[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26428]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 31, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

 

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1994, the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (USEPA) published direct final rulemaking approving the 
redesignation of St. Joseph, Elkhart, Marion, and Vanderburgh Counties, 
Indiana to attainment of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) and their accompanying maintenance plans as State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. On the same day (July 8, 1994), a 
proposed rule was also published which established a 30-day public 
comment period noting that, if adverse comments were received regarding 
the direct final rule, the USEPA would withdraw the direct final rule 
and publish an additional final rule to address the public comments. 
Adverse comments were received during the public comment period and the 
USEPA published a withdrawal of the direct final rule on August 26, 
1994. This final rule summarizes these comments and USEPA's responses 
and finalizes the approval of the redesignation of St. Joseph, Elkhart 
and Marion Counties. However, due to preliminary, non-quality 
industrial assured ozone data recently received from the State of 
Indiana for Warrick County, (which is adjacent to Vanderburgh County) 
indicating that a violation of the ozone standard may have occurred in 
1994, USEPA is not finalizing the approval of the redesignation of 
Vanderburgh County at this time. The USEPA will address the Vanderburgh 
County redesignation request when an evaluation of these monitoring 
data are available.

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

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and USEPA's 
response are available for inspection at the following address: (It is 
recommended that you telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before 
visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Regulation Development 
Section (AR-18J), Regulation Development Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 
886-6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

    The redesignation requests and maintenance plans discussed in this 
rule were submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management (IDEM) for the following ozone nonattainment areas: South 
Bend/Elkhart (St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties, submitted on September 
22, 1993); and Indianapolis (Marion County, submitted on November 12, 
1993). On July 8, 1994, (59 FR 35044) USEPA published a direct final 
rule approving the redesignation requests and maintenance plans as 
revisions to the Indiana ozone SIP. On the same day, USEPA published a 
proposed rule noting that if adverse comments were received regarding 
the direct final rule, the USEPA would withdraw the direct final rule 
and publish another final rule addressing the public comments (For 
further information refer to 59 FR 35044 and 59 FR 36731). Adverse 
comments were received regarding the direct final rule and USEPA, 
therefore, withdrew the direct final rule on August 26, 1994, (59 FR 
44040). The final rule contained in today's Federal Register addresses 
the comments which were received during the public comment period and 
announces USEPA's final action regarding the redesignation of St. 
Joseph, Elkhart and Marion Counties. The State of Indiana has provided 
the USEPA with preliminary, non-quality assured ozone data for Warrick 
County (which is adjacent to Vanderburgh County) indicating that a 
violation of the ozone standard may have occurred in 1994. During four 
days in 1994, June 18 through June 21, ozone standard exceedances may 
have been recorded at an Alcoa operated facility site (AIRS site 18-
173-0002). The USEPA will defer final rulemaking on the redesignation 
of Vanderburgh County until an evaluation of these monitoring data are 
available for this period. Based on evaluation of these data, the 
redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment will have to be 
reconsidered. USEPA will summarize and respond to the adverse comments 
received regarding the Vanderburgh County redesignation in a subsequent 
final rulemaking action.

II. Public Comments and USEPA Responses

    The following discussion summarizes and responds to the comments 
received regarding the redesignation of St. Joseph, Elkhart, and Marion 
Counties.

Comment

    A commenter notes that, in reviewing Indiana's ozone redesignation 
request, the USEPA should consider the transport of ozone and ozone 
precursors into nonattainment areas currently part of the Lake Michigan 
Ozone Control Program (LMOP) (also referred to as the Lake Michigan 
Ozone Study [LMOS] area). Given the ongoing concerns about the control 
of transported ozone and ozone precursors as part of the attainment 
strategies being considered for the LMOP area, the commenter believes 
the Indiana ozone nonattainment areas (as well as those of Illinois, 
Michigan, and Wisconsin) should not be redesignated to attainment until 
the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) has conducted and 
completed an analysis of the ozone impacts of controlling transported 
ozone precursors.

