Federal Register, Volume 62 Issue 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12137-12151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6510]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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