[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64725-64736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32188]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[IN77-2; FRL-5933-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans,
and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve an ozone maintenance
plan submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request
and a redesignation request submitted by the State of Indiana for the
purpose of redesignating Vanderburgh County (Evansville) from marginal
nonattainment to attainment of the one-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard. Besides being based on information contained in the
State's redesignation request, the approval of this redesignation
request is also based on review of the ozone data for this area over
the three most recent years, 1995 through 1997. EPA finds the State's
maintenance plan and redesignation request to be acceptable and notes
that, based on the most recent three years of ozone data, the area is
currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard. This action does not
address the area's attainment of the recently promulgated eight-hour
ozone standard, which will be addressed in future rulemaking.
DATES: This action is effective December 9, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's redesignation request and maintenance
plan, EPA's analyses (technical support documents and proposed and
final rulemakings), and public comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking
are available for inspection at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is
recommended that you telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before
visiting the Region 5 office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were
enacted. Public Law 101-549, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Pursuant
to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),
Vanderburgh County, Indiana was designated as nonattainment for the
one-hour ozone standard and was classified as marginal (see 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991)).
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted
an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan as a SIP revision
for Vanderburgh County on November 4, 1993. On July 8, 1994 (59 FR
35044), EPA published a direct final rulemaking approving the
redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone
standard. On the same day, a proposed rulemaking was also published in
the Federal Register which established a 30-day public comment period
for the redesignation approval and noted that, if adverse comments were
received regarding the final rulemaking, EPA would withdraw the direct
final rulemaking and would address the comments through a revised final
rulemaking. EPA received adverse comments, and published a withdrawal
of the direct final rulemaking on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44040).
Subsequent to the July 8, 1994 direct final rulemaking, EPA was
informed by IDEM that a possible violation of the ozone standard had
been monitored at a privately-operated industrial site owned by the
Aluminum Corporation of America (Alcoa) in Warrick County. Warrick
County (designated as attainment for ozone) adjoins Vanderburgh County
to the east. Because Warrick County can be considered to be a nearby
area downwind of Vanderburgh County on certain days, EPA questioned
whether the monitored violation in Warrick County should be considered
in any subsequent rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh
County. IDEM indicated its intent to investigate the high ozone values
and requested that EPA not act on the redesignation request pending the
outcome of that technical investigation. IDEM completed its
investigation and submitted the results to the EPA on June 5, 1995.
IDEM's investigation concluded that the Alcoa peak ozone concentrations
were unusual during the period of the monitored ozone standard
violation, were biased high (relative to peak ozone concentrations at
other area monitoring sites during the May through June, 1994 time
period), and were not
[[Page 64726]]
representative of the Vanderburgh County nonattainment area peak ozone
levels. IDEM recommended that EPA proceed with the redesignation of
Vanderburgh County to attainment so that the maintenance plan could
become federally enforceable.
Due to the large extent of additional data received after the July
8, 1994 direct final rulemaking and the extent of public comments on
that rulemaking, EPA concluded that it was appropriate to repropose
rulemaking for this redesignation action. EPA evaluated all available
information, including public comments on the July 8, 1994 direct final
rulemaking, and proposed to approve the redesignation of Vanderburgh
County to attainment of the ozone standard on March 14, 1997 (62 FR
12137).
Based on the available information at the time of the March 14,
1997 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to take final action approving
the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment if any of the
following three events occurred: (1) If Warrick County attained the
ozone standard prior to final rulemaking action by the EPA on the
Vanderburgh County redesignation; (2) if EPA determined that
Vanderburgh County did not significantly contribute to an ozone
nonattainment problem in Warrick County; or (3) if the EPA determined
that the information available is not sufficient to determine whether
or not Vanderburgh County significantly contributed to a nonattainment
problem in Warrick County. EPA also solicited public comment on whether
the 1994 Warrick County ozone standard violation data should be
excluded from consideration of the Vanderburgh County ozone attainment
status.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, replacing the one-hour, 0.12 parts
per million standard with an eight-hour, 0.08 parts per million
standard (62 FR 38856). EPA is in the process of developing guidance
and proposed rules to implement the new ozone standard based on a
Presidential Directive signed on July 16, 1997, and published in the
Federal Register on July 18, 1997. Today's action is a redesignation to
attainment for Vanderburgh County for the one-hour, 0.12 parts per
million standard and approval of the maintenance plan as it relates to
the one-hour standard only. EPA's decision to redesignate Vanderburgh
County to attainment and to approve the maintenance plan as a SIP
revision is based on the requirements of section 107 of the Act and
existing EPA policy and guidance as they pertain to the one-hour
standard. Today's decision does not in any way make a determination
regarding Vanderburgh County's attainment status for the newly
promulgated eight-hour standard. Decisions regarding the attainment
status of areas for the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS will be made by EPA
at a later date.
II. Current Air Quality
A violation of the one-hour, 0.12 parts per million ozone standard
occurs in an area when the annual average number of expected daily
exceedances of the ozone standard exceeds 1.0 at any site in the area
based on the most recent 3 years of ozone data. Therefore, the
condition for a violation of the ozone standard would generally require
that more than 3 exceedances of the ozone standard be monitored during
the 3 most recent years of monitoring at any site in the area.
To review the ozone data for possible ozone standard violations,
one must consider the defined ozone season for the area. The ozone
season is that portion of the year when one may expect relatively high
ozone concentrations exceeding the standard. Outside of this period,
ozone standard exceedances are rarely or never recorded. The
calculation of expected ozone standard exceedance rates takes into
account the potential for ozone standard exceedances on days during the
ozone season with invalid or missing data. For the State of Indiana,
including the Evansville area, the ozone season is defined in 40 CFR
Part 52 to be April through September.
Review of current ozone data for the period of 1995 through 1997
for the Evansville area, including Vanderburgh, Posey, and Warrick
Counties, shows that the one-hour ozone standard has not been violated
in the area during the most recent 3 years. Only a single exceedance of
the one-hour ozone standard was monitored in the area during this 3-
year period: 0.131 parts per million, recorded at the Booneville site
in Warrick County in 1995. IDEM, in an October 3, 1997 letter to the
EPA, confirmed that there were no current ozone standard violations in
the area and that the ozone data for the area through September, 1997
were quality assured. The October 3, 1997 letter listed the four
highest daily one-hour ozone concentrations at all ozone monitoring
sites in the Evansville area (including those in Posey, Vanderburgh,
and Warrick Counties) during each year for the 1995 through 1997
period, confirming the lack of ozone standard violations in the area
during this period.
