[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77026-77042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24542]



[[Page 77026]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-IN-0006; FRL-8015-7]


Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 
Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of the Evansville Area To Attainment 
of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Evansville 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area (Evansville area) has attained the 8-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Evansville area 
includes Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties. EPA is approving a request 
from the State of Indiana, submitted on June 2, 2005, to redesignate 
the Evansville area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on 
the determination that the Evansville area and the State of Indiana 
have met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set forth in the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the Evansville 
area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In conjunction with this 
approval, EPA is approving the State's plan for maintaining the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS in the Evansville area through 2015 as a revision to the 
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also finds as adequate and 
approves the 2015 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 
Evansville area contained in the Evansville area ozone maintenance 
plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-IN-0006. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty, 
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' 
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Actions Are We Taking and When Are They Effective?
    A. Determination of Attainment and Redesignation of the 
Evansville Area To Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    B. Approval of Indiana's Ozone Maintenance Plan for the 
Evansville Area
    C. Approval and Finding of Adequacy of VOC and NOX 
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Evansville Area
    D. Effective Date of These Actions
III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
V. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?
VI. What Are Our Final Actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human 
health. On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 
FR 38856) of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm). This 
standard is violated in an area when any ozone monitor in the area 
records an average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
ozone concentrations equaling or exceeding 0.085 ppm over a three-year 
period. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emitted VOC and NOX react in the presence of sunlight to 
form ground-level ozone along with other secondary compounds. VOC and 
NOX are referred to as ``ozone precursors.''
    In accordance with section 107(d) of the CAA as amended in 1977, 
EPA designated the Evansville area (Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties) 
as an ozone nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 
ozone data collected in this area during the 2001-2003 period. The 
Federal Register notice making this designation was signed on April 15, 
2004, and was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).
    The Clean Air Act contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and 
subpart 2--that address planning and emission control requirements for 
nonattainment areas (both subparts are found in title I, part D of the 
CAA). Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for 
nonattainment areas governed by any NAAQS, and applies to all 
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 contains more specific requirements for 
certain ozone nonattainment areas, and applies to ozone nonattainment 
areas classified under section 181 of the CAA.
    In the April 30, 2004 ozone designation rulemaking, EPA divided 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas into the categories of subpart 1 
nonattainment and subpart 2 nonattainment based on their 8-hour ozone 
design values (i.e., the three-year average annual fourth-highest daily 
maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at the worst-case ozone monitoring 
sites in the designated areas) and their 1-hour ozone design values 
(i.e., the fourth-highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations 
over the three-year period at the worst-case monitoring sites in the 
designated areas).\1\ 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1-hour 
ozone design values equaling or exceeding 0.121 ppm were designated as 
classified nonattainment areas (as nonattainment areas required to meet 
the requirements of subpart 2 of the CAA). All other 8-hour 
nonattainment areas were designated as ``basic'' nonattainment areas 
subject only to the requirements of subpart 1 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1-hour ozone standard, 0.12 ppm, has been replaced by 
the 8-hour ozone standard, with the 1-hour ozone standard being 
revoked on June 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 30, 2004 designation rulemaking, the Evansville area 
was designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and was 
identified as a subpart 1 basic nonattainment area. This designation 
was based on ozone data collected in the Evansville area during the 
period of 2001-2003.
    On June 2, 2005, the State of Indiana requested redesignation of 
the

[[Page 77027]]

Evansville area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on ozone 
data collected during the period of 2002-2004. This redesignation 
request also included a 10-year ozone maintenance plan for the 
Evansville area and VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Evansville 
area based on emission projections in the ozone maintenance plan.
    On September 9, 2005, EPA published a proposed rule (70 FR 53605), 
proposing to: (1) Determine that the Evansville area has attained the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS and to approve Indiana's request to redesignate the 
Evansville area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) approve 
Indiana's ozone maintenance plan for the Evansville area; and (3) 
approve the 2015 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Evansville area 
and notify the public that these MVEBs are adequate for purposes of 
transportation conformity. This proposed rule established a 30-day 
public comment period. EPA received several requests for a hearing and 
for extension of the comment period on the proposed rule. EPA denied 
the requests for the hearing, stating it believed that the opportunity 
to submit written comments provided an adequate opportunity for public 
input. EPA did, however, grant a seven-day extension to the public 
comment period. See 70 FR 58167 (October 5, 2005).

II. What Actions Are We Taking and When Are They Effective?

    After consideration of the comments received in response to the 
September 9, 2005 proposed rule, as described in section V below, and 
the State's final adopted SIP revision and supporting material 
(reviewed in detail in the September 9, 2005 proposed rule), we are 
taking the following actions:

A. Determination of Attainment and Redesignation of the Evansville Area 
To Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    In the September 9, 2005 proposed rule (70 FR 53605), EPA proposed 
to determine that the Evansville area had attained the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS and to approve Indiana's request to redesignate this area to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These proposed actions were based 
on ozone data from the period of 2002-2004 and on the State's 
demonstration that the criteria for redesignation to attainment, as 
specified in section 107 of the Clean Air Act, had been satisfied. EPA 
has reviewed the ambient monitoring data for ozone consistent with the 
requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) for the Evansville area 
for both the 2002-2004 ozone seasons and the 2003-2005 \2\ ozone 
seasons. On the basis of this review, EPA has determined that the area 
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Review of the ozone data, the 
State's submissions, and the public comments for and against the 
redesignation (see section V below) lead us to the conclusion that: (1) 
The Evansville ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone 
standard; and (2) the State of Indiana has met the criteria for 
redesignation of the Evansville area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Therefore, in this final rule, we are finalizing our 
determination of attainment, and we are approving Indiana's request for 
redesignation of the Evansville area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 2005 ozone data have not been entered into AIRS, but 
have been quality assured by the State. The State has submitted a 
summary of the peak 2005 8-hour ozone concentrations at the request 
of the EPA to respond to public comments addressed in this final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State must continue to operate an appropriate ozone monitoring 
network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment 
status of the Evansville area. The air quality data relied on to 
determine that the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS must be 
consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA 
guidance and must be recorded in EPA's AIRS.

B. Approval of Indiana's Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Evansville Area

    EPA is approving Indiana's plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in the Evansville area through 2015 as a revision to the Indiana 
SIP. The maintenance plan meets the requirements of sections 175A and 
107(d) of the Clean Air Act. The adopted maintenance plan contains 
triggering mechanisms and contingency measures designed to promptly 
correct (or prevent) a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occurring 
after redesignation of the Evansville area to attainment of the NAAQS. 
Section 175A of the Clean Air Act requires that a maintenance plan 
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that 
the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs 
after redesignation.
    The contingency measures listed in the adopted maintenance plan 
include, but are not limited to, the following:
    1. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline requirements; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to implementing lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline 
requirements, the State of Indiana would have to be granted a waiver 
to address preemption requirements under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the 
Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Broader geographic applicability of existing emission control 
measures;
    3. Tightened Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
requirements on existing sources covered by EPA Control Technique 
Guidelines (CTGs) issued in response to the 1990 Clean Air Act 
amendments;
    4. Application of RACT to smaller existing sources;
    5. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M);
    6. One or more Transportation Control Measures (TCM) sufficient to 
achieve at least a 0.5 percent reduction in actual area-wide VOC 
emissions;
    7. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle 
operations;
    8. Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted 
elsewhere in the United States;
    9. VOC and NOX emission offsets for new or modified 
sources;
    10. Increased ratio of the emission offset required for new 
sources; and,
    11. VOC and NOX emission controls on new minor sources 
(with VOC or NOX emissions less than 100 tons per year).
    Consideration and selection of one or more of the contingency 
measures will take place when a two-year average annual fourth-high 
monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm or a 
violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS \4\ is recorded at any monitor in 
the Evansville area after the redesignation of the Evansville area to 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The selected contingency measures will 
be adopted and implemented within 18 months after the close of the 
ozone season with the ozone data that trigger the need for the 
implementation of the contingency measure(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On October 20, 2005, the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management submitted a letter verifying the State's intent to 
implement an ``Action Level Response'' and the triggering of a 
requirement to select and implement contingency measures in the 
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in several areas, 
including Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maintenance plan estimates emissions through 2015, ten years 
after the year in which the State anticipated that EPA would complete 
rulemaking on the State's ozone redesignation request, as required by 
section 175A of the Clean Air Act. These VOC and NOX 
emission estimates are for point, area, and mobile sources in the 
Evansville area. The emissions estimates

[[Page 77028]]

demonstrate continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through 
2015. The latest available emissions information was used to project 
the emissions. The mobile source emissions estimates were developed 
using the MOBILE6 emission factor model. The State has committed to 
update the maintenance plan and maintenance demonstration eight years 
after the redesignation of the Evansville area to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS to demonstrate maintenance of the standard for an 
additional ten years, through 2025.

C. Approval and Finding of Adequacy of VOC and NOX Motor 
Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Evansville Area

    EPA finds as adequate and approves the 2015 MVEBs of 4.20 tons per 
day for VOC and 5.40 tons per day for NOX for the Evansville 
area in the State-adopted ozone maintenance plan. These MVEBs have been 
addressed through the appropriate public involvement and review process 
without receiving adverse comment. These MVEBs meet the adequacy 
criteria, 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and are approvable as part of the 8-hour 
ozone maintenance plan. The approved 2015 MVEBs will replace the MVEBs 
currently used for transportation conformity analyses and 
demonstrations, as detailed in our September 9, 2005 proposed rule, 
upon the effective date of this rule. The newer MVEBs, which are being 
approved as part of the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, are consistent 
with the goals of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act because they set 
a tighter cap on mobile source VOC and NOX emissions for 
transportation conformity purposes, thereby limiting growth in mobile 
source emissions allowed in the area's transportation plan.
    Subsequent to the effective date of this rule, the State of Indiana 
and local planning agencies in the Evansville area will have to use the 
2015 MVEBs in all transportation conformity analyses and 
demonstrations.

D. Effective Date of These Actions

    These actions will become effective 30 days after today's 
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.

