the Act. See 59 FR 51108 (October 7, 1994). This NSR SIP

revision became effective in December 1994.

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

commenter states that ``attainment resulting from temporary reduction

in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdowns 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

was not due to temporary economic downturn or unusually favorable

meteorology.

With respect to the issue of temporary emission reductions due to

economic downturn, the USEPA noted in this rulemaking and 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. These emission reductions have

resulted from permanent source closures and implementation of the

Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program. These emission

reductions 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. Reopening of these sources would

involve subjecting these sources to new source review requirements. It

is USEPA's judgment that these emission reductions have contributed to

the air quality improvement observed prior to the redesignation request

submittal.

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

compared the average meteorological parameters of maximum daily

temperature, daily mean wind speed, percent of possible sunshine, and

relative humidity for the periods of May through August, 1990 through

1992, with the 30-year (1961-1990) averages for these parameters. The

1990-1992 averages were found to be equivalent to the 30-year averages

with only minor differences. Based on a comparison of these average

parameters, it was concluded that the 1990-1992 period was not

atypically non-conducive to ozone formation.

3. 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 of Indiana is preparing

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

any major federally funded and State funded projects in the

redesignated area would be addressed through State conformity analyses

and would be subject to the emissions budget established by the

maintenance plan. Minor changes in the public transportation system

would not be subject to the conformity analyses. The State's

predictions of future year emissions did assume growth in mobile source

activity. Moreover, the review required by the maintenance plan if

ozone levels over 115 ppb are monitored gives the State the opportunity

to adjust those predictions in light of transportation projects that

were not known at the time of submission of the maintenance plan.

4. As discussed above, in accord with section 107(d)(1)(A), the

USEPA is

[[Page 12144]]

considering information regarding the extent of the contribution of

sources in Vanderburgh County to its downwind environs and is

requesting comment on that issue in this notice. The USEPA notes,

however, that this redesignation would not result in an increase in

emissions from Vanderburgh County. Existing emission controls will not

be dropped or relaxed as a consequence of the redesignation. Indeed,

the maintenance demonstration projects stable or declining emissions

from Vanderburgh County sources during the 10-year maintenance period,

which means that any emission reduction contribution from Vanderburgh

County sources would not be expected to decline after redesignation.

Furthermore, as Vanderburgh County itself is attaining the ozone NAAQS,

even if it remained designated nonattainment, under section 181(b)(2)

of the Act, it would not be ``bumped-up'' to a moderate classification,

and no new emission controls would be required to be adopted. Thus,

additional emission controls would not be required as a consequence of

a disapproval of the Vanderburgh County redesignation. The USEPA

further notes that, if it concludes, on the basis of the OTAG modeling

results or otherwise, that additional controls are needed in upwind

areas to reduce transported emissions having effects on other states, a

SIP-call to require such measures would be based on section

110(a)(2)(D) of the Act and could apply to areas regardless of whether

they are designated attainment or nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Therefore, the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment for

ozone will not preclude the USEPA from obtaining emission reductions if

needed to prevent excessive ozone transport from this area to other

states.

V. IDEM Technical Support Document

Additional comments were submitted by IDEM during the comment

period for the direct final rulemaking. These comments were primarily

directed to the unusual nature of the 1994 ozone standard violation

recorded in Warrick County. The validity of this ozone standard

violation and its impacts on Indiana's redesignation request are

discussed in the TSD for this proposed rulemaking. The State's comments

submitted during the public comment period are addressed through that

discussion.

VI. Public Comments Subsequent to the 1994 Ozone Standard Violation in

Warrick County, Indiana

Subsequent to the 1994 ozone standard violation discussed above, a

number of public comments were received by the USEPA regarding the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone

standard. These comments can be divided into two main subgroups. The

first subgroup of comments from United States Congressmen, the State of

Indiana, Evansville and Vanderburgh County local agency

representatives, and business and industrial representatives favor the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment. Many of these

commenters are concerned about the possible economic impacts of

Vanderburgh County remaining a nonattainment area. These commenters

raised the following general comments in support of the redesignation:

Comment: Many commenters support IDEM's analysis of the 1994 ozone

data and the IDEM conclusion that the Alcoa data may reflect a positive

bias during the April 22 through June, 1994 period.

Response: IDEM's review of the 1994 ozone data is discussed in

detail above. The USEPA's conclusions regarding this analysis and the

validity of its conclusions are contained in the Background and

Conclusion section of the TSD for this rulemaking.

Comment: Some commenters have noted that the Warrick County ozone

standard violation, having occurred outside of Vanderburgh County,

should not be used to disapprove the redesignation of Vanderburgh

County.

Response: The USEPA believes that a thorough review of all data is

necessary before taking final action on the State's request. Among

other factors, the Evansville nonattainment area is attaining the ozone

standard based on quality assured data from monitors located within

Vanderburgh County. On the other hand, even though the Alcoa monitor is

located outside the Evansville nonattainment area, the USEPA also

considered the data from this monitor in reviewing and evaluating the

State's request.

As explained above, on the basis of both section 107(d)(1) of the

Act and USEPA's written redesignation policy (September 4, 1992

memorandum titled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment'' from John Calcagni to Air Division Directors),

ozone data from all ozone monitors in an area and its downwind environs

are to be considered when reviewing a redesignation request. This means

that ozone data from Warrick County and other counties surrounding

Vanderburgh County must be considered when reviewing the redesignation

request for Vanderburgh County. Of course, these analyses must also

consider wind directions leading to high ozone levels in these outlying

areas. The temporal and meteorological aspects of ozone formation

typically produce peak ozone concentrations 15 to 30 miles downwind (or

farther for large source areas) of the ozone precursor source area.