Based on the current ozone monitoring data, it has been determined
that the ozone standard has been attained in the Evansville area. As
noted in the proposed rulemaking (62 FR 12138), this, along with
approval of Indiana's maintenance plan and the State having met the
redesignation requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, forms
the basis for final approval of IDEM's redesignation request for
Vanderburgh County. It should be noted that the lack of an ozone
standard violation for the period of 1995 through 1997 moots the issues
surrounding the ozone standard violation monitored in 1994 at the Alcoa
site.
III. Responses to Public Comments
EPA received 20 sets of comments on the March 14, 1997 proposed
rulemaking, including 89 individual comments with significant overlap
(the comments have been grouped into several general categories and are
addressed below in summary form). All of these comment sets contained
comments generally critical of EPA's proposed approval of the
redesignation or of the proposed technical basis for the approval. The
following discussion addresses the comments with one general exception.
Those comments addressing EPA's treatment of the 1994 Alcoa ozone
standard violation or emission contributions to that standard violation
are not generally addressed, since those comments are rendered moot by
the 1995 through 1997 monitored ozone data demonstrating attainment of
the standard at the Alcoa site and at other sites in the Evansville
area as a whole.
A. Air Quality and Designation Timing
1. Comment
Several commenters note that EPA and IDEM failed to redesignate
Vanderburgh County to nonattainment in 1988 or 1989 following a
violation of the ozone standard in the 1986 through 1989 time period.
The commenters note that, had EPA or IDEM done so, Vanderburgh County
would have been subject to stationary source Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) requirements under the pre-1990 CAA.
Response
It is true that a monitor in Vanderburgh County recorded a
violation of the one-hour ozone standard during the 1987-1989 time
period. The decisive ozone standard exceedance was recorded in 1989 and
was not reported in quality assured form to the EPA until the last half
of 1989,
[[Page 64727]]
in keeping with quality assurance and data reporting requirements.
During 1990, EPA was considering how to address the new ozone
standard violation in the Evansville area. Under the CAA prior to its
1990 revision, EPA could not unilaterally redesignate an area to
nonattainment without an initiating request from the State containing
the area. EPA could, however, request a SIP revision under section 110
of the CAA to address an air quality problem despite the lack of a
nonattainment designation. Under section 110 of the CAA, this ``SIP-
call'' can require the State to address the problem in a timely manner,
but cannot prescribe specific measures, such as the adoption of RACT
rules, which can only be required in areas specifically designated as
nonattainment.
Before a SIP-call could be used in the Evansville area, the CAA was
revised. Under section 182 of the revised CAA, Vanderburgh County was
classified as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone. Under section
182(a) of the revised CAA, sources located in marginal ozone
nonattainment areas are not subject to new RACT requirements (sources
in marginal nonattainment areas are subject only to correction of
existing RACT regulations). It should also be noted that the SIP-call
process would have extended well past the November 15, 1990 adoption
time of the CAA revisions.
2. Comment
A commenter concurs with EPA's proposed rule that, if no ozone
standard violation is monitored in Vanderburgh County or in its
downwind environs during the 1995 through 1997 time period, the Clean
Air Act would allow Vanderburgh County to be redesignated to attainment
of the ozone standard. The commenter believes, however, that no action
should be taken to redesignate Vanderburgh County until all of the data
have been quality assured, demonstrating that there have been no ozone
standard violations through 1997 and through the entire 1995-1997
period. To do otherwise would be premature and probably illegal. Other
commenters also oppose the redesignation of Vanderburgh County until
all of the data in the region, including Warrick County, demonstrate
monitored attainment of the ozone standard.
Response
As noted above, on October 3, 1997, IDEM confirmed that the 1997
ozone data for Vanderburgh, Posey, and Warrick Counties had been
quality assured through September (the end of the defined ozone
season). The 1995 through 1997 ozone data demonstrate that no violation
of the ozone standard has occurred in the Evansville area, including in
Posey and Warrick Counties, during the most recent 3 years.
B. Regional Air Quality Impacts
1. Comment
Commenters note that industrial source emissions must be ``cleaned-
up'' in Vanderburgh County as well as in its surrounding counties
before the area can be redesignated to attainment. The commenters
believe that a regional ozone problem exists in the area. The
commenters state that emission reductions in Vanderburgh County only
would not be sufficient to address the regional ozone problem of the
Evansville area (Vanderburgh, Gibson, Posey, and Warrick Counties).
Response
As noted above, attainment of the ozone standard has been monitored
in the entire area. This was accomplished without the implementation of
a region-wide emission reduction program mandating controls beyond
emission reductions already required in the area, such as those
resulting from the implementation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program (FMVCP).
With regard to the regional nature of the area's peak ozone
concentrations, it should be noted that the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group (OTAG) process has reached closure, with the participating States
recommending a range of possible Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
emission reduction requirements to the EPA. On November 7, 1997 (62 FR
60318), the EPA proposed rulemaking that would require States to meet
statewide NOX emission budgets. The implementation of
requirements to attain the NOX emission budgets in the
eastern United States should significantly reduce the amount of ozone
transported into the Evansville area or generated by Evansville
emissions and transported to downwind areas. Assuming that the
rulemaking is finalized, the State of Indiana is expected to reduce
regional NOX emissions to comply with the allowed
NOX emission budget. These NOx emission
reductions should reduce regional ozone levels.
In addition, the commenters cite no policy requiring such a region-
wide emission reduction. Since Vanderburgh County is a marginal
nonattainment area, the CAA does not require emission reductions over a
larger region, such as a metropolitan statistical area.
2. Comment
A commenter notes that, when the State was asked to put a monitor
in Posey County in 1988, the State refused, saying that what happened
in Vanderburgh County from an emissions control standpoint would also
happen in the contiguous counties. The commenter believes that, in
reality, the State only contemplated emission controls in Vanderburgh
County, for which the nonattainment designation was imposed. The
commenter believes that this restriction of emission controls was wrong
given that emissions in surrounding counties exceed those in
Vanderburgh County.
Response
Based on Indiana's 1990 base year Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
emissions inventory for the Evansville area, emissions of VOC in
Vanderburgh County exceeded those from any of the surrounding counties.
Based on this fact and the fact that, at the time of the designation of
Vanderburgh County as nonattainment for ozone, the ozone standard
violation was limited to Vanderburgh County, it was appropriate to
assume that the emission control measures should focus on Vanderburgh
County. In addition, since only Vanderburgh County was designated as
nonattainment for ozone, it was reasonable to focus attention on
emission controls there.
The commenters provide no data showing that emissions of VOC in the
surrounding counties, on a county-by-county basis or as an area total,
exceed those in Vanderburgh County.