USEPA Response

    Although the 1991 field study conducted for LMOS produced high 
ozone concentrations aloft near the upwind edge of the LMOS modeling 
domain, implying transport of relatively high ozone concentrations into 
the LMOS domain, the 1991 field study did not establish the source(s) 
of the transported ozone. No studies have been conducted demonstrating 
that the Indiana nonattainment areas are the source areas responsible 
for the transported ozone. As there is currently no conclusive evidence 
that these Indiana areas are responsible for the transported ozone, 
USEPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to continue the 
nonattainment classification of these areas. USEPA further notes that 
these areas remain subject to obligations under sections 110(a)(2)(A) 
and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (Act) to deal with ozone 
transport even after redesignation to attainment.
    It should be noted that the LADCO States are conducting modeling 
analyses which will allow an assessment of the ozone impacts of 
controlling emissions in attainment areas as well as in ozone 
nonattainment areas. In addition, the USEPA is considering analyzing 
the impacts of some national controls covering both attainment areas 
and nonattainment areas through the use of the Regional Oxidant Model, 
which can cover a larger domain than the Urban Airshed Model used in 
LMOS and LMOP. The results of these modeling analyses may lead to new 
emission control requirements for attainment areas.

Comment

    A commenter notes that the State of Indiana has not fully predicted 
the impact of future transportation projects and their effects on 
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and mobile source emissions growth. 
Specifically, the State of Indiana is planning to build a new four-lane 
highway between Marion and Vanderburgh Counties. In addition, the City 
of Indianapolis has recently proposed changes to its public 
transportation system, including the elimination of routes. Conformity 
analyses have not been performed for either of these proposals. The 
commenter argues that the September 4, 1992 redesignation guidance from 
USEPA's Director of the Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, requires that the State prove that its 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions are consistent with the 
Act's section 176(c)(4) conformity requirements.

USEPA Response

    The USEPA conformity rule (58 FR 62218) requires the States to 
conduct conformity analyses for both nonattainment areas and attainment 
areas subject to maintenance plans. The State is currently drafting its 
conformity rule to comply with USEPA's conformity rule. Therefore, any 
major federally funded and State funded projects in the areas 
redesignated to attainment by this action will be addressed through 
State conformity analyses and will be subject to the emissions budget 
established by the applicable maintenance plan. The Indianapolis-
Evansville highway and any major modifications in public transportation 
will be subject to conformity analyses after Marion County is 
redesignated to attainment. If the changes to the public transportation 
system are minor, they are not required to be subject to conformity 
analyses.

Comment

    A commenter has noted that the State has not shown that the 
improvements in air quality (occurring after the violation period of 
1987 through 1989) are due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions as required in section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the Act. The 
commenter argues that the September 4, 1992 USEPA redesignation policy 
guidance is clear in requiring analysis of whether the improved air 
quality has resulted in part from either unique meteorological 
conditions or adverse economic conditions. Air quality improvements due 
to these air quality impacts are not permanent, and, therefore, are not 
creditable. These aspects have been neglected in both the State 
redesignation request and in USEPA's subsequent rulemaking.

USEPA Response

    The September 4, 1992 USEPA policy guidance referred to by the 
commenter states that ``[a]ttainment resulting from temporary 
reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdown due 
to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable 
meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.'' Neither the State nor 
the USEPA has neglected these issues in preparing and analyzing 
Indiana's redesignation request. Rather, the USEPA believes that the 
State has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality 
resulting in the attainment of the ozone standard is not due to 
temporary economic downturn or unusually favorable meteorology. As 
explained below, the State has made an adequate demonstration that the 
improvement in air quality in these Counties leading to attainment of 
the ozone standard was not due to temporary reductions in emission 
rates or to unusually favorable meteorology.
    With respect to the issue of temporary emission reductions due to 
economic downturn, the USEPA noted in the July 8, 1994 direct final 
rulemaking (59 FR 35048), that the State has shown that attainment of 
the ozone standard is attributable to permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions that have occurred in Elkhart, Marion, and St. 
Joseph Counties. These emission reductions have resulted from source 
closures, implementation of emission controls on stationary sources 
(this included added emission reductions resulting from the correction 
of reasonably available control technology regulations in response to 
regulation deficiencies previously noted by the USEPA), implementation 
of the federal motor vehicle emission control program, and 
implementation of gasoline reid vapor pressure restrictions (Indiana 
implemented USEPA reid vapor pressure requirements, lowering reid vapor 
pressure limits to 9.0 pounds per square inch by 1992). All of these 
controls are permanent and enforceable. In the case of source closures, 
the source permits associated with these sources have been terminated 
and will not be reissued. Substantial emission reductions have occurred 
as a result of the imposition of permanent and enforceable emission 
controls, and it is USEPA's judgment that these reductions, rather than 
reductions attributable to any temporary economic downturn, are 
primarily responsible for the improvement in air quality that led to 
the attainment of the ozone standard in these Counties. The continued 
attainment status of these Counties in the years since the 1990-1992 
period further indicates that temporary adverse economic conditions in 
the 1990-1991 period were not a significant factor in the attainment of 
the ozone standard in these Counties.
    With respect to the issue of unusual meteorology, the State has 
compared the average meteorological parameters of maximum daily 
temperatures, daily mean wind speeds, percents of possible sunshine, 
and percents of relative humidity for the periods of May through 
August, 1990 through 1992, with the 30-year (1961-1990) norms for these 
parameters. In all three areas considered for redesignation, the 1990-
1992 averages for these parameters agreed with those for the 30-year 
norms with only minor differences. Based on averaged parameters, it can 
be concluded that the 1990-1992 period was not atypically nonconducive 
to ozone formation. Thus, the State has adequately demonstrated that 
the air quality improvement was not due to unusually favorable 
meteorology.