III. Why Are We Taking These Actions?

    EPA has determined that the Evansville area has attained the 8-hour 
ozone standard. EPA has determined that the State of Indiana has 
demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of the 
Evansville area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS have been met. EPA is fully approving the ozone maintenance plan 
for the Evansville area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A 
and 107(d) of the Clean Air Act.
    In the September 9, 2005 proposed rule at 70 FR 53606, EPA 
described the applicable criteria for redesignation to attainment. 
Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act allows for 
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the 
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully 
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 
110(k) of the Clean Air Act; (3) the Administrator determines that the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from the implementation of the 
applicable state implementation plan, applicable Federal air pollution 
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan 
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Clean 
Air Act; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the 
Clean Air Act.
    EPA has determined that the Evansville area has attained the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. EPA has approved all requirements in the Indiana SIP 
applicable to the Evansville area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 
Act for purposes of redesignation. EPA has determined that the 
improvement in ozone air quality in the Evansville area is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from the 
implementation of the Indiana SIP, applicable Federal air pollution 
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions. EPA is fully approving an ozone maintenance plan for the 
Evansville area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Clean 
Air Act. Finally, EPA concludes that the State of Indiana has met all 
requirements applicable to the Evansville area under section 110 and 
part D of the Clean Air Act for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, 
EPA concludes that the State of Indiana and the Evansville area have 
met all requirements applicable to the Evansville area for purposes of 
redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107 
of the Clean Air Act.
    By finding that the ozone maintenance plan provides for maintenance 
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015, EPA is hereby finding adequate 
and approving the 2015 VOC and NOX MVEBs contained in the 
maintenance plan. The MVEB for VOC in the Evansville area is 4.20 tons 
per day, and the MVEB for NOX in the Evansville area is 5.40 
tons per day.
    The rationale for these findings and actions is stated in this 
rulemaking and in more detail in the September 9, 2005 proposed rule, 
found at 70 FR 53605.

IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

    Approval of the Indiana redesignation request changes the official 
designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81 for 
Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties, Indiana from nonattainment to 
attainment. It also incorporates into the Indiana SIP a plan for 
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015. The maintenance plan 
includes contingency measures to remedy any future violation or 
threatened violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Evansville area, 
and includes VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2015 for the Evansville 
area.

V. What Comments Did We Receive and What Are Our Responses?

    We received comments from eight individuals and organizations 
responding to the September 9, 2005 proposed rule. Six of the 
commenters submitted comments critical of various portions of the 
proposed rule. One of the critical commenters included a petition 
signed by 125 individuals asserting that the Evansville area has an air 
quality problem requiring cleanup by the State and opposing a State 
lawsuit against the EPA.\5\ One commenter, the Vanderburgh County Ozone 
Officer, supported the proposed rule, and provided additional data and 
analyses to support the proposed rule. Another commenter supported the 
proposed rule. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses to them 
are provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The nature of the State lawsuit against the EPA is not 
defined in the signed petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 1: Air Quality in 2005 Shows That the Evansville Area Continues 
To Have an Ozone Problem

    A number of commenters have expressed the concern that the current 
air quality in the Evansville area does not warrant redesignation to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. These commenters focused 
primarily on the following: (1) A number of ozone alerts \6\

[[Page 77029]]

were issued for southwestern Indiana during the summer of 2005; (2) 
certain days in 2005 had high ozone concentrations but lacked ozone 
alerts; (3) high levels of fine particulates (PM 2.5 \7\) 
occurred on a number of days in 2005; and (4) the presence of haze and 
gray skies in southern Indiana during 2005 indicated an ongoing air 
quality problem. The commenters questioned whether air quality had 
improved enough to justify redesignation and expressed a further 
concern that a redesignation to attainment would result in the removal 
of air quality monitoring equipment from the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ozone alerts are issued based on monitored ozone 
concentrations approaching or exceeding the standard and forecasted 
meteorology favoring the formation of high ozone concentrations. 
Ozone alerts are intended to alert the public to the potential for 
high ozone concentrations. Ozone alerts are not necessarily 
associated with ozone standard exceedances. Some ozone standard 
exceedances simply fail to develop as forecasted. In addition, as 
the result of the ozone action alerts, some companies and 
individuals change operations or activities, lowering emissions, and 
possibly averting ozone standard exceedances.
    \7\ Particulate matter with nominal aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 
micrometers or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, one commenter, Joanne M. Alexandrovich, Ph.D., 
Vanderburgh County Department of Public Health's Ozone Officer, 
expressed support for EPA's redesignation proposal. In so doing, she 
provided 2005 ozone data for Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties 
showing that the Evansville area continues to meet the 8-hour ozone 
standard. This includes data containing peak 8-hour ozone 
concentrations for each monitoring site in the area for 2005 and three-
year ozone design values for each monitoring site for the period of 
2003-2005. Dr. Alexandrovich also presented ozone concentration trends 
data for each of the monitoring sites for the period of 1995-2005 to 
demonstrate a robust downward trend in ozone design values at all 
monitoring sites in the area, including at the Yankeetown site (the 
site on the property of Alcoa, Incorporated (Alcoa), see Comment/
Response 2 below) and at other sites in Warrick County, where the 
worst-case ozone monitors in the area are located.
    Dr. Alexandrovich notes that there were four exceedance days in the 
vicinity of the Evansville area in 2005 (three in the Evansville area 
and one in Posey County) and that the exceedances were recorded at 
several sites, with only one site (Boonville High School in Warrick 
County) recording exceedances on two days, and with no sites recording 
exceedances on three or more days. This shows that the fourth-high 
daily peak 8-hour ozone concentrations at all monitors in the area in 
2005 were below 0.085 ppm (a monitored exceedance level cutoff). 
Finally, Dr. Alexandrovich provided information regarding the dates of 
ozone alerts and high ozone concentrations in 2005. These data show 
that ozone alerts were issued on eight days in 2005, with only two of 
the alert days actually having exceedances of the 8-hour ozone 
standard. Two days without ozone alerts also had ozone standard 
exceedances, one in the Evansville area and the other in Posey County. 
Most ozone alert days had relatively high peak ozone concentrations, 
but had peak ozone concentrations which failed to reach ozone standard-
exceedance levels.

Response 1

    In determining whether the 8-hour ozone standard is met, the 8-hour 
ozone standard requires the use of the three most recent, consecutive 
calendar years of monitoring data. 40 CFR 50.10, appendix I, parts 2.2 
and 2.3. Thus, EPA has determined that the Evansville area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone standard based on the data for the period of 2002-
2004. EPA has also reviewed quality assured data for 2005 provided by 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), and has 
determined that they show that the Evansville area continued to attain 
the 8-hour ozone standard through 2005. The quality assured peak ozone 
concentrations for 2005 are summarized in Table 1 by monitoring site as 
submitted by the State.

         Table 1.--Peak 2005 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations in the Evansville Area in Concentrations of PPM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     First      Second       Third      Fourth
                 Site                            County              High        High        High        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evansville--Mill Road.................  Vanderburgh.............       0.090       0.081       0.081       0.080
Scott School--Inglefield..............  Vanderburgh.............       0.058       0.057       0.057       0.056
Booneville High School................  Warrick.................       0.096       0.085       0.081       0.080
Dayville..............................  Warrick.................       0.083       0.078       0.077       0.077
Tecumseh High School--Lynnville.......  Warrick.................       0.082       0.078       0.077       0.076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a number of ozone alerts were issued for Southwestern 
Indiana during the summer of 2005, quality assured data supplied by the 
State show that no monitors recorded fourth-high ozone concentrations 
above the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition, the 2003-2005 ozone 
design values for all monitors in the Evansville area were below the 
ozone standard violation cut-off level (below 0.085 ppm). Table 2 
documents the 2003-2005 ozone design values by monitoring site in the 
vicinity of Evansville.

     Table 2.--8-Hour Ozone Design Values in the Evansville Area in
                 Concentrations of PPM for 2003-2005 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Ozone
           Monitoring Site                    County            Design
                                                                 Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evansville--Mill Road...............  Vanderburgh...........       0.077
Scott School--Inglefield............  Vanderburgh...........       0.063
Boonville High School...............  Warrick...............       0.076
Tecumseh High School--Lynnville.....  Warrick...............       0.073 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ozone was also monitored at the Yankeetown-Alcoa and Dayville
  monitoring sites (both in Warrick County) during the period of 2003-
  2005. Ozone was monitored during 2003 and 2004 at the Yankeetown site,
  with an average fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration
  of 0.078 ppm. Ozone was monitored during 2005 at the Dayville site,
  with a fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration of 0.077
  ppm.

    These data show that no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard 
were monitored in the Evansville area even when 2005 ozone data are 
considered. This is true despite the commenters' observation that a 
number of ozone

[[Page 77030]]

alerts were issued in 2005 for this area. In addition, as noted by one 
of the commenters, ozone alerts were issued on eight days, but only two 
of these alert days had monitored exceedances of the ozone standard. On 
only two days lacking ozone alerts were ozone standard exceedances 
monitored (only one of these was in the Evansville area, with the other 
in Posey County, outside of the ozone nonattainment area \8\). Only one 
monitoring site, Boonville High School, recorded multiple days of ozone 
standard exceedances in 2005, but did not record a violation of the 8-
hour ozone standard during the period of 2003-2005. No monitors in the 
Evansville area have recorded violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
based on the three most recent years of quality assured monitoring 
data.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Even though 8-hour ozone standard exceedances have been 
monitored in Posey County, this County is not in violation of the 8-
hour ozone standard.
    \9\ Occasional exceedances of the standard are allowed at any 
monitor without a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occurring. As 
long as the average annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone 
concentrations at all relevant ozone monitoring sites in an area 
remain at or below 0.084 ppm for the most recent three-year period, 
the area is not violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With multiple 
monitoring sites in an area, multiple exceedance days (exceedance of 
the standard anywhere in the monitoring system) may occur during any 
period without a violation of the ozone NAAQS actually occurring. 
That was the case for the Evansville area for 2005 and for the 
period of 2003-2005. Despite three exceedance days, the area 
continued to attain the standard, the relevant criterion for our 
determination of attainment and one of the criteria for 
redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of states and local area governments, including Indiana 
and Evansville, have chosen to activate ozone alerts when ozone 
concentrations are thought to be approaching the ozone standard and 
meteorological conditions are forecasted to be favorable for the 
formation of high ozone levels. Besides alerting the public to the 
potential for high ozone concentrations and to the potential for the 
need to change outdoor activities to avoid exposure to these high ozone 
levels, the ozone alerts also inform owners of ozone precursor emitting 
sources and the public that operations and activities should be altered 
if possible to mitigate the ozone precursor emissions. This reduces the 
potential for high ozone concentrations, and helps avoid violations of 
the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, even though ozone action alerts were issued 
on a number of days in 2005, this is not an indication of a violation 
of the ozone standard, as demonstrated by the 2003-2005 ozone data for 
the Evansville area. The quality assured monitoring data for 2002-2004 
show that the Evansville area attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and 
the quality assured 2003-2005 ozone data show that the area continues 
to attain the ozone standard. EPA is correct in determining that the 
Evansville area has attained the ozone standard, thus satisfying the 
criterion for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the 
Clean Air Act.
    The 8-hour ozone design values submitted by Dr. Alexandrovich also 
show that ozone air quality has improved in the Evansville area. Ozone 
design values for all sites for the period of 1995-2005 show a 
significant downward trend, as noted by the commenter. The areawide 
ozone design value for 2002-2004 was 0.083 ppm and the areawide ozone 
design value for 2003-2005, based on the average of the fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for this period, was 0.077 
ppm. The data show several aspects of special note. All sites in the 
Evansville area exhibit essentially the same downward trend in ozone 
design values. This shows that an ozone problem has not simply shifted 
from one monitor site/area to another. In addition, the similar trends 
in ozone design values show that the peak ozone concentrations are 
reacting to common effects, including long-term downward trends in 
regional ozone precursor emissions. An increase in the downward trend 
of the ozone design values in the period of 2003-2005 at all monitoring 
sites implies that the decrease in regional NOX emissions 
resulting from EPA's NOX SIP call and other regional 
emission reductions are having a beneficial impact on ozone levels on a 
regional basis. See the response to Comment 10 below. As this commenter 
notes and we agree, the trend toward decreasing ozone design values is 
not expected to reverse in the near future as additional reductions in 
regional emissions are expected to result through the implementation of 
federally enforceable emission controls on vehicles, fuels, electric 
utilities, and other major combustion sources.
    To demonstrate the downward trend in ozone design values, Table 3 
summarizes ozone design values by monitoring site for the most recent 
three three-year periods taken from the quality assured ozone data 
supplied by the State.