3. Comment
A commenter notes that, in 1988, the commenter was assured by the
State that, if Vanderburgh County was designated as nonattainment for
ozone, all of the surrounding counties would be given the same
designation. Only Vanderburgh County, however, was proposed for the
nonattainment status. To the commenter, it appears that political and
industrial interests in the counties surrounding Vanderburgh County
were able to persuade the State to make only Vanderburgh County
nonattainment. Meanwhile, EPA and IDEM have refused to discuss ozone
precursor emission controls for the surrounding counties.
Response
Designation of Vanderburgh County only and not the entire
metropolitan area as nonattainment for ozone is
[[Page 64728]]
entirely consistent with the requirements for marginal nonattainment
area designations under section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the CAA. IDEM acted
within the requirements and limits of the CAA in selecting only
Vanderburgh County as the marginal ozone nonattainment area. This
decision was supported given that the ozone standard violation in the
1987 through 1989 period was limited to Vanderburgh County, and that
the VOC emissions of Vanderburgh County exceeded those of any of the
surrounding counties at that time.
4. Comment
A commenter states that, according to section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of
the CAA, the State and the Administrator are required to find that an
area is nonattainment if it does not meet (or contributes to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) an air quality
standard. The commenter believes that clearly Posey, Gibson, and
Warrick County emissions contributed to the ozone standard violation
that occurred in Vanderburgh County. The entire area should have been
designated as nonattainment for ozone.
Response
In addition to responses to similar comments above, it is noted
that no modeling data or similar ozone production and transport
analyses exist which would indicate that emissions from Posey, Gibson,
and Warrick Counties contributed to the 1988-1989 ozone standard
violation in Vanderburgh County. Until such data are made available,
one can not draw this conclusion other than through speculation. Given
the data available and the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of
the CAA (this section of the CAA only defines minimum nonattainment
area sizes for areas classified as serious or above for ozone, the
State is given more discretion in selecting the size of nonattainment
areas for areas classified as marginal or moderate nonattainment), EPA
believes that the State of Indiana acted in keeping with the
requirements of the CAA in selecting only Vanderburgh County as the
nonattainment area.
C. Ozone Transport Assessment Group
1. Comment
Commenters question the need for the EPA to rely on OTAG-related
emission reductions (expected to be required through future
rulemaking), since these emission reductions are not yet tangible and
are not sufficient to avoid ozone problems during hot summers. Reliance
on ``possible'' future emission reductions from OTAG while ignoring the
Alcoa ozone standard violation is incongruous and explains why poor air
quality continues in the Evansville area.
Response
Although EPA mentioned the potential benefits from OTAG-related
emission reductions in the proposed rulemaking, it did not rely on
these future emission reductions as a basis for the proposed
redesignation of Vanderburgh County. The Evansville area has attained
the ozone standard without these emission reductions. In addition, the
State's maintenance plan for this area shows continued maintenance of
the ozone standard without considering the impacts of these emission
reductions.
In discussing the OTAG-related emission reductions expected in the
near future, the EPA was simply noting that these emission reductions
would lower the background ozone concentrations in the Evansville area,
further lowering the ozone concentrations in the area. Such decreases
in ozone concentrations would act to reduce the risk of future
violations of the one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards. The State of
Indiana actively participated in the OTAG process and is expected to
reduce NOX emissions to comply with the resulting
NOX emission budget. This NOX emission reduction
is expected to reduce area ozone levels and transport of ozone into
downwind areas.
2. Comment
A commenter notes that EPA's reliance on emission reductions
resulting from OTAG is unacceptable until EPA is sure what rules will
come out of the OTAG process. It is the commenter's understanding that
the OTAG process has nearly broken down. Deadlines have been missed. It
is not clear what ozone precursor emission reductions will result from
this process. In addition, EPA does not offer proof that OTAG controls
will be implemented or that resulting emission reductions will be of
sufficient quantity to achieve the ozone standard in the Evansville
area. To rely on conjecture that OTAG emission reductions will occur is
not consistent with the Congressional intent of making the air healthy
in the Evansville area.
Response
As noted above, the EPA has not relied on OTAG-related emission
reductions to attain the ozone standard in the Evansville area. The
area has attained the ozone standard without such future emission
reductions.
The OTAG process has not broken down. The OTAG process has reached
closure, and the OTAG States have recommended a range of possible
NOX emission reduction requirements to the EPA. EPA proposed
a SIP-call on November 7, 1997 in response to the recommendations of
OTAG. Therefore, it is likely, assuming that the rulemaking is
finalized, that significant NOX emission reductions in the
eastern half of the United States will result from the OTAG process.
These emission reductions should also lower ozone levels in the
Evansville area in the future, but are not being relied on to meet or
to maintain the one-hour ozone standard in the Evansville area.
D. Source Growth and the Maintenance Plan
1. Comment
Several commenters believe that the maintenance plan submitted with
Indiana's redesignation request is outdated and should be updated to
reflect the emission increases that have occurred or are expected to
occur in the region as a result of source growth. The commenters note
the source impacts of new sources, such as A.K. Steel, the Casino Aztar
River Boat (indirect traffic growth), and the Toyota truck plant to be
located in neighboring Gibson County. The commenters believe that these
new sources lead to increases in population, vehicle miles traveled,
and industrial emissions, invalidating the existing maintenance plan.
The commenters state that EPA should review the maintenance plan in
light of these new emissions and that the maintenance plan submitted in
1993 is obsolete.
Response
Although the maintenance plan was submitted in 1993, prior to the
source growth noted by the commenters, and uses 1990 as the attainment
base year, EPA sees no reason to disapprove the maintenance plan based
on source growth in recent years. This conclusion is based on several
reasons. First, despite any source growth, Vanderburgh County is
currently attaining the ozone standard and has continuously attained
the standard throughout the period during which the redesignation
request has been pending. To the extent that the Alcoa monitor
indicated nonattainment during this period, the nonattainment problem
was not monitored in Vanderburgh County itself, but rather in
neighboring Warrick County (current data shows that Warrick County is
also
[[Page 64729]]
attaining the one-hour ozone standard). Therefore, the source growth
has not prevented attainment of the standard in Vanderburgh County.
Second, in the case of the future emissions from the Toyota truck
plant, IDEM, through the source permit development process, has
evaluated the ozone impacts of these emissions on the Evansville area,
including potential impacts on critical ozone monitoring sites in
Warrick County. The State has concluded that increased ozone precursor
emissions from this facility will not cause an ozone standard violation
at any of the monitoring sites. Finally, the maintenance plan submitted
by IDEM contains provisions for addressing unexpected emission
increases. As noted in the March 14, 1997 proposed rulemaking (62 FR
12141), IDEM commits to periodically review area emissions and to
conduct a review of the ozone impacts of increasing emissions if the
VOC, NOX, or Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions in the area
increase above the 1990 level. If the review indicates that the
increased emissions have the potential to cause a violation of the
ozone standard, IDEM would determine and adopt the emission controls
needed to eliminate the potential air quality problem. Therefore,
increasing emissions should not present a problem for maintenance of
the ozone standard in this area as long as IDEM implements the
maintenance plan.