Comment

    A commenter notes that the failure to require correction of the 
State's part D New Source Review (NSR) program as a condition for 
approval of the area redesignations is in conflict with the Act and 
with USEPA guidance. The commenter notes that the USEPA rulemaking 
statement that part D NSR requirements are not generally applicable 
upon redesignation to attainment conflicts with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) 
and is not justified in the USEPA guidance. The commenter notes that, 
although the USEPA September 4, 1992 policy memorandum implied that 
there is some flexibility in replacing part D NSR requirements with 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, a 
subsequent USEPA September 17, 1993 policy clarification memorandum 
eliminated this flexibility.
    The commenter also notes that the USEPA redesignation rulemaking 
erroneously allows the removal of existing part D NSR requirements, 
such as the requirements for offsets and Lowest Achievable Emission 
Rates (LAER). All of these existing programs disappear or are replaced 
by a part C PSD program. The commenter argues that the redesignations 
to attainment are not acceptable unless the NSR part D requirements are 
retained as contingency measures. It is noted that PSD for sources of 
ozone precursors does not require emission offsets for new sources, 
only requires Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emission 
controls rather than LAER, and has different source emission thresholds 
than does part D NSR. The implication is that shifting to PSD from part 
D NSR will weaken emission control requirements without adequate 
safeguards.
    The commenter notes that the statement in the redesignation 
rulemaking that the section 175A(d) requirement (that all SIP measures 
be converted to contingency measures) should not apply to part D NSR 
because of the differing use of the term ``measure'' at section 161 of 
the Clean Air Act is irrelevant. The relevance of the part C (section 
161) reference to a part D NSR requirement is questionable. The 
allusion to USEPA's historical practices do nothing to negate the 
explicit imperatives of the Clean Air Act and other USEPA guidance.
    The commenter goes on to state that based on USEPA's logic in 
eliminating the part D NSR requirement, any and all other applicable 
part D requirements, including those which have been previously met and 
even relied upon in demonstrating attainment, could be eliminated 
without an analysis demonstrating that maintenance would be protected.