  Table 3.--8-Hour Ozone Design Values for Periods of 2001-2003, 2002-
              2004, and 2003-2005 in Concentrations of PPM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Monitoring Site            2001-2003    2002-2004    2003-2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evansville--Mill Road............        0.083        0.082        0.077
Scott School--Inglefield.........        0.077        0.073        0.063
Alcoa--Yankeetown................        0.085        0.083           NA
Dayville.........................           NA           NA    \1\ 0.077
Boonville........................        0.081        0.080        0.076
Tecumseh High School.............        0.081        0.078       0.073
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Dayville site is only several miles from the discontinued Alcoa-
  Yankeetown site and is a replacement for the Alcoa monitor. The ozone
  design value given here is the fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone
  concentration for 2005, the only year of monitoring data currently
  available for this monitoring site.

    With regard to the claims of high PM2.5 levels, it is 
noted that this rulemaking addresses only the ozone designation of the 
Evansville area. This rule does not address or affect the 
PM2.5 designation for this area, and, thus, the 
PM2.5 concentrations in this area have no bearing on EPA's 
determinations regarding the attainment status of this area for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    The comment concerned with the ending of monitoring in the 
Evansville area upon redesignation to attainment of the ozone NAAQS is 
wrong for several reasons. First, and most importantly, the State of 
Indiana has committed to continuing ozone monitoring in this area. See 
70 FR 53613 (September 9, 2005). Second, the ozone maintenance plan 
requires and depends on continued ozone monitoring during the lifetime 
of the maintenance plan. Note that the ozone maintenance plan contains 
action triggers directly tied to ozone monitoring. Under the approved

[[Page 77031]]

maintenance plan, ozone levels will be tracked and certain corrective 
actions or further analyses will be triggered if monitored ozone 
concentrations reach specified levels. To implement the ozone 
maintenance plan, the State must continue ozone monitoring in the 
Evansville area.
    With regard to haze and gray skies in southern Indiana, this issue 
also is not relevant to a redesignation of the area for the ozone 
standard, where the area has been shown to be attaining the 8-hour 
ozone standard. A number of pollutant sources lead to the formation of 
fine particulates, which can contribute to haze levels. Since the 
Evansville area is a nonattainment area for fine particulates, the 
State of Indiana is expected to assess the sources of the emissions 
leading to these fine particulates and to develop strategies and 
emission control regulations leading to attainment of the fine 
particulates standards. In doing so, the State's actions should also 
lead to reductions in haze levels and to cleaner skies. In addition, 
regional emission reductions achieved through EPA's NOX SIP 
call and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) will further lower haze 
levels and clear the skies of this area.
    With regard to the claim that the State and the City of Evansville 
failed to issue an ozone alert when it would have been warranted, the 
record of ozone alerts provided by Dr. Alexandrovich shows more 
overpredictions of high ozone levels than underpredictions (more issued 
ozone alerts on days with no ozone standard exceedances than failures 
to issue ozone alerts on days with ozone standard exceedances). This 
claim is also irrelevant to a redesignation action, which is based on 
demonstrated attainment of the standard. There is no evidence to 
support the claim that actions with respect to prior ozone alerts call 
the maintenance plan into question. The maintenance plan contains 
corrective actions that will occur if high ozone levels are monitored, 
and does not conflict with or depend upon the State's plans for issuing 
ozone alerts in the future. The fact that there were ozone alerts also 
does not indicate that the area violated the ozone standard. The ozone 
maintenance plan is designed to provide corrective actions if high 
ozone levels or violation of the standard occur after redesignation of 
the area to attainment of the NAAQS. The maintenance plan's contingency 
measures are triggered by monitored ozone levels. The triggering of the 
contingency measures in no way depends on the forecasting of high ozone 
concentrations. Therefore, the issuing of ozone alerts is in no way 
connected to the implementation of the ozone maintenance plan. The 
maintenance plan relies on monitored ozone data and not on forecasted 
concentrations. Regardless of the status of the ozone alert efforts, 
the relevant issue for redesignation is that the Evansville area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and has an approved plan for 
maintaining the ozone standard.

Comment 2: The Critical Ozone Monitor at the Alcoa, Incorporated Site 
Is No Longer Operating, Resulting in the Loss of Data That Would Have 
Been a Violation of the Ozone Standard in 2005

    A commenter notes that Alcoa, Incorporated (Alcoa) had sought the 
ozone redesignation while, at the same time, asking that the ozone 
monitor on its property be terminated and/or relocated to another site. 
This is a particular concern to the commenter since the Alcoa monitor 
(which was shut down in October 2004) was the monitor that had recorded 
the ozone standard violation on which the 2004 Evansville area ozone 
nonattainment designation had been based. The commenter believes that, 
had the monitor been left on the Alcoa property, it would likely have 
continued to show a violation of the ozone NAAQS during the summer of 
2005. This commenter also suggests that this redesignation request was 
originated by Alcoa. Finally, the commenter believes that EPA and the 
State are taking the approach of ``no data, no problem.''

Response 2

    The Alcoa (Yankeetown) monitor operated through the end of the 2004 
ozone season. Data from the Alcoa monitor were considered both in 
designating the Evansville area as nonattainment based on 2001-2003 
data and in EPA's determination that the area attained the 8-hour ozone 
standard based on 2002-2004 data. The State considered this monitor to 
represent ambient air and requested Alcoa to quality assure the data 
from this site, meeting State monitoring standards, so that these data 
could be considered to be on par with the ozone data from other 
monitors in the Evansville area and in the State. Alcoa disagreed with 
the State, arguing that this monitor does not represent ambient air. 
Alcoa objected to and challenged the designation of the Evansville area 
as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based on the ozone monitoring at 
the Alcoa site. Alcoa terminated the monitor at the end of the 2004 
ozone season and the State located a new ozone monitor very close to 
the Alcoa site, but off the premises of Alcoa. This new monitor, the 
Dayville site, was operated in 2005.
    Prior to the establishment of the Dayville ozone monitoring site, 
EPA was given the opportunity to review the characteristics of the 
Dayville site relative to the characteristics of the Alcoa site. The 
proximity of the two monitoring sites and the similarity of the 
emissions near the monitoring sites (particularly the similarity and 
spatial distribution of NOX emissions close to the 
monitoring sites) led us to the conclusion that the two monitoring 
sites were equivalent. We have seen no data to the contrary.
    The ozone trends data provided by Dr. Alexandrovich, as discussed 
in Comment/Response 1, indicate that the Dayville monitoring data may 
be generally considered in conjunction with the Alcoa data to assess 
the long-term trend in the 8-hour ozone data for this area. The Alcoa/
Dayville ozone data show an ozone trend very similar to the ozone 
trends for other monitors in the Evansville region. The 2005 data for 
Dayville fit well with the prior data for the Alcoa site to produce an 
ozone trend that matches those from other long-term sites in the area. 
If the Dayville site was significantly different in local emission 
characteristics and ozone response relative to the Alcoa site, one 
might expect the short-term ozone trend (2004-2005) for this site pair 
to be significantly different from the ozone trends for the long-term 
sites. This is not the case. Based on this observation and considering 
the close proximity and similarities of the Alcoa and Dayville 
monitoring sites and the fact that the Dayville monitor recorded a 
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration of 0.077 ppm in 
2005, we see no basis to assume or to speculate that the Alcoa site 
would have recorded a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard based on 
2003-2005 ozone data. Therefore, we disagree with the commenters on 
this point.
    EPA can base its determination on whether the standard has been met 
only on available ozone monitoring data and not on speculation. There 
is no evidence that air quality at the Alcoa monitor would have 
violated the 8-hour ozone standard in 2005. On the contrary, the data 
show no violation of the ozone standard during the period of 2002-2004 
for the Alcoa monitor, and no exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard 
at the replacement Dayville monitor in 2005. If anything, the available 
data indicate that the Alcoa site would not have violated the 8-hour 
ozone standard in 2005. At minimum, we cannot conclude that a violation 
of

[[Page 77032]]

the 8-hour ozone standard would have been recorded at the Alcoa monitor 
in 2005. The termination of the Alcoa monitor and its replacement by 
the Dayville monitor do not affect the eligibility of the Evansville 
area to qualify for redesignation. The available ozone data support 
this redesignation, and the State has demonstrated that the area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    While EPA acknowledges that Alcoa chose to discontinue monitoring 
on its property, it is the State of Indiana--and not Alcoa--that 
developed, adopted, and submitted the ozone redesignation request. As 
discussed above, EPA believes that the new, nearby ozone monitor at 
Dayville provides ozone data equivalent those produced by the Alcoa-
Yankeetown monitor.
    The State is not exhibiting an attitude of ``no data, no problem,'' 
and has replaced the terminated Alcoa monitoring site with the Dayville 
monitoring site. The State has supported the original 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment designation for Warrick County (the county in which the 
Alcoa site was located), and has supported maintaining an ozone monitor 
in this area, recognizing that this area has a potential for relatively 
high ozone concentrations. This is why the Dayville ozone monitoring 
site was selected and implemented.
    EPA is not taking the approach of ``no data, no problem.'' First, 
EPA (along with the State) considered the data from the Alcoa site in 
both its original ozone designation of the area and in determining that 
the area subsequently attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Second, EPA 
has routinely required states to operate and maintain adequate ozone 
monitoring networks to record ozone concentrations and to maintain such 
networks after redesignation to assure maintenance of the standard. 
EPA's guidance provides that an area's maintenance plan should contain 
provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors to verify 
continued attainment, and that the state should continue to operate an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58. Memorandum of John Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September 4, 1992. The 
State has committed to continue operating an appropriate monitoring 
network in the Evansville area. IDEM has committed to continue 
operating and maintaining an approved ozone monitoring network in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 through the 10-year maintenance period.