This means that peak ozone concentrations can be produced outside of a

single county source/nonattainment area. Since Warrick County is

downwind of Vanderburgh County on some high ozone days, the USEPA is

technically justified in considering ozone data from this County when

evaluating the attainment status of Vanderburgh County.

Comment: Many commenters note that IDEM has developed a viable

maintenance plan to deal with emission increases above the 1990

emission total (the attainment emissions level) and to deal with future

violations of the ozone standard.

Response: USEPA concurs with this comment as reflected in the April

26, 1994 TSD and believes that the State's maintenance plan shows

continued attainment of the standard through the year 2006. (USEPA has

projected continued attainment through 2007 using source growth rates

provided by the State. Although the State, in compliance with USEPA

maintenance demonstration policy, projects continued attainment through

2006, the timing of rulemaking on this issue led the USEPA to consider

projection of emissions through 2007.) Permanent and enforceable

controls such as the Federal motor vehicle control program are in place

and should ensure that emissions will not exceed the level of the 1990

attainment base year during the 10-year maintenance period.

Furthermore, the maintenance plan contains contingency measures in the

event of a violation of the ozone NAAQS.

The maintenance plan has not accounted for the emissions increases

resulting from traffic growth associated with the operation of a

proposed floating casino in the area or with traffic that will be drawn

to the new Toyota truck plant planned for Gibson County, which adjoins

Vanderburgh County to the north. The State and USEPA currently lack

data to assess the impacts of these traffic impacts. Consequently, the

USEPA is proposing approval at this time. The USEPA also notes that the

maintenance plan provides additional

[[Page 12145]]

protection against unanticipated emission increases as it contains

triggers for assessment of the need for additional emission controls if

the emissions are subsequently projected to increase above the 1990

base year emissions level. Through this process, previously

unanticipated emission increases could trigger the need for additional

emission controls. It should also be noted that if the emission

increases resulting from the traffic growth of concern here cause a

future violation of the ozone NAAQS, the maintenance plan will obligate

the State to select additional emission control measures to eliminate

the air quality problem. In addition, the State will revise the

maintenance plan within eight years and can include the additional

emissions resulting from the traffic growth at that time.

Comment: Commenters in favor of the redesignation claim that

Vanderburgh County has been singled out for nonattainment status even

though emissions from Posey and Warrick Counties, Indiana and Henderson

and Daviess Counties, Kentucky may have also contributed to the ozone

standard violation at the Alcoa site and the elevated ozone levels at

the other monitoring sites in the Evansville area.

Response: The USEPA does not believe that Vanderburgh County is

being singled out. It was initially designated as nonattainment in 1991

as a consequence of an ozone standard violation within its boundaries,

and the USEPA is now proposing to redesignate it to attainment. The

USEPA has evaluated the available information concerning the

meteorology and the sources of the emissions that led to the ozone

standard violation in Warrick County, and is requesting comment on

issues regarding the effect of the contribution of Vanderburgh County

emissions to that violation. The meteorological data indicate that

emissions from other areas may have contributed to the exceedances

monitored in Warrick County.

Comment: Several commenters assert that never before has one single

monitor been used to override the evidence of all remaining monitors in

a region. The commenters believe the evidence in favor of redesignating

Vanderburgh County to attainment is overwhelming and that the USEPA

should not base a decision with such economic impact on questionable

information when all other information points toward attainment of the

ozone standard.

Response: When an area's attainment status is determined, each

monitor in the area is judged independently. Ozone is not directly

emitted into the atmosphere, but results from complex photochemical

reactions involving organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen and solar

radiation. The relationships between primary emissions and ozone

formation tend to produce large separations spatially and temporally

between the major precursor emission sources and the areas of high

ozone pollution. This suggests that the meteorological transport

process and relationships between sources and sinks (reactions with

airborn chemicals or reactions with surfaces that locally reduce ozone

levels) need to be considered in the placement of monitoring stations

and in the evaluation of the monitoring data.

USEPA's redesignation policy requires attainment of the ozone

standard at all ozone monitors in an area seeking redesignation to

attainment. Each monitor in an area is judged independently because

ozone formation, transport, and sinks can lead to spatial differences

in monitoring results. Nonetheless, monitoring results at a given site

can represent the impact of emissions from a large upwind source area.

In addition, each monitor represents a geographic region within a

community. Therefore, USEPA believes it is appropriate and necessary

for each monitor in the area to meet the standard to ensure people in

these areas are not being exposed to levels above the standard. Because

of distribution of sources within an area, the nature of ozone

formation and the effects of meteorology, it is not expected that all

monitors will show equivalent readings. Within a nonattainment area, if

any one monitor shows a violation of the standard, the area is

considered to be in nonattainment of the standard. The USEPA has always

considered ozone on a per monitor basis, refusing to redesignate an

area to attainment if the ozone standard is violated at any monitoring

site in the nonattainment area. Monitors outside of the nonattainment

area are evaluated for impacts from the area under consideration. The

CAA in section 107(d)(1)(A)(i), as noted above, defines nonattainment

as ``any area that does not meet (or contributes to ambient air quality

in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary

ambient air quality standard for the pollutant, * * *''.