USEPA Response

    USEPA believes that the areas that are the subject of Indiana's 
redesignation request may be redesignated to attainment notwithstanding 
the lack of a fully approved NSR program meeting the requirements of 
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the absence of such an NSR 
program from the contingency plan. This view, while a departure from 
the past policy, has been set forth by the USEPA as its new policy in a 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation (``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' October 14, 1994).
    USEPA believes that its failure to insist on a fully approved NSR 
program as a pre-requisite to redesignation to attainment is 
justifiable as an exercise of the Agency's general authority to 
establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. See Alabama 
Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Under 
Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, the Agency has the authority to establish 
de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements where the application 
of the statutory requirements would be of trivial or no value 
environmentally.
    In this context, the issue presented is whether the Agency has the 
authority to establish an exception to the requirement of section 
107(d)(3)(E) that USEPA has fully approved a state implementation plan 
meeting all of the requirements applicable to the area under section 
110 and part D of Title I of the Act. Plainly, the NSR provisions of 
section 110 and part D are requirements that were applicable to the 
Indiana areas seeking redesignation at the times of submission of the 
requests for redesignation. Thus, on its face, section 107(d)(3)(E) 
would seem to require that the State has submitted and USEPA has fully 
approved an NSR program meeting the requirements of the Act before the 
areas could be redesignated to attainment.
    Under the Agency's de minimis authority, however, it may establish 
an exception to an otherwise plain statutory requirement if its 
fulfillment would be of little or no environmental value. In this 
context, it is necessary to determine what would be achieved by 
insisting that there be a fully approved NSR program in place prior to 
the redesignation of the Indiana areas. For the following reasons, 
USEPA believes that requiring the adoption and full approval of an NSR 
program prior to redesignation would not be of any significant 
environmental value in this case.
    Indiana has demonstrated that maintenance of the ozone NAAQS will 
occur even if the emission reductions expected to result from an NSR 
program due to emission offsets do not occur. The emission projections 
made by Indiana to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS considered 
growth in point source emissions (along with growth for other source 
categories) and were premised on the assumption that PSD would be in 
effect, rather than NSR, during the maintenance period. Under NSR, 
significant point source emissions growth would not occur. Indiana 
assumed that NSR would not apply after redesignation to attainment, 
and, therefore, assumed source growth factors based on projected growth 
in the economy and in the areas' populations. (It should be noted that 
the growth factors assumed may be overestimates under PSD, which would 
restrain source growth through the application of best available 
control techniques.) Thus, contrary to the assertion of the commenters, 
Indiana has demonstrated that there is no need to retain NSR as an 
operative program in the state implementation plan during the 
maintenance period in order to provide for continued maintenance of the 
NAAQS. (If this demonstration had not been made, NSR would have had to 
have been retained in the state implementation plan as an operative 
program since it would have been needed to maintain the ozone 
standard.)
    The other purpose that requiring the full approval of an NSR 
program might serve would be to ensure that NSR would become a 
contingency provision in the maintenance plan required for these areas 
by sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(d). These provisions require 
that, for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it must receive 
full approval of a maintenance plan containing ``such contingency 
provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the 
State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs 
after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Such 
provisions shall include a requirement that the State will implement 
all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned 
which were contained in the State implementation plan for the area 
before redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' Based on this 
language, it is apparent that whether an approved NSR program must be 
included as a contingency provision depends on whether it is considered 
as a ``measure'' for the control of the pertinent air pollutants.
    As USEPA noted in the proposed rulemaking regarding these 
redesignation requests, the term ``measure'' is not defined in section 
175A(d) and Congress utilized that term differently in different 
provisions of the Act with respect to the PSD and NSR permitting 
programs. For example, in section 110(a)(2)(A), Congress required State 
implementation plans to include ``enforceable emission limitations and 
other control measures, means, or techniques * * * as may be necessary 
or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.'' In 
section 110(a)(2)(C), Congress required that State implementation plans 
include ``a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures 
described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and 
construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the 
plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards 
are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and 
D.'' (Emphasis added.) If the term ``measures'' as used in sections 
110(a)(2) (A) and (C) had been intended to include PSD and NSR there 
would have been no point to requiring that State implementation plans 
include both measures and preconstruction review under parts C and D 
(PSD and NSR). Unless ``measures'' referred to something other than 
preconstruction review under parts C and D, the reference to 
preconstruction review programs in section 110(a)(2)(C) would be 
rendered mere surplusage. Thus, in sections 110(a)(2) (A) and (C), it 
is apparent that Congress distinguished ``measures'' from 
preconstruction review. On the other hand, in other provisions of the 
Act, such as section 161, Congress appeared to include PSD within the 
scope of the term ``measures.''
    Contrary to the comments in this proceeding, USEPA does not believe 
that the fact that Congress used the undefined term ``measure'' 
differently in different sections of the Act is ``irrelevant.'' Rather, 
this indicates that the term is susceptible to more than one 
interpretation and that USEPA has the discretion to interpret it in a 
reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. Inasmuch as Congress 
itself has used the term in a manner that excluded PSD and NSR from its 
scope, USEPA believes it is reasonable to interpret ``measure,'' as 
used in section 175A(d), not to include NSR. That this is a reasonable 
interpretation is further supported by the fact that PSD, a program 
that is the corollary of NSR for attainment areas, goes into effect in 
lieu of NSR.\1\ This distinguishes NSR from other required programs 
under the Act, such as enhanced inspection and maintenance and 
reasonably available control technology, which have no corollary for 
attainment areas. Moreover, USEPA believes that those other required 
programs are clearly within the scope of the term ``measure.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\USEPA is not suggesting that NSR and PSD are equivalent, but 
merely that they are the same type of program.
    \2\USEPA also notes that, in the case of the Indiana areas, the 
possible contingency provisions include volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emission offsets for new and modified major sources; VOC 
emission offsets for new and modified minor sources; increasing the 
ratio of emission offsets required for new sources; and VOC controls 
on new minor sources (less than 100 tons per year). Furthermore, 
Indiana's construction permit program requires that, prior to 
constructing any source in any attainment or nonattainment area in 
the State, it must be demonstrated that the resultant emissions will 
not exacerbate an existing air quality violation or cause a new 
violation. This is consistent with USEPA's PSD requirements as 
specified at 40 CFR 52.21(k) and is provided for in Indiana's State 
implementation plan (see 40 CFR 52.793(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USEPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that USEPA's logic 
in treating NSR in this manner means that other applicable part D 
requirements, including those that have been previously met and 
previously relied upon in demonstrating attainment, could be eliminated 
without an analysis demonstrating that maintenance would be protected. 
As noted above, Indiana has demonstrated that maintenance would be 
protected with PSD in effect, rather than NSR. Thus, USEPA is not 
permitting NSR to be removed without a demonstration that maintenance 
of the standard will be achieved. Moreover, USEPA has not amended its 
policy with respect to the conversion of other State implementation 
plan elements to contingency provisions, which is that they may be 
converted to contingency provisions only upon a showing that 
maintenance will be achieved without them being in effect. Finally, as 
noted above, USEPA believes that the NSR requirement differs from other 
requirements, and does not believe that the rationale for the NSR 
exception extends to other required programs.
    The position taken in this action is consistent with USEPA's 
current national policy. That policy permits redesignations to proceed 
without otherwise required NSR programs having been fully approved and 
converted to contingency provisions provided that the area 
demonstrates, as has been done in this case, that maintenance will be 
achieved with the application of PSD rather than NSR.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    The State of Indiana has met the requirements of the Act revising 
the Indiana ozone SIP. The USEPA approves the redesignation of St. 
Joseph, Elkhart and Marion Counties, Indiana to attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS. Final determination is being withheld for Vanderburgh County at 
this time. Further consideration of the Vanderburgh County 
redesignation will be made upon completion of the quality assurance of 
the Alcoa monitoring site data.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993, 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of 
the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 30, 1994. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, 
Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, 
Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 14, 1994.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