Comment 3: High Ozone Concentrations Have Been Monitored in Downwind 
Perry County, and This Monitoring Site Should Be Considered in This 
Ozone Redesignation Review as Part of the Evansville Area

    Several commenters expressed concerns about high ozone 
concentrations monitored at the Leopold monitor in Perry County. The 
commenters believe that during the first two years that the Leopold 
monitor was operated, it showed exceedances of the 1-hour ozone 
standard. Because the monitor was removed before it collected three 
years of ozone data, the data for this monitoring site were not used to 
designate Perry County as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. 
The monitor has been replaced, although at a different site, and the 
new monitor has recorded exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard, but 
has not collected three years of data showing a violation of the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The commenters believe that the Leopold monitoring site 
should be considered to be part of the Evansville area, and that the 
Leopold data should be considered in EPA's determination of the ozone 
attainment status for the Evansville area. One of these commenters 
wants a commitment from the EPA that the Leopold monitor will become 
part of the Evansville ozone monitoring network, and that such action 
will be considered as part of the ozone maintenance plan addressed in 
EPA's final rule on Indiana's ozone redesignation request.
    Dr. Alexandrovich, the Vanderburgh County Ozone Officer, notes that 
an ozone monitor was operated in Perry County from 1998 through 2001, 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) site 18-123-0008. 
Although ozone levels were elevated at this site, no exceedances of the 
1-hour ozone standard were monitored at this site through the 2001 
ozone season. After the 2001 ozone season (April-September in Indiana), 
this monitoring site was shut down. In 2004, a new monitoring site was 
established at Leopold, AIRS site 18-123-0009. In 2005, this monitor 
recorded exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard on four days.\10\ 
Analyses of wind speeds and directions by hour (transport analyses) for 
the high ozone days in 2005 show that the Evansville area was not a 
likely source area for the ozone standard exceedances on three of the 
four days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ No exceedance of the 8-hour ozone standard was monitored at 
this site in 2004. The average fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour 
ozone concentration for this site is 0.082 ppm for the period of 
2004-2005 based on quality assured data supplied by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response 3

    The Leopold monitoring site should not be considered to be part of 
the Evansville area. The boundary of the Evansville nonattainment area 
was set in EPA's designation rulemaking of April 30, 2004, and EPA is 
not re-visiting that rulemaking in this final rule. In its designation 
rulemaking, EPA evaluated the boundary of the Evansville nonattainment 
area in accordance with the statute, EPA guidance, and the criteria 
that EPA applied nationally, and we considered all relevant factors. 
See 69 FR 23858. Perry County, located to the east and separated from 
the Evansville area by Spencer County, is designated as attainment for 
the 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 81.315. There is no showing that 
Perry County is monitoring a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard. 
There is, thus, no possibility of showing that the Evansville area is 
contributing to a violation of the ozone standard in Perry County.
    As noted by Dr. Alexandrovich, wind speed and direction analyses 
for high ozone days in 2005 indicate that the Evansville area emissions 
may be impacting the Leopold monitoring site on only one out of four 
exceedance days during 2005 at this site. Areas south and east of the 
Leopold monitor (and not west in the direction of the Evansville area) 
appear to be the primary emission source areas that may be affecting 
Perry County on three of the four exceedance days. These data show that 
the Evansville area cannot be held responsible for the majority of the 
days on which there are high levels of ozone at the Leopold monitoring 
site. It appears that a number of other ozone precursor source areas in 
Indiana, Kentucky, and other upwind areas may be affecting ozone 
concentrations in Perry County.
    For all of these reasons, we disagree with the commenters' 
assertions that Perry County should be part of the Evansville area and 
that the Leopold monitoring data should change EPA's decisions on the 
attainment and maintenance status of the Evansville area.
    The 1-hour ozone concentrations monitored in Perry County have no 
bearing on our decision regarding the attainment status of the 
Evansville area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are not considering 1-
hour ozone concentrations in any decision regarding 8-hour ozone 
redesignations. In addition, as of June 15, 2005, the 1-

[[Page 77033]]

hour ozone NAAQS was revoked and no longer exists.
    There is no showing that Perry County and the other Counties cited 
by the commenters are monitoring violations of the 8-hour ozone 
standard. Therefore, neither EPA nor the State is failing to disclose a 
current violation of the standard in this area. Monitored air quality 
data for Perry County are available to the public through AIRS or 
through the State's data system and air quality data summaries. In 
addition, it should be noted that the adequacy of monitoring in areas 
which are outside of the Evansville area, and which have not been shown 
to affect the determination of attainment in the Evansville area, is 
not relevant to this rulemaking.

Comment 4: There Was Unusually Cool Meteorology in 2003 and 2004 That 
Led to Abnormally Low Peak Ozone Concentrations

    Several commenters have asserted that the Evansville area 
experienced unusually cool weather in 2003 and 2004, and that EPA 
should consequently reject the State's redesignation request. A 
commenter further states that redesignation guidance issued by the EPA 
in September 1992 is clear in requiring that a redesignation to 
attainment must not be a result of ``unusual meteorology.'' On the 
other hand, 2002 data show clear exceedances of the 8-hour ozone 
standard. This commenter also believes that the summer of 2005 clearly 
shows that, under the right conditions, the Evansville Metropolitan 
Statistical Area (MSA) will continue to exceed the 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    Another commenter, Dr. Alexandrovich, notes that meteorological 
statistics indicate that over the last 10 years, with a few exceptions, 
the weather in the Evansville area was within normal ranges. The 
commenter presents data on the departure of daily average temperatures 
from normal daily temperature averages, the departure of monthly 
average temperatures from normal monthly average temperatures, and the 
departure of monthly precipitation levels from normal monthly 
precipitation levels for the April through September periods of 1995 
through 2005 to support conclusions regarding whether 2003 and 2004 
were atypical years unusually favorable to lower peak ozone 
concentrations. The commenter also documents the ozone standard 
exceedance days with respect to departures of daily average 
temperatures from normal daily average temperatures. The data, in the 
accumulative, indicate that: (1) The weather in 2003 and 2004 was not 
atypically colder or drier/wetter than the weather during the ozone 
seasons in other years during the period of 1995-2005; (2) ozone 
standard exceedance days were not limited to days with atypically high 
temperatures; and (3) ozone exceedance trends (in number of exceedance 
days per year) were not associated with year-to-year trends in peak 
daily temperatures or precipitation. In other words, meteorological 
trends or deviations from normal meteorological conditions cannot 
explain the observed trends in peak ozone concentrations. This leaves 
one to conclude that the downward trend in peak ozone concentrations in 
the Evansville area is due to emission decreases in this area or in the 
surrounding region.

Response 4

    As part of the State's ozone redesignation request, the State 
documented a temperature analysis conducted to show that unusually 
favorable meteorology was not responsible for the observed air quality 
improvement. In this analysis, the State considered temperatures during 
the ozone-conducive months of May through September for the period of 
1971-2000 versus the same months during the attainment period, 2002-
2004. Temperature data were reviewed for a number of weather stations, 
including Indiana weather stations at: Bloomfield; Boonville; Dubois; 
Freelandville; Huntingburg; Mount Vernon; Shoals; Saint Meinrad; and 
Washington, along with temperature data supplied by the Evansville 
National Weather Service office. The temperature data were used to 
calculate the monthly average number of 90 degree days \11\ during the 
period of 1995-1999. Temperature data were also used to determine the 
monthly normal maximum temperatures for the summer months for the 
period of 1971-2004. Monthly maximum temperatures were compared by 
month for various years for 1996 through 2004. Based on these analyses, 
it was concluded that the temperatures during the 2002 summer months of 
May, June, July, August, and September, were 1 to 2 percent higher than 
the long-term monthly norms, while the monthly maximum temperatures 
during the 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004 summer months were 1 
to 5 percent lower than the long-term averages. On average, the monthly 
maximum temperatures in the summer months of 2003 and 2004 were 3 
percent and 2 percent below the long-term averages, respectively, 
whereas, on average, the monthly maximum temperatures in 2002 were 2 
percent higher than the long-term averages. It should be noted that 
monthly maximum temperature ranges (when compared to the long-term 
monthly average maximum temperatures) were essentially identical 
between the 2001-2003 period used to designate the Evansville area as 
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2002-2004 attainment 
period. This is one indicator that temperature differences between 
various years were not the key factor in the observed air quality 
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Days with peak temperatures equal to or greater than 90 
degrees Fahrenheit at any of the meteorological monitoring sites 
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also compared the number of 90 degree days during the 
summer months for each year during the period of 1995-2004 to the 
``normal'' number of such days (the average for all years in this 
period) for the Evansville Regional Airport. The State compared these 
data to the number of 8-hour ozone standard exceedance days for each 
year. These data point to 2002 as being an abnormally warm summer, 
having a higher than average number of ozone standard exceedance days, 
whereas 2003 and 2004 were below average in warm summer days, but with 
numbers of ozone standard exceedance days more indicative of the 
averages during the period of 2000-2004, excluding 2002. The State 
concludes from these data that a greater number of ozone exceedance 
days per year correlates with a greater number of 90 degree days per 
year. This analysis supports a connection between meteorology and the 
number of ozone standard exceedance days per year, but does not support 
or address the case that 2003 and 2004 were atypically cool years. The 
State does conclude that, based on long-term trends, the annual number 
of 8-hour ozone standard exceedance days shows a greater downward trend 
than the annual number of 90 degree days. That is, the local summer 
climate is cooling, but the ozone air quality is improving at a faster 
rate, implying that emission decreases are responsible for the air 
quality improvement rather than the long-term change in meteorology.
    To further consider this issue, we refer to the temperature and 
precipitation analyses documented by Dr. Alexandrovich (other 
commenters made assertions without providing supporting data). This 
commenter analyzed the ozone season departure of daily average 
temperatures from normal and the long-term daily average temperatures 
for each year during the