The USEPA promulgated federal monitoring regulations that

established minimum monitor requirements and criteria for uniform

monitor siting and quality assurance procedures (40 CFR part 58). Only

data meeting these siting and quality control requirements are used in

regulatory decisions. The valid, quality assured violation of the ozone

standard recorded in Warrick County thus must be considered by the

USEPA when considering the redesignation of Vanderburgh County.

Comment: Several commenters believe that the Alcoa monitoring site,

as a special purpose/prevention of significant deterioration monitor

site, has not ever been part of Evansville's ambient monitoring system,

and, therefore, data from this site should not be considered when

reviewing the designation of Vanderburgh County.

Response: The IDEM has never formally identified the monitors

belonging in the monitoring network for each nonattainment area. In

IDEM's March 15, 1991, submittal to support the State's proposal for

the classification and designation of Vanderburgh County as marginal

nonattainment for ozone and to exclude surrounding counties from this

designation, IDEM included ozone data from the Alcoa site as part of

the monitoring system used to judge the attainment status of

Vanderburgh County and to justify the exclusion of Warrick County from

the nonattainment area. The CAA requires nonattainment areas with

moderate and above classifications to include the entire MSA to assure

that the entire source area is included in the nonattainment area. In

the case of marginal ozone nonattainment areas, such as the Evansville

area, the CAA gives the States and USEPA discretion in determining the

size of the nonattainment area. In 1991, the USEPA accepted IDEM's

recommendation to restrict the nonattainment area to only Vanderburgh

County.

The Alcoa monitor has historically been used to make decisions

about the Evansville area. There is, however, no ``official''

monitoring system declared by Indiana for the Evansville area. The

USEPA has in the past considered data from PSD monitors when making

designation decisions as long as the data met the quality assurance

standards for ambient air networks. The quality assurance tests

conducted on the Alcoa monitor were all well within the required

limits. All data in the AIRS data system have been quality assured by

the State air agencies as having met the requirements for valid data to

be used in the decision-making process.

Comment: A commenter notes that, on two of the exceedance days at

the Alcoa site, winds were from the east placing this site upwind of

the Evansville area not downwind of it.

Response: The USEPA agrees with the commenter. It is apparent from

the meteorological data that emissions from areas other than

Vanderburgh County may have contributed to the 1994 ozone

[[Page 12146]]

standard violation at the Alcoa site. Emissions from other areas also

appear to have contributed to the ozone standard exceedances on the

days on which the Alcoa site was downwind of Vanderburgh County (the

IDEM has noted relatively high background ozone concentrations on these

days), as well as on the other two exceedance days.

Comment: Commenters note that Evansville industries have spent

millions of dollars to reduce emissions, particularly emissions of VOC,

NOx, and chloroflourocarbons to improve air quality and protect the

environment. They believe the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to

attainment would recognize this effort and encourage further progress.

Response: It is acknowledged that the Evansville industries have

implemented emission controls to comply with various requirements of

the Clean Air Act. Some of these controls probably have contributed to

lower VOC emissions (the controls mentioned by the commenter, however,

were implemented to reduce chlorofluorocarbon emissions, which are

nonreactive and have little or no impacts on ground level ozone

concentrations). To this extent, these facilities are recognized for

contributing to lower ozone concentrations. Without these controls, the

ozone levels could have been even higher in 1994. It should be noted

that industries in Vanderburgh County are not required to have VOC RACT

emission controls because Vanderburgh County was attainment prior to

the enactment of the 1990 CAA.

Comment: A commenter, noting the recent public discussions of the

Evansville redesignation and the possible inadequacy of the current

ozone standard to protect public health, questions the ability of the

area to attain a tighter standard. This commenter also questions the

assertions of local physicians blaming ozone levels for triggering many

asthma attacks during the summer months. The commenter believes the

physicians should consider the fact that Evansville area is located

amidst an agricultural area and that the resulting particulates and

pollen along with ozone, heat, and humidity may play a role in these

asthma attacks at this time of the year.

Response: The standard against which Evansville's attainment is

judged is the current 0.12 parts per million ozone standard. The USEPA

is not basing its decision on a possible, future tighter ozone

standard, and the ability or inability of the Evansville area to attain

a tighter standard is not an issue in this proposal.

With regard to impacts of other factors in causing respiratory

problems, it is agreed that such factors may have caused some of the

respiratory problems observed in the area. It is noted that many health

studies have confirmed the negative health impacts that ozone has on

the respiratory system. These studies were the basis of the current

ozone standard. Recent health studies further elaborate on these

impacts and are the subject of USEPA's current proposal to revise the

ozone standard. See 61 FR 65716, December 13, 1996. The connection

between ozone and asthma attacks is discussed in that proposal and is

not further discussed here.

Comment: A commenter believes the siting of the Alcoa monitor is

incorrect since this site may be impacted by particulate emissions from

the Alcoa plant and the local coal-fired power plant and by ozone

generated locally by high power lines carrying electricity from the

power plant and to the Alcoa plant.

Response: As noted in the June 5, 1995 TSD submitted by IDEM, IDEM

did consider the factors mentioned by the commenter. These factors were

ruled out as significant contributors to the high ozone levels

monitored at the Alcoa site. The USEPA agrees with IDEM's analysis.