As additional insurance toward maintenance of the standard, it
should be noted that, based on the adopted maintenance plan, if
increasing emissions do cause a future violation of the standard, IDEM
is committed to select emission control measures from the contingency
measure list for implementation toward attainment of the ozone
standard.
Finally, it is noted that the commenters have presented no air
quality analyses to demonstrate that the new sources (or indirect
sources) in the area have the potential to cause future violations of
the ozone standard. The EPA continues to find Indiana's maintenance
plan to be acceptable.
2. Comment
Because of recent source growth in Vanderburgh County and in
Southwestern Indiana, a commenter believes that the EPA should not
redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone standard
until the State implements an equitable program that regulates
hydrocarbon emissions (VOC emissions) from industrial sources.
Response
Under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, EPA may not approve the
redesignation of an area to attainment of a standard until the State
has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and
part D of the CAA. As stated in the proposed rulemaking for the
Vanderburgh County redesignation, the EPA believes that the State of
Indiana has complied with the requirements of the CAA as they pertain
to the Evansville ozone situation (the CAA requirements, as noted
above, do not require additional VOC emission controls for industrial
sources in the Evansville area). In addition, as noted above, the area
has attained the one-hour ozone standard without the implementation of
additional VOC emission controls on industrial sources. Therefore, EPA
has no basis for requiring additional emission controls on industrial
sources.
3. Comment
A commenter notes that he had expected the 1990 ozone nonattainment
designation for Vanderburgh County to have resulted in emission
reductions in the area. Instead of emission reductions, the commenter
believes that the available information points to industrial and mobile
source growth. The commenter believes that local economic development
efforts have increased since Vanderburgh County became nonattainment
for ozone with resulting increases in the number of polluting
industries.
Response
Responses to comments 1 and 2 of this subsection generally address
this comment. With regard to the last point of the comment, there is no
evidence that local economic development efforts have focused on
attracting polluting industries to Vanderburgh County since Vanderburgh
County became nonattainment for ozone. In fact, it should be noted that
a Toyota truck plant has chosen to locate in Gibson County (an ozone
attainment area) rather than in Vanderburgh County, where a larger
labor force may be found. The nonattainment designation of Vanderburgh
County, thus, may have been a factor in the location of this plant
outside of Vanderburgh County. Therefore, the commenter's last point is
not supported.
4. Comment
Commenters note that EPA's and IDEM's use of 1990 as a base year
for the maintenance plan is not an accurate reflection of the current
conditions. The commenters state that Evansville's economy has
significantly changed in the last few years, and it follows that ozone
precursor emission data would be very different if data from 1994 and
1995 were used for decision making in 1997 and 1998. The commenters
believe that the current data should be used as a matter of policy and
common sense.
Response
As noted above, Indiana's maintenance plan for the Evansville area
commits the State to periodically review the area's emissions and to
take action if the VOC, NOX, or CO emissions in Vanderburgh
County increase to levels above those in 1990. If emissions have
significantly increased in a manner previously not accounted for in the
maintenance plan, a periodic review of the emissions should detect this
growth and should lead to corrective actions, if determined to be
needed to prevent an ozone standard violation. In addition, it should
be noted that the choice of 1990 as the maintenance demonstration base
year was appropriate when IDEM prepared the redesignation request in
1993.
Also as noted above, the area is currently attaining the ozone
standard. If emissions have increased to above-1990 levels, this would
imply that emission levels higher than those in 1990 could be sustained
without violating the ozone standard. Requiring the maintenance plan to
be revised to incorporate the higher emissions would not result in a
requirement for additional emission controls to compensate for the
increase in emissions, but would allow one to assume that emissions
exceeding the 1990 levels (assuming emissions have increased to levels
above the 1990 levels) would not cause a violation of the one-hour
ozone standard. The current maintenance plan encourages the State to
maintain lower emissions in the area.
5. Comment
A commenter notes that, according to recent press releases, several
firms, including GE Plastics in Posey County and American Steel
Extrusion in Vanderburgh County, have applied to IDEM for permits to
increase VOC emissions with no offsets from other sources as required
by the Act.
Response
This is not an issue relevant to the redesignation at hand, but,
instead, is relevant to new source review requirements. The commenters
should address this issue through comments on the new source permits
when they are reviewed under Indiana's source
[[Page 64730]]
permitting procedures. Indiana allows for public review of such new
source permits.
In addition, if the emissions in the area do increase as result of
the source permit revisions, IDEM would have to take these emission
increases into account under the periodic emissions review covered by
the maintenance plan. If the emissions increases are determined to have
a potential to cause a future ozone standard violation, the State would
have to activate emission control measures to mitigate the problem.
Finally, it should be noted that, since Vanderburgh County is being
redesignated to attainment for ozone, new sources will not be required
to obtain future offsets for new source growth.
6. Comment
A commenter notes that the EPA has failed to meet the tests
required under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. The commenter
believes that the EPA has erred in not meeting the test of section
107(d)(3)(E)(i) since there is a current (1994) violation of the ozone
standard in the Evansville area. The EPA has also erred in not meeting
the test of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), which sets the requirement that
permanent and enforceable emission reductions be shown to be
responsible for the observed improvement in air quality. The commenter
questions how the EPA can make a declaration of the connection between
emission reductions and air quality given that no SIP has ever been put
into place for the Evansville area as was required by the Clean Air Act
when Vanderburgh County was designated as nonattainment for ozone.
The commenter notes that during the years of 1988 through 1993,
when the area was first recommended for redesignation to attainment,
the only reductions in ozone precursors came about as a result of a
serious economic slump. Several VOC emitters shut down, resulting in
the improved air quality observed. As soon as the local economy
rebounded, monitors in the area again showed exceedances of the
standard, including the Warrick County ozone standard violation.
The commenter notes that, in the past several years, there has been
a large economic development, which will cause further air quality
deterioration. The Toyota truck plant in Gibson County has been
permitted to emit 3,490 tons of VOC per year just seven miles north of
Vanderburgh County. The General Electric facility in Posey County has
undergone substantial growth. A soybean processing plant is scheduled
for construction in Posey County that will emit as much as 1,400 tons
of VOC per year. In addition, in Posey County, the Countrymark Refinery
is increasing emissions to near-capacity levels.
In Warrick County, the Alcoa facility has increased emissions
significantly. In addition, a new cold rolled steel facility (A.K.
Steel) is under construction with plans to add a hot rolled mill in the
next phase of expansion.