[[Page 77034]]

period of 1996-2005. This analysis also indicated the departures of 
daily average temperatures on 8-hour ozone standard exceedance days 
during this period. Considering temperature variations throughout the 
ozone seasons, the commenter concluded that 2003, 2004, and 2005 were 
not atypically colder during the ozone season than other years in the 
1996-2005 period. No years showed departures of daily average 
temperatures outside of the typical meteorological variability range. 
Additionally, the commenter concluded that ozone standard exceedances 
occurred on days with both above and below average daily peak 
temperatures, but do preferentially occur over periods of increasing 
temperatures, reflecting the influence of warming air masses on 
increasing ozone levels.
    Dr. Alexandrovich also analyzed the departures of average monthly 
temperatures and precipitation levels from normal levels during the 
ozone seasons for the period of 1995-2005 along with the annual number 
of 8-hour ozone standard exceedance days for this period. This analysis 
failed to show any connection between monthly average temperatures and 
monthly precipitation and the annual number of ozone standard 
exceedance days. This commenter concludes that the weather over the 
last 10 years in the Evansville area was within normal ranges and no 
``unusually favorable meteorology'' influenced the downward trend in 
peak ozone levels (towards cleaner air).
    Given the data supplied by the State and Dr. Alexandrovich and the 
lack of data countering their conclusions, we see no support for the 
commenter's claim that the improvement in ozone air quality was due to 
unusually favorable meteorology. See the John Calcagni memorandum at 4. 
We agree that meteorology does influence peak ozone concentrations, but 
we see greater evidence in this case that emission reductions, both 
local and, more significantly, regional, were responsible for the 
reduction in peak ozone concentrations leading to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. See our response to Comment 10 below. Therefore, we 
disagree with the commenters that unusually favorable meteorology led 
to attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Comment 5: The Maintenance Plan Failed To Address Surrounding Counties, 
and Emission Increases in These Surrounding Areas and in the Evansville 
Area Will Threaten Maintenance of the Ozone Standard

    A commenter questions why the maintenance plan did not include the 
surrounding counties in the Evansville MSA and why the surrounding 
counties were not included in the original ozone nonattainment area.
    A commenter asserts that, if EPA allows this redesignation, this 
will allow increases in pollution levels instead of reducing emissions 
as required by the Clean Air Act.
    A commenter notes that there is nothing in the State's maintenance 
plan that deals with counties besides Warrick and Vanderburgh Counties. 
The commenter contends that additional counties should have been 
included in the original Evansville nonattainment area as required by 
EPA's designation guidance. The commenter claims that EPA's guidance 
required all of the counties in the MSA to be treated equally and to be 
included in the nonattainment area, and that EPA failed to follow its 
own guidance, excluding counties in Indiana and Kentucky from the 
nonattainment area that are part of the Evansville MSA. As a result of 
this, the commenter argues that nothing in the maintenance plan will 
apply to the ``other'' counties, whose emissions impact the ozone 
levels in the entire region.
    A commenter asserts that the failure to include the other counties 
will bode poorly for the health of citizens in this region since new 
coal-fired power plants are proposed for Henderson County, Kentucky, 
just a few miles from the current ozone nonattainment area. The 
commenter claims that, had EPA followed its own guidance in 
establishing the original nonattainment area, the prospect of new coal-
fired power plants for the region would have been different, if not 
impossible.
    Several commenters demand that all counties in the Evansville MSA 
comply with the Indiana maintenance plan. The commenters believe that 
to let these counties ``off the hook'' when they have emission sources 
that are larger than anything in Vanderburgh County is outside of the 
spirit, legal guidance, and rules of the Clean Air Act. A commenter 
contends that Gibson and Posey Counties in Indiana and Henderson County 
in Kentucky should also be included in the maintenance plan for the 
Evansville area.
    A commenter questions whether EPA and IDEM considered the impact of 
several new power plants proposed for the region, including a ``giant'' 
1500 megawatt old technology plant just upwind of the ozone 
nonattainment area in Kentucky that has already received an operating 
permit from the Kentucky Division of Air Quality. This commenter 
additionally notes that proposals for at least three additional large 
power plants are pending, one just northwest of the ozone nonattainment 
area, one to the north of the nonattainment area, and one just south of 
the nonattainment area in Henderson County, Kentucky. The commenter 
claims that these power plants, together with those already permitted, 
will likely make it impossible to maintain the attainment of the 8-hour 
ozone standard in the future.
    A commenter contends that there are at least 15 coal-fired power 
plants in the Evansville region, and that these plants emit sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxide, fine and course particulates, mercury, and 
hydrochloric acid. The commenter claims that it stands to reason, 
especially since the Evansville area is not in attainment according to 
EPA standards, that the Evansville area needs to have a monitor in 
place to ensure that the area's air quality is at safe levels needed 
for healthy, productive lives.
    Another commenter expressed the hope that, if new coal-fired power 
plants are brought on line in the future, the older coal-fired plants 
will be phased out and clean coal technologies will be used.
    One of the commenters raising concerns about the growth of new 
power plants in the area attached a copy of a ``Clean Air Petition to 
Governor Daniels.'' This document was signed by a number of citizens of 
Newburgh, Indiana, and expresses opposition to ``the state's lawsuit 
against the E.P.A.'' The nature of the State lawsuit against EPA is not 
specified in the petition, nor in the commenter's cover letter.
    Finally, a commenter states that, aside from the potential for new 
power plants, an attainment designation would tell companies that they 
have done enough toward reducing their emissions. The commenter argues 
that companies will do no more than is necessary, and that power plants 
will not make any improvements to decrease emissions of carcinogens. 
The commenter asserts that people are beginning to see the problem in 
the Evansville area, that government agencies are failing the people.

Response 5

    Regarding the issue of whether other counties should have been 
included in the Evansville ozone nonattainment area, as indicated above 
in the response to Comment 3, the appropriateness of

[[Page 77035]]

the designation of the area, which was promulgated on April 30, 2004, 
is not the subject of this rulemaking. EPA evaluated the designation of 
the Evansville area in accordance with the statute, EPA guidance, and 
criteria that EPA applied in designations nationally. EPA considered 
all appropriate factors and concluded that Vanderburgh and Warrrick 
Counties were the appropriate area for the nonattainment area. See 69 
FR 23858.
    Regarding the issue of whether additional counties should be 
included in the maintenance plan, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the Clean 
Air Act provides that, in approving a redesignation request, the 
Administrator must have a ``fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area'' as meeting the requirements of section 175A. Thus, EPA need only 
approve a plan adequate to cover the nonattainment area that is being 
redesignated. Nevertheless, EPA and the State also reviewed the 
emission levels in other southwestern Indiana counties and determined 
that further declines in emissions are projected there as well. In our 
proposed rulemaking, we considered the attainment year and projected 
year NOX emissions for five other counties in southwestern 
Indiana, and determined that emissions totals in these counties were 
projected to decrease during the Evansville area's ozone maintenance 
period (through 2015). See 70 FR 53612 (September 9, 2005). In 
addition, we note that ozone modeling conducted by the EPA and by the 
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) to support the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR) for 2010 and 2015 shows that regional 
NOX emission reductions at electric generating units (power 
plants) in the eastern states will result in peak ozone reductions 
throughout the eastern states, and most importantly for the purposes of 
this rulemaking, throughout southwestern Indiana. CAIR will result in 
NOX emission reductions throughout southwestern Indiana that 
will contribute to the maintenance of the ozone standard in the 
Evansville area. See also response to Comment 10.
    Other counties outside the maintenance area are not ``being let off 
the hook,'' as one commenter alleges, since they remain subject to the 
Clean Air Act requirements applicable to them and must demonstrate 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The fact that the counties are 
not included in the Evansville area ozone maintenance plan does not 
exempt these counties from the applicable requirements of the Clean Air 
Act with respect to attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 
standard. Thus, there is no requirement or need to extend the 
maintenance plan beyond the Evansville area.
    Redesignation of the Evansville area is not expected to result in 
overall emissions increases. Redesignation does not relax any pollution 
control measures on existing sources in place at the time of the 
redesignation. Indiana has committed to maintaining all existing 
emission control measures that affect the Evansville area after 
redesignation. If the area were not redesignated, the only difference 
would be that the area would be subject to New Source Review (NSR) 
requirements under part D of title I for nonattainment areas, rather 
than the NSR requirements under part C of title I for attainment areas. 
This difference, however, does not mean that redesignation itself would 
result in increased emissions from the area. Note that the State 
demonstrated that overall emissions will decrease in the ten years 
following redesignation, even with part C NSR requirements. The 
maintenance plan also provides for contingency measures to be activated 
in the event that ozone levels increase to exceedance levels, so that, 
if increased emissions cause ozone air quality problems, implementation 
of new emission controls would be required.
    With regard to power plants in the areas surrounding the Evansville 
area, several points are relevant to this set of comments. First, the 
existence of a number of power plants in the area has not prevented the 
Evansville area from achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. 
Despite the emissions from these power plants, the air quality in the 
Evansville area has improved to the point of attaining the 8-hour ozone 
standard. In fact, the reduction of regional NOX emissions 
at these power plants, as a result of EPA's NOX SIP call, is 
believed to be a significant contributor to the air quality improvement 
in the Evansville area. Second, the redesignation of the Evansville 
area to attainment will have no bearing on the implementation of the 
state NOX emission control rules resulting from the 
NOX SIP call and on the State's adoption and implementation 
of emission control rules resulting from CAIR. NOX emissions 
at the power plants will continue to be capped on statewide bases and 
states will have to account for new power plant emissions within these 
statewide emission caps. Finally, the designation of the Evansville 
area has little or no bearing on the permitting of new power plant 
emissions, particularly those in areas outside of Indiana. The impact 
of any new power plant on the area should be considered in the 
permitting process. Section 165(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act provides 
that there must be an air quality analysis to demonstrate that a 
proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of a 
NAAQS. Indiana has demonstrated that emissions inside of the Evansville 
area will remain at or below the attainment year levels through 2015, 
which indicates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained 
during this period. As for the impact of emissions outside of the 
Evansville area, the commenters provided no analysis indicating that 
any such emissions would be likely to cause or contribute to violations 
of the ozone NAAQS in the future. In fact, NOX emissions 
projections for other counties within southwestern Indiana show that 
they are expected to decrease. See 70 FR 53612 (September 9, 2005). 
Furthermore, EPA notes that NOX emissions from proposed 
power plants will be subject to the regional NOX emission 
reduction requirements of the NOX SIP call and, in the 
future, CAIR. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). Since Kentucky and 
Indiana are subject to these programs, sources subject to these 
programs and to the state rules that result from these programs will 
remain subject to NOX emissions budgets for the States that 
will not increase as a result of a possible new power plant. 
Consequently, new power plants will have to obtain NOX 
emission allowances from other existing sources subject to the 
NOX SIP call and/or CAIR, maintaining statewide 
NOX emissions from power plants at or below the statewide 
NOX emission budgets. Therefore, permitting of new power 
plants subject to these rules is not expected to result in increases in 
regional NOX emissions. In addition, this rulemaking 
concerns only the 8-hour ozone standard and does not address emissions 
for other pollutants. Sources remain subject to the statutory and 
regulatory requirements governing those pollutants.
    In addition, as noted by a commenter, if new power plants are built 
in the future, they may utilize lower-emitting technologies as they 
replace older, less-controlled power plants. To the extent this occurs, 
regional emissions could be further reduced and not necessarily 
increased.
    Finally, with regard to the petition to Governor Daniels, we 
believe that the referenced lawsuit against EPA is Catawba County, 
North Carolina v. EPA, Case No. 05-1064, and consolidated cases (D.C. 
Cir.). In that action, a number of parties (including State of Indiana) 
have challenged EPA's January and April 2005 designation of certain 
areas as nonattainment for the PM2.5

[[Page 77036]]

NAAQS. As that matter deals solely with EPA's PM2.5 
designations, it is not relevant to the subject matter of this 
rulemaking, which concerns a redesignation for the 8-hour ozone 
standard.