Comment: A commenter questions the quality assurance of the Alcoa

monitor. This commenter also wants to know why, if the Alcoa monitor

was part of the monitoring system used to evaluate Evansville air

quality, were no industrial representatives or the public previously

aware of its existence?

Response: Review of the quality assurance records in AIRS and the

June 5, 1995 IDEM TSD show that Alcoa and the State actively

participated in the quality assurance of the Alcoa monitor. Quality

assurance records show that the monitor was performing well within

acceptable quality assurance limits during the period with the 1994

ozone standard violation. This monitor recorded ozone concentrations

with very small error levels (small percentage differences from

calibration and precision check ozone input levels) during this period.

In addition, the State has quality assured Alcoa's ozone calibrator

unit, removing this as a significant source of ozone concentration

errors.

As evidenced in the March 15, 1991 ozone designation/classification

submittal, IDEM has been aware of the Alcoa ozone monitor for some

time. In fact, IDEM has supplied Alcoa ozone data for inclusion in AIRS

since 1988. The AIRS data are available to the public.

Comment: A commenter is concerned that retaining the marginal

nonattainment status for Vanderburgh County will ultimately result in

its being bumped up to moderate nonattainment with serious economic

consequences. The commenter believes that local environmental groups

are not aware of this possibility nor thoroughly understand the

consequences of such an action.

Response: The USEPA evaluated the attainment status of Vanderburgh

County at the end of 1993 as required by the CAA. Monitors in

Vanderburgh County were indicating attainment of the ozone standard in

1993 and continue to record attainment of the ozone standard. As noted

above, this fact provides a basis for not bumping up Vanderburgh County

to the classification of moderate nonattainment.

The local environmental groups are aware of the impacts of a bump-

up of the area to moderate nonattainment. As evidenced by the comments

addressed elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, some environmental

groups have requested such a bump-up of the area.

Comment: A commenter asserts that local environmental groups err in

believing that the Evansville ozone problem is primarily due to

industrial emissions. The environmental groups fail to recognize that

38 percent of the VOC emissions originate from mobile sources and that

19 percent of the emissions come from area sources. With the future

emission controls required under other portions of the Clean Air Act,

such as Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) for sources of

toxic emissions and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the

relative emissions contributions from industrial sources will decline.

This means that control of other sources should be considered.

Response: The commenter is correct that sources other than

industrial sources may also share in contributing to the 1994 ozone

standard violation. As evidenced in IDEM's 1990 base year inventory for

Vanderburgh County (the source of the emission percentages expressed by

the commenter), many sources contribute to this problem. It is

reasonable to request that control of these emissions be considered

along with the control of emissions from industrial sources.

Comment: A commenter states that USEPA should not revise the ozone

standard as recommended by the environmental groups in the Evansville

area. The commenter believes that tightening of the standard would make

it very difficult for the area to achieve

[[Page 12147]]

the goals of the State's maintenance plan. The commenter recommends

that the 0.12 parts per million ozone standard remain in effect.

Response: The revision of the ozone standard is not an issue in

this action. In this action, USEPA is solely concerned with the

attainment and maintenance of the current ozone standard.

The second subgroup of comments was submitted by environmental

groups and residents of the Evansville metropolitan area. These

comments generally recommend disapproval of the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County to attainment or criticize the USEPA for not

following appropriate procedures in rulemaking and making decisions on

this issue. These comments are summarized below:

Comment: Commenters object to USEPA's October 11, 1995 decision to

redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment based on the following

facts/points:

a. The Alcoa ozone standard violation has been quality assured by

the State of Indiana as being valid;

b. The Alcoa monitor has been and continues to be part of the

Evansville area monitoring system;

c. Redesignating Vanderburgh County in light of the 1994 ozone

standard violation violates USEPA's own guidelines;

d. No public hearing in Vanderburgh County was held to address the

impacts of the 1994 ozone standard violation; and,

e. Negative health impacts from ozone can occur at levels well

below the current standard.

Response: The overall responses to these comments are reflected in

this entire proposed rulemaking. The following responses, however, are

made to respond to the commenter's specific points:

a. USEPA and IDEM agree that the data establishing the Alcoa ozone

standard violation have been quality assured and are valid. IDEM,

however, believes that a significant monitor bias can exist even when

the monitor is producing quality assured results. IDEM's assertion of

monitor bias is supported by the daily maximum ozone concentrations at

the Alcoa site as compared to those for the other monitors in the area

for the April-June, 1994 period and review of similar data for other

periods.

The USEPA has determined that the Alcoa data are valid and quality

assured. The quality assurance data demonstrate that the monitor was

performing correctly. The source of the high ozone concentrations

measured at the Alcoa site is unclear. Source areas outside of

Vanderburgh County appear to be contributing to the high ozone

concentrations observed at the Alcoa site.

b. As noted above, the IDEM has never formally identified the

monitors belonging in the monitoring network for each nonattainment

area. In IDEM's March 15, 1991, submittal to support the State's

proposal for the classification and designation of Vanderburgh County

as marginal nonattainment for ozone and to exclude surrounding counties

from this designation, IDEM included ozone data from the Alcoa site as

part of the monitoring system used to judge the attainment status of

Vanderburgh County and to justify the exclusion of Warrick County from

the nonattainment area.