Within Vanderburgh County, power plants which operated at limited
capacity are gearing toward total capacity operation due to the
deregulation of the electric utility industry. The Evansville area
sports the largest concentration of coal-fired power plants in the
United States, with 3 of the top 10 plants in the United States located
within this area.
The Casino Aztar River Boat has led to significantly higher vehicle
traffic within the last year. In addition, growth in the retail sector
during the last two years has led to significant traffic growth.
All of these facts concerning source growth dispute any EPA
declaration that reductions in ozone precursors have taken place in
this area.
Response
At the time IDEM submitted the redesignation request in 1993, VOC
and NOX emission reductions had occurred, contributing to
the air quality improvement observed subsequent to 1988. These emission
reductions have occurred primarily through source closures, which IDEM
has made permanent and enforceable through the termination of source
permits, and through mobile source emission reductions pursuant to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVCP). At the time of
the redesignation request submittal, it was appropriate to give credit
to these permanent and enforceable emission reductions as contributors
to the observed air quality improvement in the Evansville area.
With regard to recent emission impacts from new source growth, it
is acknowledged that such source growth has occurred. It is noted,
however, that this does not constitute a problem for Indiana's
maintenance plan. The maintenance plan for the area contains
contingency measures triggered by increases in emissions exceeding the
1990 attainment year emissions levels. If the periodic review of VOC
and NOX emissions shows increases to levels exceeding the
1990 levels, IDEM has committed to initiate a study of the impact of
the emissions increase on air quality and to take action in terms of
additional emission controls if the analyses indicate the emission
increases have a potential to cause a future ozone standard violation.
Therefore, the maintenance plan contains safeguards against the impacts
of unexpected emission increases, and the EPA sees no reason at this
time to disapprove the maintenance plan on the basis of any recent
emission increases.
It is noted that the maintenance plan did assume some future growth
in emissions would occur as a result of changes in the economy and,
nonetheless, demonstrated maintenance of the ozone standard in
Vanderburgh County for 10 years into the future. Moreover, despite any
recent emission increases from new source growth, the 1995 through 1997
ozone data demonstrate continuing attainment of the ozone standard in
Vanderburgh County and current attainment of the ozone standard in
surrounding counties. Although part of this attainment may be due to
favorable meteorology, it must be noted that this attainment period
includes 1995, a year particularly noted for meteorological conditions
favorable to high ozone concentrations. Despite this, ozone standard
exceedances were not prevalent in the Evansville area during this
period (a single ozone standard exceedance of 0.131 parts per million
was recorded at the Booneville site in 1995, with no other exceedances
in the area). Obviously, the growth in VOC emissions did not contribute
to an ozone standard violation in 1995 despite favorable meteorological
conditions. Equally important, despite new source growth, no ozone
standard exceedances were recorded in the area during the 1995 through
1997 period. These observations argue against the concerns of the
commenter regarding the impacts of new source growth.
Although the emission increases resulting from source growth bear
watching through the maintenance plan, the fact that these emission
increases exist does not lead to the conclusion that the maintenance
plan is flawed or should be disapproved.
E. Action Committee for Ozone Reduction Now
The proposed rulemaking described a public forum process used in
the Evansville area to select contingency measures for possible
adoption and implementation. Although this public forum has resulted in
the selection of possible emission control measures which may further
improve ozone levels in the Evansville area, it should be noted that
the State has not relied on these measures to attain the one-hour
[[Page 64731]]
standard, the EPA has not relied on these measures as a basis for its
approval of Indiana's redesignation request for Vanderburgh County.
The group formed to carry out the selection of possible control
measures was given the title of the Action Committee for Ozone
Reduction Now (ACORN). The following comments relate to EPA's
discussion of ACORN and the selected emission control measures.
1. Comment
A commenter notes that, through participation in the ACORN process,
the following concerns may be raised with regard to the resulting
emission control measures:
a. There are no requirements for enforcement of the proposed
emission reductions;
b. The proposed emission reductions do not address the regional
nature of the ozone problem in Vanderburgh County. The commenter
believes that the high ozone levels monitored in Vanderburgh County may
be attributed to ozone precursor emissions outside of Vanderburgh
County; and,
c. The proposed emission reductions do not address the ozone
impacts of the area's expanding population, increasing traffic, and
increasing industrial emissions.
Response
The following addresses the three issues:
a. The ACORN process, as discussed in the proposed rulemaking led
to recommendations for the following four emission control measures:
(1) High volume low pressure (HVLP) paint gun change outs for autobody
refinishing and paint spraying operations; (2) Stage I gasoline vapor
recovery during loading of underground storage tanks at gasoline
service stations; (3) establishment of a pollution prevention and
education task force; and (4) use of less polluting gasoline. To
implement measures (1), (2), and (4) in an enforceable manner, the
State must adopt the measures in the form of enforceable regulations.
IDEM has informed the EPA that the State is in the process of adopting
measures (1) and (2), and are giving further consideration to measure
(4), which is not being processed for adoption at this time.
Implementation and enforcement of the measures in the future will help
maintain the ozone concentrations in the area at below-standard levels.
The third measure, establishment of a pollution prevention and
education task force, may not lead to specific regulations, but will
probably lead to a list of suggested pollution prevention procedures.
Since pollution prevention procedures may be applied to many sources
and source categories, it is impossible for the State to develop
emission control regulations for all or most source categories. The
State, however, may take an active role in promoting the use of such
procedures. It is not clear at this time whether the pollution
prevention task force has actually been established or, if so, whether
the task force has made specific recommendations for pollution
prevention measures. In addition, it should be noted that this process
may be community-based, with local residents and industries taking the
lead rather than the State;
b. See responses to comments in subsection B. above; and
c. See responses to comments in subsection D. above.
2. Comment
A commenter notes that, since Vanderburgh County was redesignated
as nonattainment for ozone, no formal program was implemented to reduce
ozone levels, and nothing has been done to implement the ACORN
proposals.
Response
As noted in the proposed rulemaking, since Vanderburgh County is
classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area and since the area
was not subject to RACT rule correction requirements or to vehicle
inspection/maintenance program correction requirements, the State is
not required by the CAA to develop new emission control regulations for
this area. The State has met all requirements relevant to the marginal
nonattainment status of this area.
With regard to the implementation of the ACORN proposals, see the
response above.
3. Comment
A commenter notes that reliance on IDEM, local officials, and ACORN
for local controls is unacceptable for several reasons. First, the
ACORN proposals are minimal in scope and the ACORN process has broken
down. Second, the ACORN emission reductions, if they occur, are
voluntary pollution prevention techniques. Although the voluntary
approach has been available in the past, industries have failed to
reduce emissions. The commenter believes that the voluntary emission
reductions must be backed by RACT requirements on any industry that
fails to make a documented effort to reduce emissions.