Comment 6: Serious Health Problems Occur at Ozone Concentrations Below 
80 Parts Per Billion, and the Evansville Area Should Not Redesignate To 
Attainment Until the Area Meets a Tighter Ozone Standard

    Several commenters expressed their belief that serious health 
problems from ozone exposure occur at levels below the 0.08 ppm 
standard established by the EPA, noting that the State of California 
has adopted a 70 parts per billion (ppb) (0.07 ppm) ozone standard. One 
commenter added that EPA should adopt this tighter ozone standard, and 
should not redesignate the Evansville area to attainment until it has 
attained this more stringent standard. Another commenter stated his 
belief that EPA is considering the promulgation of a tighter ozone 
standard, and that it made no sense to redesignate the Evansville area 
to attainment only to shortly thereafter designate the Evansville area 
as nonattainment for the tighter ozone standard.

Response 6

    The issue of whether EPA should adopt a tighter ozone standard is 
not part of this rulemaking. In this rulemaking, EPA is addressing the 
attainment status of the Evansville area for the 0.08 ppm ozone 
standard currently in effect. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA can 
determine the attainment status of areas based only on currently 
adopted air quality standards. The Clean Air Act does not provide for 
nonattainment designations based on air quality standards that have not 
been promulgated. See section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act.
    If, after a future review of the available health data, the EPA 
revises the ozone standard, the Evansville area and other areas would 
be judged against that new standard. Redesignating the Evansville area 
to attainment of the current standard now would not prevent designating 
the Evansville area as a nonattainment area under the new standard if 
the available ozone monitoring data warrant such a designation. Until 
then, EPA can only judge the Evansville area under the current ozone 
standard.

Comment 7: Political and Industrial Pressures Have Preempted Both 
Public and Environmental Health Concerns, and This Redesignation Will 
Allow More Emissions and Worse Air Quality

    A number of commenters asserted that the redesignation process was 
politically motivated, and that the State and EPA were more concerned 
about the area's economic status than about public health. Referring in 
part to comments made by local officials during a 2003 public hearing, 
they argued that political and industrial pressures have preempted 
public health and environmental concerns with little or no input from 
the affected public. One commenter questioned EPA's delegation of 
programs to Indiana. Another commenter asserted that EPA's action was 
inconsistent with EPA's mission to protect human health and the 
environment.

Response 7

    The comments as to the motivation of State and Federal regulators 
are irrelevant to the issue of whether the Evansville area qualifies 
for redesignation under the Clean Air Act. The pertinent issue is 
whether the redesignation meets the applicable requirements and 
procedures. As discussed in greater detail in response to Comment 9, 
the State has complied with all of the substantive and procedural 
requirements established by Congress for redesignation pursuant to 
section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act. This includes a determination 
that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as evidenced by 
quality-assured monitoring data which show no NAAQS violations. It also 
includes a 10-year maintenance plan to ensure that the area continues 
to attain the NAAQS.
    The State also complied with all applicable notice and hearing 
requirements prior to submitting the redesignation request and ozone 
maintenance plan to the EPA. Similarly, EPA followed the applicable 
procedures when it proposed action on September 9, 2005, and provided 
for the submission of written comments. Thus, the State and EPA have 
followed all statutory procedures for notice and public participation.
    EPA has evaluated the State's submission in light of the applicable 
statutory criteria. After notice and consideration of the State's 
submission, the data, and all comments, EPA has determined that the 
area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that it meets the other 
criteria for redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean Air 
Act. Contrary to a commenter's allegation, EPA is not working to ``mask 
the true state of nonattainment'' in the area, and is not 
``conspiring'' to ``doctor'' or ``deny'' the scientific data on record. 
EPA has carried out its obligation to review the redesignation request 
in conformance with the statute and with all prescribed procedures. 
Contrary to a commenter's contention, EPA, in redesignating the area, 
is not giving ``deference to big polluters.'' Nor has EPA ignored or 
concealed monitored violations in the Evansville area. When the 
Evansville area monitored a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA 
took action to designate the area as nonattainment, as evidenced by the 
nonattainment designation promulgated for the area on April 30, 2004. 
As stated in the response to Comment 5, the redesignation action is not 
expected to cause overall emissions increases in the area.
    Statements made during a state hearing in 2003 regarding the 
prospective designation of the area are irrelevant as to whether the 
area qualifies for redesignation to attainment based on subsequent air 
quality data, plan submissions, and rulemaking proceedings. In 
redesignating the area, EPA is acting in good faith and in accordance 
with the statute and applicable regulations and with all prescribed 
procedures, and in keeping with its obligations to administer the law 
in the public interest
    To the extent that the comments reflect concern about new 
industrial growth in the area, EPA notes that statutory and regulatory 
requirements remain in place to ensure that such growth occurs in a 
manner consistent with today's action. In addition to the State's 
maintenance plan, this includes the State and Federal requirements for 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) at 326 IAC 2-2 and 40 
CFR part 52.21, respectively. Under PSD, major new sources cannot be 
constructed unless the source owners/operators install the Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT), can demonstrate that the 
applicable air quality increments will be protected, and meet 
additional requirements to ensure that the area remains in attainment.

Comment 8: The EPA has Misinterpreted the Ozone Standard in Concluding 
That an Ozone Design Value of 83 Parts Per Billion Is At or Below the 
Ozone Standard

    Several commenters have noted that the 2002-2004 ozone design value 
at the Yankeetown monitor (Alcoa monitor in Warrick County) was 83 ppb. 
The commenters argue that this ozone

[[Page 77037]]

design value is above the 80 ppb ozone standard, and, therefore, should 
be considered to be a violation of the ozone standard. They also assert 
that the 83 ppb ozone design value is closer to the 85 ppb ozone 
exceedance cutoff level than to the 80 ppb standard, and that EPA 
should err on the side of caution to protect public health and the 
environment and not redesignate the Evansville area to attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS with this monitored ozone design value. A commenter 
believes that the rounding protocol (rounding of monitored ozone 
concentrations to the digital accuracy reflected in the ozone standard 
itself) should not be allowed in the redesignation of nonattainment 
areas, and that following it indicates that EPA's decision is more 
based on politics than on science or common sense.

Response 8

    In assessing an area's ozone air quality data in the review of an 
ozone redesignation request, EPA must determine whether the area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the definition of the NAAQS 
contained in 40 CFR 50.10, as interpreted in appendix I. The definition 
of the standard and its interpretation in appendix I establish specific 
criteria for the review of air quality data.
    The definition of the ozone standard (primary and secondary \12\) 
in 40 CFR 50.10 specifies that the level of the standard is 0.08 ppm, 
daily maximum 8-hour average. Note that the ozone standard level is not 
specified in units of ppb. We sometimes refer to the standard in units 
of ppb only for purposes of readability, avoiding the use of fractional 
numbers; but this is not a precise reference to the standard. 
Therefore, the commenters err in asserting that the 8-hour ozone 
standard level is 80 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Primary standards are set to protect human health, and 
secondary standards are set to protect the environment. In the case 
of ozone, the primary and secondary standards are identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of the ozone standard in 40 CFR part 50.10 states 
that ``the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards are met at an 
ambient air quality monitoring site when the average of the annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less 
than or equal to 0.08 ppm, as determined in accordance with appendix I 
to this part.'' Ozone data from air quality monitors are reported with 
decimal levels of three digits, although the 8-hour standard itself 
contains just two decimal digits. 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, parts 
2.1, 2.1.2, and 2.2. Appendix I, part 2.1.1 requires that hourly 
average ozone concentrations shall be reported in parts per million to 
the third decimal place. EPA applies an established rounding 
convention, set forth in regulations, to determine whether a monitoring 
result expressed to the third decimal place complies with the two-
decimal-place standard. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix I, ``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Standards'' 
states:

The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are 
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year 
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of 
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the 
rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with 
the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed 
value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding 
up. Thus a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm 
is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.

The examples provided in appendix I also make it clear that the 
standard is met when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal 
to 0.084 ppm (84 ppb). EPA has consistently used this rounding 
convention since promulgating the standard, and properly applied the 
convention here to assess compliance with the standard. Thus, an ozone 
design value of 83 ppb (0.083 ppm) is not a violation of the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. Moreover, the Evansville area ozone design value for the 
most recent three years, through the end of the 2005 ozone season, 
based on the average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
ozone concentrations over three years, is 0.077 ppm. Thus, the most 
recent ozone data show an ozone design value for the area substantially 
lower than 0.085 ppm, the level set as the smallest ozone concentration 
average that exceeds the 8-hour ozone standard.
    Previously, under the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA followed a 
rounding convention similar to that in appendix I. EPA's application of 
the rounding convention under the 1-hour standard to determinations of 
attainment has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Our 
Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032, Memorandum Opinion at 
2 (June 28, 2005).
    Based on the above, we conclude that we have not erred in 
determining that the Evansville area has attained the 8-hour ozone 
standard. EPA based its determination of attainment in this case 
squarely on the interpretation of the ozone NAAQS set forth in its 
regulations. We disagree with the commenters on this point.