As noted above, the Alcoa monitor has historically been considered

when making decisions about the Evansville area. There is, however, no

``official'' monitoring system declared by Indiana for the Evansville

area. It should be noted that an IDEM monitor at the Alcoa site has

replaced the Alcoa monitor.

c. As explained earlier in this notice, consistent with its

existing guidance, the USEPA has evaluated the 1994 exceedances

monitored at the Alcoa site and the information available concerning

the sources of the emissions resulting in those exceedances. The USEPA

believes that this proposal is consistent with USEPA's existing

guidance regarding redesignations and the consideration of downwind

monitored ozone concentrations. As stated earlier, the USEPA is

requesting comment on this issue.

d. The comment is correct. It should be noted that the USEPA is

reopening the comment period for the rulemaking on this redesignation

and allowing an extended 60 day comment period.

e. On December 13, 1996, the USEPA proposed to revise the current

ozone standard (61 FR 65716). The health effects of ozone

concentrations below the current ozone standard are an issue being

addressed in that rulemaking proceeding and are beyond the scope of

this action, which is limited to whether or not the current ozone

standard has been attained in Vanderburgh County.

Comment: A number of commenters have requested the reopening of a

public review, including public hearings and a public comment period,

of the redesignation request, USEPA's decision on this issue, and the

implications of the 1994 ozone standard violation. Some commenters have

recommended that this issue be the subject of judicial review.

Response: The USEPA will reopen the public comment period on this

issue. The 1994 ozone standard violation, June 5, 1995 IDEM technical

analysis submittal, and December 7, 1995 IDEM supplemental data all add

significant new information to the data and information discussed in

the July 8, 1994 USEPA rulemaking. On this basis and given the public

interest in this issue, it is appropriate for the USEPA to repropose

the rulemaking and to reopen the public comment period for this

rulemaking.

Comment: Commenters question the validity of the maintenance

demonstration submitted with the redesignation request and the

prospects for continued maintenance of the ozone standard. These

commenters point out the initiation of river boat gambling in

Evansville will draw in excess of 2 million additional cars or vehicle

trips to the area per year. It is assumed that this growth in vehicle

emissions was not factored into the State's maintenance plan.

Response: The maintenance plan submitted by IDEM was complete and

approvable at the time it was submitted on November 4, 1993. A public

hearing on the maintenance plan was held by IDEM on August 24, 1993, in

Evansville, Indiana. There was one person who commented on the

maintenance plan and expressed concerns about a lack of sanctions in

the plan should it not be properly implemented. IDEM's response was

that, if the State fails to implement the plan, the USEPA may impose

sanctions allowed under the CAA, such as withholding federal highway

funds.

The maintenance plan does take into account a measure of growth in

mobile source emissions. To the extent that the maintenance plan does

not include traffic growth due to the casino river boat and to the new

Toyota truck plant in Gibson County, it may need to be reviewed when

data on the traffic growths become available to determine the effect of

these developments on the maintenance plan predictions. As noted

elsewhere in this proposed action, this will be the case if the

emission increases cause the Vanderburgh County VOC or NOx emissions to

increase above attainment year base levels. Also, the transportation

conformity process should prevent growth in mobile source emissions

from exceeding the ``budget'' in an approved maintenance plan.

The maintenance plan also has a margin of safety to allow for

future growth in mobile sources as well as other sources. The

Evansville maintenance plan has an extra 9 tons per day of VOC safety

margin in 2006 and in 2007, and 1 ton per day NOX

[[Page 12148]]

safety margin in 2006 and in 2007. It should also be noted that the

maintenance plan does contain a trigger requiring extra analyses based

on VOC emissions exceeding the 1990 base year level. In addition, the

requirements for additional emission controls would be triggered should

the increased VOC emissions cause a future violation of the ozone

NAAQS. In the event of a future ozone standard violation, contingency

measures would be invoked to correct the violation and bring the area

back into attainment.

Comment: One commenter stated that preparation of the USEPA TSD

after the October 11, 1995 USEPA decision to redesignate Vanderburgh

County is, at best, superfluous, and, at worse, a direct disregard of

the rules and laws under which USEPA is supposed to operate.

Response: The October 11, 1995, letter referred to by the commenter

did not serve to redesignate Vanderburgh County; this can only be done

through a rulemaking action such as this, with opportunity for public

comment. It should also be recognized that the October 11, 1995 letter

was not developed without considerable review of the available data by

IDEM (as evidenced by IDEM's June 5, 1995 technical support document)

and USEPA (USEPA had already given considerable thought to this issue

in preparing to respond to comments on the July 8, 1994 direct final

rulemaking). Many hours were spent before October 11, 1995, by both

agencies reviewing the data and drawing initial conclusions regarding

the merits of the 1994 ozone standard violation at the Alcoa site as

well as other issues raised by the public. It should also be recognized

that the USEPA believed it was appropriate to move ahead with

rulemaking to redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment despite the

violation of the ozone standard at the Alcoa site in Warrick County. As

noted in the October 11, 1995 letter, this decision was based in part

on a commitment by the IDEM to implement its maintenance plan. USEPA is

relying on this commitment to implement one or more measures contained

in the maintenance plan and others that are as needed to address any

ozone air quality problem in the Evansville MSA. Finally, as noted

elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, the USEPA is taking public

comments for another 60 days from the date of this proposed action

before making a final decision on redesignation request. Submitted

comments will be addressed in a future final rulemaking action.