Response
The ACORN process has not broken down and has reached conclusion
with the recommendation of the four emission control measures discussed
above. These measures have the potential to produce significant
emission reductions. Stage I emission controls, use of cleaner fuels,
and use of HVLP spray guns have the potential to produce significant
emission reductions if supported by State adopted regulations.
Pollution prevention, if aggressively pursued and promoted, also has a
potential for significant emission reductions. Regardless of the
emission controls selected, the emission controls will be useful in
offsetting the impacts of source growth and will lower the potential
for future ozone standard exceedances. (These emission reductions will
contribute toward attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard.)
With regard to RACT, because of the marginal ozone nonattainment
classification of Vanderburgh County and section 182(a) of the CAA,
RACT is not required in Vanderburgh County. In addition, because of the
attainment of the ozone standard during the 1995 through 1997 period,
the implementation of RACT is not needed to attain the one-hour ozone
standard.
4. Comment
A commenter notes that EPA's proposed redesignation is loaded with
supposition, hope, and wishes that the paper pushing of industries and
ACORN will pay off in attaining and maintaining the standard. The
proposed redesignation, however, misses the point of the CAA which is
to improve the health of humans. No amount of wishing will change the
ill health that local residents experience in the summer months, when
industrial emissions are trapped by the meteorological inversions that
are common in the area. Calling the area ``attainment'' will not reduce
one pound of pollution and will hasten degradation of the region's air
by allowing massive increases in pollution in the one county that is
nonattainment.
Response
The Clean Air Act, in part D, specifies the minimum requirements
for State ozone control plans for various ozone classifications. The
State of Indiana has met the requirements for marginal areas in
Vanderburgh County. Given the 1995 through 1997 attainment of the ozone
standard and the State's compliance with SIP requirements, Vanderburgh
[[Page 64732]]
County qualifies for the designation of attainment.
5. Comment
While the commenter participated in the ACORN process and endorses
the recommendations it has made, the commenter notes that it was the
belief of the ACORN participants that the proposals that came out of
the process would do little to actually reduce ozone precursors. In
addition, nowhere in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking nor in its
associated technical support document does the EPA offer any concrete
evidence that the air quality will be improved to healthful levels as a
result of the recommendations of ACORN, even if fully implemented.
The commenter notes that ACORN provided only the ``lowest common
denominator'' approach and offered a bare minimum emission control
proposal on which the group could reach consensus. The commenter
believes this allowed the industry to write its own regulations because
the industrial sector of the ACORN group stifled the solutions offered
by the citizen representatives.
For EPA to claim that ACORN's recommendations reflect the desire of
the community is dishonest. It was apparent to the commenter that ACORN
was used by IDEM to achieve a no-action, minimal result that would
satisfy the industry and appease the public.
Response
As noted above, the 1995 through 1997 ozone data demonstrate that
the Evansville area has attained the ozone standard without the
implementation of the ACORN recommendations. EPA is not relying on the
impacts of the ACORN-related controls to justify the redesignation of
Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone standard. Nonetheless, it
must also be noted that source growth is anticipated in this area. (EPA
sees no data countering IDEM's source growth estimates for Vanderburgh
County contained in the maintenance plan. Much of the large source
growth has occurred outside of Vanderburgh County. The maintenance plan
only deals with emission changes within Vanderburgh County. EPA does
not require the State to consider source growth outside of the existing
nonattainment area as part of the maintenance plan.) Although not yet
quantified, it must be recognized that the ACORN measures, if
implemented, have the potential to offset source growth impacts.
Insufficient data are available to allow the EPA or IDEM to
determine the full extent of the emission impacts of ACORN's
recommendations. Until adopted regulations are in place and pollution
prevention recommendations have been selected, it is impossible to
determine all of the emission impacts. Nonetheless, assuming that
emission control regulations are adopted, it must be concluded that the
ACORN recommendations could lead to significant emission reductions.
EPA has never stated that the ACORN recommendations represent the
wishes of the entire public in the Evansville area. Since ACORN had
wide representation from government, industry, and the public, it must
be assumed that some people involved in the ACORN process may have
raised some objections to the recommended emission control measures or
may have recommended emission controls not finally selected. The
indication that the ACORN recommendations are a consensus opinion
implies some level of dissent on selected emission control measures as
well as on the emission control measures not selected.
6. Comment
A commenter notes that the reliance on Pollution Prevention (P2),
if it is ever implemented, as a voluntary measure to gain nearly two-
thirds of the total ACORN-recommended emission reduction is very
suspect. Throughout the ACORN process, proponents of the P2 approach
informed the officials that P2 is purely ``market driven'' and would
carry no cost to anyone except the cost to local government for
staffing a P2 office to provide education and support for P2 efforts.
The commenter believes that this supposition can not be supported.
It is obvious that market driven P2 has been available in the
area's history to cure the area's air pollution problem. If P2 can be
achieved at no cost to industry, it would have already been in place
for economic reasons. The fact is that P2 is little more than a hope,
wish, and dream for most of the area's industry and it will require
substantial capital investment for whomever takes this path.
The commenter believes EPA's reliance on a voluntary emission
reduction program in an area with a history of resisting air pollution
controls does not comply with the intent of the CAA. The commenter
believes that P2 should be backed up with a requirement for the
implementation of RACT for sources that fail to make a good faith
effort to reduce their emissions using P2 techniques. The imposition of
RACT gives industries incentives to implement P2 techniques.
Response
P2 programs are designed to reduce emissions through process
changes that should be economically advantageous to the industries,
such as process changes to reduce waste and the need for raw materials,
lowering production costs. If P2 programs are successfully established,
some industries should take advantage of the programs from an economic
standpoint.
The EPA has never placed significant reliance on voluntary programs
in areas with continuing air quality problems and ozone classifications
requiring definitive emission controls under the CAA. Nonetheless, the
EPA has seen the merit in promoting P2 programs as supplements to other
controls. Since P2 programs are intended to provide industries with
economic incentives to reduce emissions, one can assume that the
industries will adopt such programs if the programs are implementable
and well understood by the industrial representatives. P2
implementation does require significant efforts to document P2
approaches and to properly educate the applicable industries.
Significant up-front investments may be needed, but should result in
long term payoffs through lowered production costs. EPA acknowledges
that such efforts may not be easy or quickly embraced by the
industries.
Again, as already indicated above, RACT cannot be required in the
Evansville area given the area's marginal ozone classification.
7. Comment
With regard to the proposal of ACORN relative to paint spray guns,
a commenter notes that, according to local automobile refinishing shop
owners, the proposal to require HVLP painting guns is virtually
unenforceable. The commenter believes that the proposed ordinance will
simply require such establishments to have only one HVLP apparatus in
each of the refinishing shops with no requirement for the complete
conversion of the painting operations.