Comment 9: EPA Should Conduct a Public Hearing Before EPA Finalizes the 
Ozone Redesignation of the Evansville Area

    While several commenters acknowledge that public hearings have been 
held by the State regarding the requested ozone redesignation and the 
ozone maintenance plan, they assert that they did not realize until the 
summer of 2005 how serious the pollution problem is in southern 
Indiana. As a result, the commenters request that EPA conduct a public 
hearing prior to acting on the State's ozone redesignation request. One 
commenter asserted that the Evansville area is well above the national 
average in many major diseases, thus further justifying the need for a 
public hearing.
    Several other commenters have registered complaints regarding EPA's 
denial of requests for a public hearing on the proposed redesignation 
of the Evansville area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. One of 
these commenters acknowledges that the State held a public hearing on 
the redesignation request in April 2005, but this commenter believes 
that the State was anything but objective in preparing the 
redesignation request and in conducting this public hearing, giving 
deference to large polluters in the area. A commenter also questioned 
the State of Indiana's objectivity on the basis of IDEM's testimony 
supporting a new power plant over the objections of local residents.
    One commenter stated that EPA should address the issue of 
environmental justice, noting that the EPA had recently proposed a 
broader definition of environmental justice to encompass criteria 
beyond those related to race and minority populations.

Response 9

    The EPA believes that interested parties were given ample 
opportunities to comment on Indiana's ozone redesignation request and 
associated SIP revision request. Section 553(c) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), which governs informal rulemaking actions, such as 
redesignation rulemakings, does not require EPA to provide for a 
hearing. Section 553(c) states that:

``The agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking

[[Page 77038]]

through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or 
without opportunity for oral presentation.''

EPA does not, as a matter of standard practice, conduct hearings on 
redesignation requests. EPA believes that the opportunity to provide 
written comments is sufficient, and stated in its response to requests 
for a hearing that it believed that to be the case with respect to 
Evansville. In denying the requests for a hearing, EPA explained that 
it had determined that the opportunity to submit written comments on 
its proposed rulemaking action constituted an adequate means of 
providing input from the public, and extended the public comment 
period. See 70 FR 58167 (October 5, 2005). Indeed several sets of 
written comments were received and EPA is addressing those comments in 
this final rule. There is no contention that the commenters lacked 
adequate time to prepare and submit written comments. EPA has provided 
an opportunity for interested parties to present data, views, and 
arguments through written comments. No showing was made that the 
opportunity to provide written comments precluded meaningful public 
participation.
    The State has provided evidence that it notified the public of its 
intent to hold a public hearing on the redesignation request. The State 
held a public hearing and received feedback on its plans and draft 
submittals. EPA finds that the State met the public participation 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Section 110(a). There was no change 
in circumstances that would have required the State to hold additional 
hearings, and commenters did not indicate that they requested 
additional hearings at the state level. The State submissions were 
adequate to support the redesignation request and the requested SIP 
revision. Claims that the State lacked objectivity are irrelevant to 
EPA's finding that the quality-assured monitoring data and other 
documentation submitted by the State are sufficient to support the 
request for redesignation of the area to attainment.
    The incidence of cancer and other diseases noted by a commenter is 
not relevant to the issue of whether the area should be redesignated to 
attainment based on recent air quality in the Evansville area that 
meets the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the fulfillment of other statutory 
criteria for redesignation as described elsewhere in this notice.
    With regard to the comment on environmental justice, based on its 
commitment to environmental justice, EPA seeks to ensure that its 
actions do not have disproportionately high and adverse environmental 
effects on communities, including minority and low-income communities. 
As explained elsewhere in this document (see the response to Comment 
5), today's action is designed to prevent violations of the health-
based national ambient air quality standard. It does not result in the 
relaxation of control measures on existing sources and therefore will 
not cause emissions increases from those sources. Overall, as discussed 
in response to Comment 5, emissions in the area are projected to 
decline following the redesignation. Thus, today's action will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse effects on any communities in the 
area, including minority or low-income communities.

Comment 10: The State Has Not Adopted and Implemented Federally 
Enforceable Emission Controls as Required by the Clean Air Act as a 
Condition for Redesignation to Attainment

    A commenter notes that the Clean Air Act requires that areas 
seeking redesignation to attainment must undertake actions that are 
``federally enforceable'' to improve air quality. The commenter claims 
that the State has not done so. The commenter argues that the State is, 
instead, relying entirely on the Federal NOX SIP call, which 
was promulgated in 2001--three years before EPA made the decision to 
make the Evansville area nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. The 
commenter also claims that there has been no action by any level of 
government to reduce ozone forming conditions since the Evansville area 
was designated nonattainment.
    Another commenter contends that, while there were some reductions 
in ozone precursor emissions in the immediate nonattainment area as a 
result of EPA's NOX SIP call, it is unclear, at this time, 
whether these emission reductions will have a positive or negative 
impact on the local air quality as the result of ``NOX 
scavenging'' of ozone. The commenter claims that this phenomenon 
appears to be the case in the summer of 2005, when the ozone monitor in 
Inglefield recorded low levels of ozone compared to the other monitors 
in the area.
    Dr. Alexandrovich states that the ozone trends at monitors in the 
Evansville area, particularly in the most recent years, are explained 
by regional emission reductions achieved through the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Emissions Control Program, acid rain control program, and 
NOX SIP call supplemented by local emissions reductions in 
Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties. Further emissions reductions will be 
achieved through additional Federal emission reductions from vehicles, 
fuels, and electric utilities. This commenter goes on to state that 
ozone formation in the Evansville area is NOX-limited and 
ozone reduction through NOX scavenging is not an issue. 
Ozone levels have declined as regional NOX emissions have 
decreased. The ozone decrease is most evident at the Inglefield 
monitor, AIRS 18-163-0013 (Vanderburgh County). The ozone decrease in 
this area is consistently greater than at other monitoring sites in the 
Evansville area, probably due to regional NOX emission 
reductions in an area that is NOX-limited.

Response 10

    Although the NOX SIP call was issued by the EPA in 2001, 
the State of Indiana can claim credit for the regional NOX 
emission reductions that have resulted from the implementation of the 
NOX emission control rules adopted by the State to comply 
with the NOX SIP call. The State of Indiana adopted 
NOX emission control regulations which were implemented 
beginning in the period of 2003-2004, and which will result in 
additional reductions in regional NOX emissions through 2007 
or later. The State can take credit for these federally enforceable 
emission reductions when considering the emission reductions that led 
to the air quality improvement in the Evansville area. The State may 
also consider these emission reductions in its maintenance 
demonstration, to the extent that such emission reductions are 
permanent, enforceable, and will continue to occur after the attainment 
period (after 2002-2004).
    The EPA and the Clean Air Act do not require the State to consider 
only emission reductions resulting from rules adopted after designation 
of areas as nonattainment of the NAAQS. The State may consider emission 
reductions resulting from ``existing'' regulations as long as the 
emission reductions themselves occur subsequent to the period of NAAQS 
violation upon which a nonattainment designation is based. Since the 
nonattainment designation for the Evansville area was based on ozone 
data for the period of 2001-2003, the State can consider the emission 
reductions that occurred subsequent to any year in this period. The 
State is correct in taking credit for the NOX emission 
reductions that resulted from the implementation of the State's 
emission control regulations under the NOX SIP call. In 
addition, EPA has implemented several programs that have resulted in 
reduced emissions in recent

[[Page 77039]]

years. For cars and light trucks, EPA has instituted the National Low 
Emissions Vehicle (NLEV) program, which went into effect nationally in 
2001, and EPA's Tier 2 rules, which went into effect in 2004. In 
addition, Tier 2 standards for nonroad diesel engines were phased in 
between 2001 and 2004. Over time, the phase-in of these programs has 
resulted in reductions in emissions as new vehicles have replaced 
older, higher-polluting vehicles. Further emission reductions have 
occurred as a result of implementation of EPA standards for small 
spark-ignited engines (e.g., lawnmowers) and locomotives. The heavy 
duty highway truck engine rule also implemented emission reductions 
beginning in 2004. See also the discussion in our September 9, 2005 
proposed rule, 70 FR 53610-53611 and the responses to Comments 1 and 4 
above.
    As noted in the State's June 2, 2005 submittal, significant 
NOX emission reductions have occurred in the southwestern 
Indiana area as a result of the implementation of State NOX 
emission control rules for electric generating units. The State 
NOX emission control rules were adopted and implemented to 
comply with EPA's acid rain control requirements and EPA's 
NOX SIP call. On December 6, 2005 and December 7, 2005, IDEM 
submitted to the EPA more detailed information to document the 
NOX emission reductions resulting from the implementation of 
these NOX emission control regulations. Based on ozone 
season-specific, facility-specific NOX emissions data, IDEM 
has determined that electric generating unit NOX emissions 
have steadily declined between 1998 and 2005. Table 4 documents the 
change in ozone season NOX emissions for these facilities.

 Table 4.--Ozone Season NOX Emissions from Electric Generating Units in
       Southwestern Indiana\1\ in Units of Tons per Ozone Season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         NOX Emissions
                         Year                           (tons per ozone
                                                            season)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................              66707
1999.................................................              63242
2000.................................................              58852
2001.................................................              57922
2002.................................................              52719
2003.................................................              47784
2004.................................................              30427
2005.................................................             22294
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Southwestern Indiana includes Dubois, Gibson, Pike, Posey, Spencer,
  Van der burgh, and Warrick Counties.