Obviously, the October 11, 1995 letter does not represent a final

conclusion on this issue.

Comment: Some commenters recommend, based on 1994 and 1995 data,

that Vanderburgh County remain designated as nonattainment for the

ozone standard and bumped up to a classification of moderate.

Response: When the USEPA evaluated marginal areas for attainment

status at the end of 1993, Vanderburgh County and surrounding areas

were demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard. The 1994 and 1995

data for monitors in Vanderburgh County continue to show attainment of

the standard. Consequently, bump up of Vanderburgh County to a

classification of moderate is not justified.

Comment: A commenter notes that the Alcoa monitor recorded 14 hours

of ozone standard exceedances in 1994 and that additional exceedances

of the standard were recorded in Boonville in 1995.

Response: USEPA's TSD for this proposed rulemaking thoroughly

discusses the ozone standard exceedances at the Alcoa monitor. With

regard to the 1995 ozone standard exceedance at the Boonville site, it

must be noted that this site has not recorded a violation of the ozone

standard given the small number of exceedances recorded at this site in

the last three years of data collection; the site has recorded less

than one ozone standard exceedance per year during the last three

years.

Comment: A commenter objects to the fact that IDEM's June 5, 1995

TSD was never subjected to a public review or a public hearing. IDEM's

TSD is viewed as being seriously flawed as to its application of

science. IDEM's conclusions in the TSD conflict with the conclusion (in

the June 5, 1995 TSD and elsewhere) that the Alcoa data are quality

assured. The commenter finds IDEM's conclusion of ``unexplained monitor

bias'' to be scientifically unfounded.

Response: As noted above and below, USEPA agrees that the June 5,

1995 IDEM technical analysis and other related data should be subjected

to public review. This is part of the basis for USEPA reproposing

rulemaking on this action and reopening the public comment period on

this issue.

Comment: A commenter notes that USEPA's monitoring staff have

indicated through internal USEPA memoranda that, as indicated by AIRS

data, if there was monitor bias, it is more important to note that

significant negative monitor biases are indicated for the Boonville,

Tecumseh High School, and Scott School monitors during the April 20

through June, 1994 period. The commenter interprets USEPA memoranda as

indicating that these monitors may have been subject to -11 percent

biases. The commenters note that this level of bias was sufficient to

explain the concentration differences between the Alcoa monitored ozone

concentrations and the ozone concentrations monitored at the other

``downwind'' monitoring sites. In addition, the commenter notes that

increasing ozone levels by 11 percent at the negatively biased monitors

would add 2 days of ozone standard exceedance to the Boonville site

(three exceedances in two years considering the 0.131 parts per million

exceedance in 1995 at this site) and 1 day of ozone standard exceedance

to the Tecumseh High School site.

Response: The August 18, 1995 USEPA memorandum referred to by the

commenter presents the annual precision upper and lower 95 percent

confidence limits for the four sites operated by Indiana in the

Evansville area. These data present ranges of precision data, but by no

means imply that the monitors were operating with specific biases

during the May through June, 1994 episodes. Although the data imply,

for example, that the Boonville monitor tested lower than the actual

test concentration, the data do not imply that the Boonville monitor

operated at a -11 percent bias. The precision estimates for the

Boonville monitor implied only a -1.2 to -3.6 percent difference

between the actual concentration and the monitored concentration. The

small size of the precision and audit data set led to the relatively

large negative precision estimate at the lower end of the 95 percent

confidence limit. The precision data do not indicate that the

differences in ozone concentrations between the Alcoa and Boonville

monitors during the April 22 through June, 1994 period can be simply or

entirely explained on the basis of differences in quality assurance for

the two monitors.

It should also be noted that the use of the precision data in a

manner as used by the commenter to draw conclusions regarding derived

non-biased ozone concentrations is technically unacceptable. If the

ozone monitors meet quality assurance limits, as all monitoring data

included in AIRS have, it is inappropriate to modify the ozone

concentrations based on precision data.

Comment: Commenters note that Vanderburgh County has been

designated as nonattainment for ozone for a number of years and that

the USEPA, State, and local agencies have done little or nothing to

correct this problem. One commenter believes that the State's and local

agency's attempts

[[Page 12149]]

to deal with the ozone problems through an Ozone Action Days program

are inconsequential. Therefore, the commenters believe that the area

does not deserve a redesignation to attainment of the ozone standard

and that a redesignation to attainment will assure that no effective

actions are taken.

Response: Initially, it should be noted that although Vanderburgh

County has been designated as nonattainment, it has in fact been

attaining the ozone standard since 1990 because no monitors in

Vanderburgh County have recorded a violation of the ozone standard

during that time period. Furthermore, it is incorrect to conclude that

no emission reductions have been implemented in the Evansville area.

Through the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program, the USEPA

has brought about reductions in vehicle per mile emission rates. The

Vanderburgh County maintenance plan estimates a 14% reduction in VOCs

during the 1990 to 2006 time period because of cleaner automobiles. The

maintenance plan in conjunction with other Act requirements, such as

conformity, should prevent these reductions from being negated by

increases in vehicle miles of travel and other emission increases. The

State has adopted the general and transportation conformity rules, and

submitted these rules to the USEPA on January 23, 1997. In addition,

the State has terminated certain source permits subsequent to source

closures to gain permanent emission reductions. All of these actions

have reduced emissions in a permanent manner.