Response
The EPA has been informed by IDEM that the State of Indiana is in
the process of developing a regulation to require the use of HVLP units
in the larger automobile refinishing shops. The EPA sees no reason why
the State would be unable to produce a regulation requiring the use of
HVLP units for all applicable coating operations. Naturally, the State
may wish to exclude smaller shops from the application requirements of
such a rule.
[[Page 64733]]
F. New Ozone Standard
1. Comment
Commenters question the need for a redesignation now just prior to
promulgation of a new ozone standard (this comment was prepared prior
to the July 18, 1997 promulgation of the revised ozone standard). The
commenters question whether this is to permit new industries to develop
before the new standard goes into effect.
Response
The designation being considered in this action is pertinent to
only the one-hour standard. Designations for the eight-hour standard
will be made in the future in accordance with the process for
designating areas under the new standard and this redesignation
rulemaking action has no relevance for that future designation action.
Moreover, it would be inappropriate to maintain the one-hour
nonattainment designation, if no longer applicable, on the assumption
that the Evansville area might be designated as nonattainment for the
eight-hour ozone standard in the future.
2. Comment
A commenter states that, taken within the context of the proposed
(now promulgated) ozone standard, it does not make sense to proceed
with the redesignation of Vanderburgh County under the one-hour
standard. It appeared to the commenter that the EPA was proposing the
redesignation so that it could occur prior to the implementation of the
new ozone standard, providing the EPA with an additional three years of
time before strict enforcement of whatever changes in the ozone
standard are made. The commenter notes that this undermines the efforts
of local citizens to clean up the air quality in the area.
Response
As noted above, the original one-hour ozone standard and the new
eight-hour ozone standard are considered to be separable in terms of
requiring emission controls and determining the area's attainment
status. To do otherwise would result in the Evansville area being
arbitrarily treated differently than other areas in the country which
are currently attaining the one-hour standard or for which the one-hour
standard may be revoked on the basis of air quality data attaining the
one-hour standard (see discussion below regarding the revocation of the
one-hour standard).
G. Toxics and Health Concerns
1. Comment
A resident, who lives close to the Alcoa facility in Warrick
County, believes that the toxic emissions from this company are very
harmful and detrimental to the local environment, including causing
pitting and dark spots on building surfaces. The commenter believes
that many residents in the area suffer with breathing problems.
Response
The EPA is very concerned about breathing problems caused by toxic
emissions and other air pollutants. It is recommended that the
commenter contact both EPA and IDEM with specific information on this
problem to allow further considerations. Nonetheless, it should be
noted here that the issue at hand is the ozone attainment status of
Vanderburgh County. The EPA is unaware of any data linking air
pollutant emissions from the Alcoa facility with an ozone standard
violation in the Evansville area (including Warrick County) during the
3 most recent years.
2. Comment
A commenter notes that evidence of increased respiratory distress
is mounting in area residents and that there is evidence that air
quality is often the cause of a sickness that crosses the socioeconomic
and age related population strata. This sickness is referred to by area
doctors as the ``Evansville Crud,'' an upper respiratory malady that
depletes body energy and causes coughing and fluid drainage from the
respiratory system.
Response
EPA acknowledges that air pollution may be causing some respiratory
problems in residents in this area. It is not clear that these problems
are due to the impacts of ozone, which is the focus of this rulemaking.
The commenter provides no data linking elevated ozone concentrations to
the observed health problems. The EPA sees no reason to delay the
redesignation based on the summarized health problems. The commenter is
encouraged to work with health experts and IDEM to determine the actual
pollutants responsible for the health problems and to determine the
appropriate emission control measures.
3. Comment
A commenter believes that EPA and IDEM have failed to demonstrate
that the respiratory health of Vanderburgh County residents has
improved due to improved air quality. Although the commenter realizes
that such a test is not required by the CAA, the commenter believes
that, since the ozone standard is health-based, some criteria for
assessing the impact of unhealthful air on a population could be
warranted in lieu of proof that emissions have been reduced. Since it
is clear that emissions have not been reduced in and around Evansville,
some quantitative criteria based on health impacts should be offered to
justify the redesignation to attainment.
Response
A redesignation action requires EPA to determine that certain
statutory criteria have been met. EPA has made those findings here,
including the finding that the one-hour standard has been attained.
Monitoring attainment of the one-hour standard is an indicator of
improved air quality. Given that the ozone monitors in the Evansville
area, including all ozone monitors in Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick
Counties, have indicated attainment of the ozone standard, one can
conclude, based on the one-hour standard, that ozone levels are lower
now than in 1988 or 1994, when violations of the one-hour standard were
monitored in the area.
4. Comment
A commenter notes that, if the EPA and IDEM had done their jobs
eight years ago when Vanderburgh County went out of compliance with the
ozone standard in 1988, her daughter and thousands of others may not
have developed asthma in the first place. She notes that RACT on
industrial sources should have been put in place under the pre-1990
Clean Air Act and thinks that, if this had been done, air quality would
have been better by now. She thinks EPA and IDEM have stalled in
enforcing emission controls to benefit polluting industries and only
respond favorably to the wishes of the industries.
Response
The EPA and IDEM have sought to comply with the current
requirements of the CAA. Because of the time involved in redesignating
areas to nonattainment of the standard, and the additional time for the
State to develop air quality plans and regulations and to implement
those regulations, RACT rules could not have been adopted until well
after the 1990 revision of the CAA. The revised CAA set forth limited
emission control requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas,
such as Vanderburgh County, eliminating the requirement to implement
new RACT rules in this area. In any event, Vanderburgh County is
currently in
[[Page 64734]]
attainment of the standard and qualifies for redesignation to
attainment.
5. Comment
A commenter asserts that the EPA is not using current data in the
determination of the amount of pollution in the area. The commenter
questions what EPA thinks the TRI database is for, and wants to know if
the EPA is familiar with the thousands of journals which are reporting
alarming increases in many diseases related to pollution. The commenter
asserts that EPA and IDEM are violating the rights of citizens by not
cleaning up pollution.
Response
The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database identifies the sources
and emission rates of known hazardous compounds and heavy metals. Only
to the extent that some of these compounds are VOC does the TRI
database provide information relating to ozone precursor emissions.
TRI-based VOC emissions are only a subset of the total VOC emissions
involved in the formation of ozone. Generally, TRI-VOC emissions are
already incorporated into the larger ozone-related VOC emission
inventories maintained by the State and by the EPA.