    These data clearly show the reduction in regional NOX 
emissions that resulted between 2001-2003, the ozone nonattainment 
period, and 2002-2004, the attainment period. These data also show 
continued reduction of regional NOX emissions through 2005. 
Note that the NOX emissions from electric generating units 
in southwestern Indiana declined by 47.5 percent between 2001 (a year 
during the 2001-2003 nonattainment period) and 2004 (a year during the 
2002-2004 attainment period). These emissions decreased an additional 
26.7 percent between 2004 and 2005 as a result of the implementation of 
Indiana's NOX emission control regulations in compliance 
with EPA's NOX SIP call. These emission reductions have 
resulted from the implementation of permanent and enforceable emission 
reduction requirements, and have contributed to the attainment of the 
8-hour ozone standard in the Evansville area and to maintenance of this 
standard in this area. Emission reductions from these sources will 
continue through 2007 and beyond, and will be supplemented by CAIR 
through 2015 and beyond.
    Besides the Federal and State emission control programs mentioned 
above, permanent and enforceable emission reductions have been achieved 
through other means, such as enforcement of existing regulations. A 
prime example of such emission reductions resulted from an enforcement 
action against the Southern Gas and Electric Company, Incorporated 
(SIGECO). In June 2003, the United States and SIGECO entered into a 
consent decree in which, among other things, SIGECO agreed to implement 
certain NOX control measures at its F.B. Culley Station in 
Warrick County. U.S. v. SIGECO, No. IP99-1692 (S.D. Ind.). More 
specifically, by no later than September 1, 2003, the Company was 
required to continuously operate Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 
emission controls at the Culley Station Unit 3 to reduce NOX 
emissions. In addition, by December 31, 2006, SIGECO is required to 
undertake additional, substantial NOX emission reduction 
measures at Culley Station Unit 1, which will help to maintain the 8-
hour ozone standard in the Evansville area. These measures collectively 
should result in a total NOX emission reduction of 4,000 
tons per year at this facility.
    We agree with Dr. Alexandrovich, the Vanderburgh County Ozone 
Officer, that the Evansville area appears to be NOX-limited. 
This explains why peak ozone concentrations in the area have decreased 
as state NOX rules controlling emissions from electric 
generating units (power plants) and other major combustion sources have 
been implemented. We also agree with this commenter that other 
federally enforceable emission controls on regional emissions from 
mobile sources and fuels, and through CAIR, will be implemented in the 
future and that these emission controls will further lower ozone 
concentrations in the Evansville area.
    It should be noted that the EPA and other organizations and 
institutions conducted considerable ozone modeling analyses to support 
the NOX SIP call. These analyses supported the conclusion 
that the NOX SIP call, and the state regulations resulting 
from the NOX SIP call, would result in regional 
NOX emission reductions and significantly lower ozone levels 
east of the Mississippi River. We disagree with the commenter's claim 
that the benefits of the NOX SIP call are dubious. The 
commenter has presented no data or evidence to support this claim. We, 
along with the State, believe that the NOX SIP call was 
instrumental in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Evansville 
area. The State's NOX emission control regulations helped to 
attain the ozone NAAQS in the Evansville area, and will help to 
maintain the ozone NAAQS in this area.
    To demonstrate that regional VOC and NOX emission 
reductions have contributed to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard 
in the Evansville area and will contribute to maintenance of the 8-hour 
ozone standard, IDEM used ozone modeling results from various studies 
to assess ozone impacts resulting from the implementation of regional 
emission controls. In the State's June 2, 2005 ozone redesignation 
request for the Evansville area, IDEM draws the following conclusions 
from the various ozone modeling analyses that have addressed the 
Midwest:
    EPA modeling analysis for the Heavy Duty Engine rule. EPA conducted 
modeling for Tier II vehicle and low-sulfur fuels to support the final 
rulemaking for the Heavy Duty Engine (HDE) and Vehicle Standards and 
Highway Diesel Fuel Rule. This modeling, in part, addressed ozone 
levels in Indiana, including the Evansville area. A base year of 1996 
was modeled, and the impacts of fuel changes and the NOX SIP 
call were addressed for high ozone episodes in 1995. The modeling 
supports the conclusion that fuel improvements and the NOX 
SIP call result in significant ozone improvements (lower projected peak 
ozone concentrations) in the

[[Page 77040]]

Evansville area. Using the modeling results to determine Relative 
Reduction Factors (RRFs) \13\ and considering the 2001-2003 ozone 
design values for each monitor in the Evansville area, IDEM projected 
the 2007 ozone design values for the monitoring sites. The worst-case 
monitoring site (based on the 2001-2003 ozone design values), the 
Alcoa-Yankeetown monitoring site, was projected to have a 2007 ozone 
design value of 0.071 ppm, down from a 2001-2003 ozone design value of 
0.085 ppm. All monitoring sites in the Evansville area were projected 
to experience significant decreases in peak ozone concentrations 
between 2001-2003 and 2007. The highest peak ozone concentration in 
2007 was projected to be 0.073 ppm at the Evansville-Mill Road 
monitoring site, with a projected 2007 ozone design value of 0.073 ppm. 
All monitoring sites were projected to experience 12 to 17 percent 
decreases in peak 8-hour ozone concentrations between 2001-2003 and 
2007. Therefore, the NOX SIP call and the fuel modifications 
considered in the ozone modeling were found to significantly improve 
the ozone levels in the Evansville area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Relative Reduction Factors are fractional changes in peak 
ozone concentrations projected to occur as a result of assumed 
changes in precursor emissions resulting from the implementation of 
emission control strategies. Relative Reduction Factors are derived 
through modeling of peak ozone concentrations before and after 
implementation emission controls and are applied to monitored ozone 
concentrations to project post-control peak ozone levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LADCO modeling analysis for the 8-hour ozone standard assessment. 
LADCO has performed ozone modeling to evaluate the effect of the 
NOX SIP call and Tier II/Low Sulfur Fuel Rule on 2007 ozone 
levels in the Lake Michigan area, which includes the Evansville area. 
Like the EPA modeling discussed above, this modeling indicates that the 
2001-2003 ozone design values for the ozone monitoring sites in the 
Evansville area would be significantly reduced to below-standard levels 
in 2007 as the result of the implementation of the NOX SIP 
call and the Tier II/Low Sulfur Fuel Rule.
    EPA and LADCO modeling analysis for CAIR. EPA conducted modeling in 
support of the CAIR rulemaking. IDEM used the EPA modeling results and 
2000-2002 monitored ozone design values for Posey, Vanderburgh, and 
Warrick Counties to project 2010 ozone design values with and without 
the implementation of CAIR. The implementation of CAIR was projected to 
slightly decrease the 2010 ozone design values in these counties. 
Similar to EPA, LADCO modeled base period and future ozone levels to 
assess the impact of CAIR in the Lake Michigan area. IDEM used the 
LADCO ozone modeling results along with the 2001-2003 ozone design 
values for the ozone monitors in the Evansville area to derive RRFs and 
to project 2010 ozone design values. All projected 2010 ozone design 
values were significantly below the 8-hour ozone standard, with the 
worst-case 2010 ozone design value projected to be 0.075 ppm at the 
Alcoa-Yankeetown monitoring site. These modeling results show that CAIR 
will further reduce peak ozone levels in the Evansville area and that, 
with the implementation of the NOX SIP call (also factored 
into EPA's and LADCO's ozone modeling) and CAIR, the Evansville area 
will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
    The modeling analyses and demonstrations discussed above provide 
further support for our determination that the area will maintain the 
8-hour ozone standard. See the response to Comment 5.
    With regard to the negative comment regarding NOX 
scavenging, it is noted that NOX scavenging refers to a 
decrease in local ozone concentrations associated with significant 
local NOX emissions or with increases in local 
NOX emissions (some ozone is converted to oxygen and 
nitrogen dioxide due to reaction with NOX). Similarly, there 
can be an increase in local ozone concentrations associated with a 
decrease in local NOX emissions. NOX scavenging 
is always a possibility near large NOX sources. This does 
not appear to be a factor in this case. Please note that any such 
NOX scavenging, if a factor, was likely to have been present 
in the area when the 8-hour ozone NAAQS was originally violated in 
2001-2003, when the EPA designated the Evansville area as nonattainment 
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the period of 2001-2003, the pre-
NOX SIP call emissions would have been relatively high and 
could have decreased local ozone concentrations to some degree; yet the 
area violated the ozone standard. Beginning in 2003-2004 and later, 
NOX emissions from power plants would have been lower due to 
implementation of NOX emission control regulations resulting 
from the NOX SIP call. If NOX scavenging were a 
factor, local ozone concentrations should have increased, yet the 
Evansville area attained the ozone standard. Thus, it is unlikely that 
NOX scavenging due to power plant emissions is an 
explanation for why the Evansville area ozone monitors are now 
recording attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. (In addition, as 
pointed out by Dr. Alexandrovich, the area appears to be 
NOX-limited; as such, future regional NOX 
emission reductions will further lower ozone concentrations in this 
area.) Finally, the commenter concerned about NOX scavenging 
has provided no data showing that such has occurred.
    For all of the above reasons, and for the reasons stated in our 
September 9, 2005 proposed rule, we believe that the criterion set 
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the Clean Air Act is satisfied, 
and 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.'' 
EPA, thus, is not acting illegally in approving the State's ozone 
redesignation request for the Evansville area.

VI. What Are Our Final Actions?

    EPA is making a determination that Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties 
have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and EPA is approving the 
redesignation of Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating Indiana's 
redesignation request, EPA has determined that it meets the 
redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 
The final approval of this redesignation request changes the official 
designation for Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
    EPA is also approving the maintenance plan SIP revision for 
Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties. Approval of the maintenance plan is 
based on Indiana's demonstration that the plan meets the requirements 
of section 175A of the CAA, as described more fully above. 
Additionally, EPA is finding adequate and approving the 2015 MVEBs 
submitted by Indiana in conjunction with the redesignation request.
    We have reviewed comments on our September 9, 2005 proposed rule, 
and have found no comments that would cause us to reverse the actions 
we documented in the proposed rule. Therefore, all proposed actions are 
being finalized here.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and

[[Page 77041]]

therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action 
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air 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 new 
regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of 
a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on 
sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing additional 
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not 
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of 
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for 
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency actions by 
directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and 
low-income populations. As explained elsewhere in this document (see 
responses to Comments 5 and 9), today's action is designed to prevent 
violations of the health-based national ambient air quality standard. 
It does not result in the relaxation of control measures on existing 
sources and therefore will not cause emissions increases from those 
sources. Overall, as discussed in response to Comments 5 and 9, 
emissions in the area are projected to decline following the 
redesignation. Thus, today's action will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse effects on any communities in the area, including 
minority and low-income communities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 27, 2006. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile 
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.


[[Page 77042]]


    Dated: December 15, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.


0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (ee) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (ee) Approval--On June 2, 2005, Indiana submitted a request to 
redesignate Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This request was 
supplemented with a submittal dated October 20, 2005. As part of the 
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as 
required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section 
175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to 
submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years as required by 
the Clean Air Act. Also included were motor vehicle emission budgets 
for use to determine transportation conformity in Vanderburgh and 
Warrick Counties. The 2015 motor vehicle emission budgets are 4.20 tons 
per day for VOC and 5.40 tons per day for NOX for both 
counties combined.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Evansville, IN: 
Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties in the table entitled ``Indiana Ozone 
(8-Hour Standard)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                                             Indiana Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation \a\                                         Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Evansville, IN:
 
    Vanderburgh County..................      1/30/06  Attainment.
    Warrick County......................      1/30/06  Attainment.
 
                                                                     * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.


[FR Doc. 05-24542 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P