It should be noted that Vanderburgh County is classified as a

marginal ozone nonattainment area. Under the Clean Air Act, such an

area is required to do little in the way of additional emission

reductions beyond the impacts of the national programs, such as the

Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program. In terms of emission

reductions, the State has complied with the Clean Air Act redesignation

requirements. It should also be noted that, as discussed earlier, VOC

RACT emission controls on stationary sources are not required in

Vanderburgh County.

Comment: A commenter notes that IDEM has correctly asserted that

the Evansville ozone problem is regional in nature and that the problem

should be dealt with on a regional basis. It is noted that, besides the

regional nature of VOC emissions, the Evansville area is impacted by

NOX emissions from significant sources in a much larger area. In

addition, the commenter believes that mobile source emissions must be

dealt with over a larger geographical area (the commenter, nonetheless,

believes that Vanderburgh County should remain designated as

nonattainment for ozone).

Response: The USEPA agrees with many of these comments. The ozone

data, both the Alcoa monitor ozone standard exceedances and the

elevated ozone levels at other monitors, under various meteorological

conditions imply that the high ozone levels in the Evansville area may

originate from an area significantly larger than just Vanderburgh

County. The State is encouraged to consider emission controls from a

larger area to help maintain the ozone standard and to lower peak ozone

levels if necessary to eliminate a future ozone standard violation.

The USEPA also agrees that NOx emissions and motor vehicle

emissions contribute to the elevated ozone concentrations. Control of

these emissions will help maintain the ozone standard.

Comment: A commenter, noting that no ozone standard violations have

been recently recorded in Vanderburgh County, recommends that the

nonattainment designation of Vanderburgh County be retained to protect

the air quality in the lower Ohio Valley area. This commenter believes

that, at minimum, the USEPA should redesignate Warrick County to

nonattainment of the ozone standard even if the USEPA is ``forced'' to

redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment.

Response: It is correct that no ozone standard violations have been

recorded in Vanderburgh County during the most recent three years

(1994-1996), thus demonstrating that Vanderburgh County is attaining

the ozone standard. Furthermore, for the reasons explained above

regarding the uncertainties connected with the determination of the

extent of Vanderburgh County's contribution to the ozone concentrations

monitored in Warrick County, the USEPA believes it is appropriate to

propose approval of the Vanderburgh County redesignation request at

this time.

With respect to the status of Warrick County itself, USEPA notes

that it has several options available to it in dealing with a violation

in an attainment area, USEPA may: choose to redesignate the area to

nonattainment; issue a SIP call; take enforcement action if the

violation appears to be caused by compliance failures; or encourage the

State to require more controls in the area (without an official SIP

call).

Currently, there is a stakeholders process underway to determine

what controls are needed to address the Warrick County violation. The

USEPA believes it is appropriate to give the stakeholders group

(composed of representatives from the State, local officials, local

industry, environmental groups, academia, and private citizens) an

opportunity to solve the local air quality problems. If this process

fails, USEPA can then use its authority, e.g., to issue a SIP call to

the area or redesignate the area to nonattainment. The USEPA also notes

that it expects to be taking steps in 1997 to require reductions in

regional emissions as a response to the OTAG conclusions that will

reduce ozone transport into the Evansville area. This may help to

correct the Warrick County air quality violation.

Comment: A commenter believes that it is USEPA's policy to consider

all ozone monitors in an area to determine the attainment status of the

area. Therefore, the commenter believes USEPA must consider the data

from the Alcoa site in reviewing the attainment status of Vanderburgh

County and surrounding counties.

Response: The USEPA agrees with this comment. See the response to

comments above.

Comment: Several physicians object to the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County based on concerns over chronic effects produced by

ozone during the peak ozone periods and observations of increased

pulmonary hospital admissions during these periods. These physicians

urge the USEPA to not ignore the high ozone levels at the Alcoa

monitoring site.

Response: The USEPA believes that, if Vanderburgh County satisfies

the statutory criteria for redesignation, including attainment of the

current standard, it should be redesignated to attainment. In proposing

this redesignation, the USEPA has not ignored the high ozone levels at

the Alcoa monitoring site but has carefully analyzed those monitored

concentrations and attempted to determine the sources of the ozone

precursors that resulted in those monitored readings. This action is

premised on the 0.12 ppm one-hour standard, which is the standard now

in effect and which was established in accordance with sections 108 and

109 of the Act to protect public health. The USEPA, however, has

recently proposed revising the current ozone standard (61 FR 65716).

That rulemaking is the appropriate forum for the submission of comments

regarding the health

[[Page 12150]]

protections afforded by the ozone standard.

Comment: A group of physicians and college professors have

evaluated the Alcoa 1994 ozone data and have determined that the data

are valid for purposes of evaluating the area's attainment status. They

believe that the May 23, June 20, and June 21, 1994 data confirm that

Vanderburgh County emissions have contributed to an ozone standard

violation and that Vanderburgh County should retain its ozone

nonattainment status.

Response: As noted in this notice, the USEPA considers the data

from the Alcoa site to be valid and relevant to the redesignation

review. The good performance of the Alcoa monitor in quality assurance

tests support the validity of the Alcoa ozone standard exceedances.