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


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

* * * * *
    (f) Approval. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management 
submitted two ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans 
requesting the ozone nonattainment areas to be redesignated to 
attainment for ozone: South Bend/Elkhart (St. Joseph and Elkhart 
Counties), submitted on September 22, 1993; Indianapolis (Marion 
County), submitted on November 12, 1993. The redesignation requests and 
maintenance plans meet the redesignation requirements in section 
107(d)(3)(d) of the Act as amended in 1990. The redesignations meet the 
Federal requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a 
revision to the Indiana Ozone State Implementation Plan for the above 
mentioned counties.
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec. 81.315 the Indiana--Ozone table is amended by revising 
the entries for ``Indianapolis Area'' and ``South Bend-Elkhart Area'' 
to read as follows:


Sec. 81.315   Indiana.

* * * * * 

                                                                     Indiana--Ozone                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Designation                                     Classification                 
                  Designated areas                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Date\1\                   Type                    Date\1\                   Type       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
Indianapolis Area:                                                                                                                                      
    Marion County...................................  November 30, 1994...........  Attainment........                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
South Bend-Elkhart Area:                                                                                                                                
    Elkhart County..................................  November 30, 1994...........  Attainment........                                                  
    St. Joseph County...............................  November 30, 1994...........  Attainment........                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                                                              

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-26428 Filed 10-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P