The EPA is aware of the growing number of journal entries
indicating adverse health effects due to various pollutants. Several
thousand articles and study reports were reviewed in conjunction with
the recent tightening revisions of the ozone and fine particulate
standards. Within the constraints of the CAA, the EPA is taking action
to provide additional protection for individuals subject to the harmful
effects of air pollution. Nonetheless, the issue here is whether or not
Vanderburgh County (and its downwind environs) continues to violate the
one-hour ozone standard. The data indicate that this is not the case.
With regard to the tightened standards, the Evansville area will be
independently evaluated for attainment of these standards in the
future. If the area is found to be violating one or both of these
standards, additional emission control measures may be warranted at
that time.
H. Miscellaneous Comments
1. Comment
A commenter contends that the maintenance plan seems to lack
concrete plans of action and is not legally enforceable. The commenter
doubts the merits of such a plan and fails to see how it will protect
the public's health from future ozone standard violations.
Response
The maintenance plan outlines the procedures that the State will
take if a future violation of the one-hour ozone standard occurs or if
the VOC emission total in Vanderburgh County increases to a level
exceeding the 1990 attainment year level (see a discussion later in
this rulemaking for possible impacts of an anticipated revocation of
the one-hour ozone standard). In the event of an ozone standard
violation, it is clear that the State, within one year of the
determination of the ozone standard violation, must select additional
emission reduction controls sufficient to prevent future ozone standard
violations. The maintenance plan lists a number of emission control
measures that the State will consider for implementation and
elimination of the air quality problem. The State is free to select the
appropriate emission control strategy, but must demonstrate to the EPA
that the emission controls will be adequate to prevent future ozone
standard violations, and must adopt such measure or measures within the
year following the confirmation of the ozone standard violation. In the
case of emission increases above the attainment year level, the State
must initiate a study to determine if additional emission controls are
needed to prevent a future ozone standard violation. EPA views these
commitments to be adequate and enforceable.
2. Comment
A commenter states that putting Vanderburgh County on the
attainment list is ``false advertisement.'' This implies that
Vanderburgh County could continue ignoring its air quality problems.
Controlling emissions from gasoline and use of low pressure paint shop
sprayers may be well and good, but industry should also clean up its
emissions. These emissions reductions should occur throughout the
entire region.
Response
The regional control component of this comment has been dealt with
in responses to regional control comments above.
Again, it is noted that the CAA does not require RACT controls in
the Evansville area. This is due to the fact that Vanderburgh County
has been classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area.
Redesignating Vanderburgh County to attainment is not ``false
advertisement,'' since it recognizes the improvement in ozone levels in
the Evansville area. It should also be noted that the redesignation
does not send the signal that the State or local officials can simply
forget about the impacts of the area's emissions on ozone levels. The
State will need to continue to track ozone levels and VOC emissions in
the area and will need to take corrective actions if future ozone
standard violations occur or if future VOC emissions climb above
attainment levels.
3. Comment
A commenter notes that neither IDEM nor EPA has done anything to
require further NOX emission reductions (beyond those
required under title IV of the CAA) from coal-fired electric power
plants both in the immediate region as well as in downwind areas in
southern Illinois and Kentucky.
Response
This is the purpose of the OTAG-related SIP-call referenced in the
proposed rulemaking and earlier in this final rulemaking. To reduce the
impacts of ozone and ozone precursor transport, such NOX
emission reductions will be required in the near future. As noted
above, on November 7, 1997 EPA published a proposed rulemaking that
will require States in the eastern half of the United States to reduce
NOX emissions to achieve prescribed NOX budgets.
The State of Indiana was an active participant in the OTAG process,
which led to the NOX emission budget proposed for Indiana.
IV. Ozone Standard Revocation
On July 16, 1997, President Clinton concurred with the EPA on the
revision of the ozone standard to an eight-hour averaged level. As part
of that concurrence, President Clinton requested the EPA to revoke the
one-hour standard for areas currently attaining the ozone standard.
This standard revocation was to occur within a 90 day period following
the concurrence (the standard revocation had not occurred at the time
of the publication of the current action).
The revocation, as planned by the EPA, will consider 1994 through
1996 data in selecting appropriate areas for revocation.
Based on 1994 through 1996 data, Vanderburgh County may be subject
to revocation of the one-hour standard.
If the revocation of the one-hour standard becomes effective for
Vanderburgh County, the attainment status designation for this area
will be replaced by a notification of the revocation of the one-hour
standard.
[[Page 64735]]
Future rulemaking and guidance on EPA's transition policy (policy
addressing the transition from the application of the one-hour ozone
standard to the eight-hour ozone standard) will address the
implications of this standard revocation for the area's maintenance
plan and other ozone-related emission control requirements.
V. Conclusions
None of the public comments reviewed here warrants reversal of
EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard and approval of the State's
maintenance plan for this area as a SIP revision. Monitoring of ozone
for the 1995 through 1997 period in Vanderburgh County and its
adjoining Posey and Warrick Counties shows no violations of the one-
hour ozone standard, demonstrating that this area has attained the one-
hour ozone standard.
As noted above, on July 18, 1997 the EPA promulgated a revised
eight-hour standard for ozone. The current rulemaking makes no
judgments regarding the attainment of the revised ozone standard in the
Evansville area. The attainment status of this area relative to the new
ozone standard will be addressed in a future rulemaking.
VI. Final Rulemaking Action
EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request and the ozone
maintenance plan submitted by Indiana on November 4, 1993 as they apply
to Vanderburgh County. EPA is, therefore, redesignating Vanderburgh
County to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. The EPA has
completed its analysis of the redesignation request and SIP revision
request based on a review of the materials presented and in
consideration of the current, 1995 through 1997, ozone data in the
area, including ozone monitoring data in Posey, Vanderburgh, and
Warrick Counties.
In taking this action, the EPA has taken into consideration all
relevant public comments on the March 14, 1997 proposed rulemaking.
None of the public comments were found to form the basis for a reversal
of the proposed approval.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603 and
604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. EPA
certifies that the approval of the redesignation request will not
affect a substantial number of small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated here does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 9, 1998. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds, and
Nitrogen dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 2, 1997.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (s) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.777 Control Strategy: Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).
* * * * *
(s) Approval--On November 4, 1993, the State of Indiana submitted a
maintenance plan and a request that Vanderburgh County be redesignated
to attainment of the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
[[Page 64736]]
ozone. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the
redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act
as amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal requirements of
section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Indiana
ozone State Implementation Plan.
* * * * *
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. In Sec. 81.315 the ozone table is amended by revising the entry
for ``Evansville Area: Vanderburgh County'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.315 Indiana.
* * * * *
Indiana--Ozone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated areas ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Evansville area: Vanderburgh December 9, 1997 Attainment. ..................... .....................
County.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-32188 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P