However, the USEPA has also considered the meteorological patterns

during this time period. As discussed above, the USEPA is requesting

comment on the issues related to the potential contribution of

emissions from Vanderburgh County to the violation in neighboring

Warrick County in light of the data and information in the Docket.

The USEPA encourages the State of Indiana to implement emission

controls over an area larger than Vanderburgh County, and to follow

through on its commitment to implement its maintenance plan contingency

measures and to work with the local Evansville community and

surrounding areas to adopt emission control programs and regulations,

and submit these regulations as part of a State implementation plan

revision.

Comment: Commenters believe that the Alcoa monitor is located in an

area where one may expect ozone levels resulting from Evansville area

emissions to maximize. They believe the USEPA intends to ignore the

Alcoa data and this fact of typical ozone formation, thus violating

USEPA procedures.

Response: The USEPA agrees with the commenters that the Alcoa

monitor is in a location where relatively high ozone levels may be

expected. Since this monitor is approximately 15 miles from Evansville,

this site is a good choice for a peak downwind ozone site for the

Evansville area. As should be evident from today's notice, USEPA has no

intention of ignoring the Alcoa data. The validity of these data and

their implications in this matter have been given very serious

consideration. Even though the Alcoa monitor is located outside the

Evansville nonattainment area, the USEPA did consider the data from

this monitor in reviewing and evaluating the State's request.

Comment: A commenter notes that he has seen recent indications of

degraded air quality at sporting events attended by his child. During

softball games on warm days, he has observed an increased incident of

itchy, irritated eyes, and breathing difficulties, such as coughing and

breathlessness. A particular incident, in which a player had to leave

the field due to breathing difficulties, was not preceded by strenuous

activity and resulted in the child being taken to a local hospital for

observation. The child's breathing difficulties could not be attributed

to any preexisting condition and her condition improved after she was

removed from contact with the outside air. For the future of the

children in the area, the commenter believes Vanderburgh County should

remain marginal nonattainment for ozone.

Response: The USEPA acknowledges the commenter's observations of

possible negative health effects from air pollution. Unfortunately, the

commenter has not equated these observations with the peak ozone

concentrations on the days when these health effects were observed. It

is not clear that they were observed in an area and at a time with high

ozone concentrations.

Comment: Several citizens have expressed concern that the USEPA has

simply given in to political pressure to redesignate Vanderburgh County

to attainment to support future industrial growth. Several of these

citizens have children who suffer from allergies and respiratory

problems. Other citizens are concerned about a high number of cancer-

related deaths and the dying of trees.

Response: The USEPA recognizes that there may be illness associated

with exposure to high levels of ozone. The current ozone standard (0.12

ppm) is a health-based standard which the Agency has proposed to

revise, as noted above. Concerns over public health have been heard;

the State and the local community are committed to adopting additional

controls in Evansville and the surrounding areas above and beyond those

already being implemented in order to further reduce emissions.

The USEPA has seriously considered the data in this issue. The

USEPA, while weighing the various issues in this case, is very

concerned about the impacts of its decisions on public health, as well

as establishing the proper source-receptor relations to assess

accountability for measured air quality levels.

Comment: Several commenters have expressed an interest in the

placement of ozone monitors in Posey County or, more specifically, in

Mt. Vernon.

Response: In the present rulemaking, USEPA must base its decision

on the monitoring data available. Additionally, USEPA notes that IDEM

has indicated a willingness to expand its ozone monitoring network to

include Posey County.

VII. Proposed Action

The USEPA proposes to approve the redesignation of Evansville

(Vanderburgh County) to attainment for ozone and to approve the

maintenance plan for the area.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

redesignation. Each request shall be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation

to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VIII. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) Impact

On December 13, 1996, USEPA published proposed revisions to the

ozone and particulate matter NAAQS (61 FR 65716 and 61 FR 65638). Also

on December 13, 1996, USEPA published its proposed policy (61 FR 65752)

regarding the interim implementation requirements for ozone and

particulate matter during the time period following any promulgation of

a revised ozone or particulate matter NAAQS. This IIP includes proposed

policy regarding ozone redesignation actions submitted to and approved

by the USEPA prior to the promulgation of a new ozone standard, as well

as those submitted prior to and approved by the USEPA after the

promulgation of a new ozone standard.

Complete redesignation requests submitted and approved by EPA prior

to the promulgation date of the revised ozone standard will be allowed

to stand based on the maintenance plan's ability to demonstrate

attainment of the current one-hour standard and compliance with

existing redesignation criteria. Any redesignation requests submitted

prior to promulgation of the revised ozone standard, but which are not

approved by the USEPA prior to that promulgation date, must also

include a maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment of both the

current one-hour standard and the revised ozone standard to receive

final approval by the USEPA of redesignation to attainment.

As discussed above, the USEPA proposes to approve the Evansville

redesignation request as demonstrating attainment under the current

one-hour ozone standard. If the USEPA does not take final action prior

to the

[[Page 12151]]

promulgation of the revised ozone standard and the request is otherwise

approvable, the USEPA will work with the IDEM to as quickly as possible

to supplement the maintenance plan to demonstrate attainment and

maintenance of the revised ozone standard.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator

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

exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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, the USEPA 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 CAA 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. The

Administrator 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, the

USEPA 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, the USEPA 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 the USEPA

to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The USEPA has determined that the approval action proposed 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 pre-

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

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

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

action.

Dated: March 5, 1997.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-6510 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P