Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64725

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 9, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action granting

limited approval of Pennsylvania’s NSRrelated regulations including its

provisions for emissions banking and an

ERC registry may not be challenged later

in proceedings to enforce its

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: November 7, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of

Federal regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(107) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(107) Revisions to the Pennsylvania

Regulations, Chapter 127 by the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of February 4, 1994 from

the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection transmitting

revisions to the New Source Review

Provisions.

(B) Revisions to the following

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Quality Regulations,

effective January 15, 1994:

(1) Addition of Chapter 127,

Subchapter E, New Source Review,

Sections 127.201 through 127.217

inclusive, effective January 15, 1994.

(2) Deletion of Chapter 127,

Subchapter C, Sections 127.61 through

127.73.

(ii) Additional materials consisting of

the remainder of the February 4, 1994

State submittal pertaining to Chapter

127, Subchapter E.

[FR Doc. 97–32189 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN77–2; FRL–5933–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans, and

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve an ozone maintenance plan

submitted as a State Implementation

Plan (SIP) revision request and a

redesignation request submitted by the

State of Indiana for the purpose of

redesignating Vanderburgh County

(Evansville) from marginal

nonattainment to attainment of the onehour ozone national ambient air quality

standard. Besides being based on

information contained in the State’s

redesignation request, the approval of

this redesignation request is also based

on review of the ozone data for this area

over the three most recent years, 1995

through 1997. EPA finds the State’s

maintenance plan and redesignation

request to be acceptable and notes that,

based on the most recent three years of

ozone data, the area is currently

attaining the one-hour ozone standard.

This action does not address the area’s

attainment of the recently promulgated

eight-hour ozone standard, which will

be addressed in future rulemaking.

DATES: This action is effective December

9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

redesignation request and maintenance

plan, EPA’s analyses (technical support

documents and proposed and final

rulemakings), and public comments on

EPA’s proposed rulemaking are

available for inspection at the following

address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604. (It is recommended that you

telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886–6057

before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Doty at (312) 886–6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, codified at 42

U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Pursuant to section

107(d)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA

or the Act), Vanderburgh County,

Indiana was designated as

nonattainment for the one-hour ozone

standard and was classified as marginal

(see 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991)).

The Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM)

submitted an ozone redesignation

request and maintenance plan as a SIP

revision for Vanderburgh County on

November 4, 1993. On July 8, 1994 (59

FR 35044), EPA published a direct final

rulemaking approving the redesignation

of Vanderburgh County to attainment of

the ozone standard. On the same day, a

proposed rulemaking was also

published in the Federal Register which

established a 30-day public comment

period for the redesignation approval

and noted that, if adverse comments

were received regarding the final

rulemaking, EPA would withdraw the

direct final rulemaking and would

address the comments through a revised

final rulemaking. EPA received adverse

comments, and published a withdrawal

of the direct final rulemaking on August

26, 1994 (59 FR 44040).

Subsequent to the July 8, 1994 direct

final rulemaking, EPA was informed by

IDEM that a possible violation of the

ozone standard had been monitored at

a privately-operated industrial site

owned by the Aluminum Corporation of

America (Alcoa) in Warrick County.

Warrick County (designated as

attainment for ozone) adjoins

Vanderburgh County to the east.

Because Warrick County can be

considered to be a nearby area

downwind of Vanderburgh County on

certain days, EPA questioned whether

the monitored violation in Warrick

County should be considered in any

subsequent rulemaking on the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County.

IDEM indicated its intent to investigate

the high ozone values and requested

that EPA not act on the redesignation

request pending the outcome of that

technical investigation. IDEM

completed its investigation and

submitted the results to the EPA on June

5, 1995. IDEM’s investigation concluded

that the Alcoa peak ozone

concentrations were unusual during the

period of the monitored ozone standard

violation, were biased high (relative to

peak ozone concentrations at other area

monitoring sites during the May through

June, 1994 time period), and were not
64726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

representative of the Vanderburgh

County nonattainment area peak ozone

levels. IDEM recommended that EPA

proceed with the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County to attainment so

that the maintenance plan could become

federally enforceable.

Due to the large extent of additional

data received after the July 8, 1994

direct final rulemaking and the extent of

public comments on that rulemaking,

EPA concluded that it was appropriate

to repropose rulemaking for this

redesignation action. EPA evaluated all

available information, including public

comments on the July 8, 1994 direct

final rulemaking, and proposed to

approve the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County to attainment of

the ozone standard on March 14, 1997

(62 FR 12137).

Based on the available information at

the time of the March 14, 1997 proposed

rulemaking, EPA proposed to take final

action approving the redesignation of

Vanderburgh County to attainment if

any of the following three events

occurred: (1) If Warrick County attained

the ozone standard prior to final

rulemaking action by the EPA on the

Vanderburgh County redesignation; (2)

if EPA determined that Vanderburgh

County did not significantly contribute

to an ozone nonattainment problem in

Warrick County; or (3) if the EPA

determined that the information

available is not sufficient to determine

whether or not Vanderburgh County

significantly contributed to a

nonattainment problem in Warrick

County. EPA also solicited public

comment on whether the 1994 Warrick

County ozone standard violation data

should be excluded from consideration

of the Vanderburgh County ozone

attainment status.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a

new National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, replacing

the one-hour, 0.12 parts per million

standard with an eight-hour, 0.08 parts

per million standard (62 FR 38856). EPA

is in the process of developing guidance

and proposed rules to implement the

new ozone standard based on a

Presidential Directive signed on July 16,

1997, and published in the Federal

Register on July 18, 1997. Today’s

action is a redesignation to attainment

for Vanderburgh County for the onehour, 0.12 parts per million standard

and approval of the maintenance plan as

it relates to the one-hour standard only.

EPA’s decision to redesignate

Vanderburgh County to attainment and

to approve the maintenance plan as a

SIP revision is based on the

requirements of section 107 of the Act

and existing EPA policy and guidance

as they pertain to the one-hour standard.

Today’s decision does not in any way

make a determination regarding

Vanderburgh County’s attainment status

for the newly promulgated eight-hour

standard. Decisions regarding the

attainment status of areas for the new

eight-hour ozone NAAQS will be made

by EPA at a later date.

II. Current Air Quality

A violation of the one-hour, 0.12 parts

per million ozone standard occurs in an

area when the annual average number of

expected daily exceedances of the ozone

standard exceeds 1.0 at any site in the

area based on the most recent 3 years of

ozone data. Therefore, the condition for

a violation of the ozone standard would

generally require that more than 3

exceedances of the ozone standard be

monitored during the 3 most recent

years of monitoring at any site in the

area.

To review the ozone data for possible

ozone standard violations, one must

consider the defined ozone season for

the area. The ozone season is that

portion of the year when one may

expect relatively high ozone

concentrations exceeding the standard.

Outside of this period, ozone standard

exceedances are rarely or never

recorded. The calculation of expected

ozone standard exceedance rates takes

into account the potential for ozone

standard exceedances on days during

the ozone season with invalid or

missing data. For the State of Indiana,

including the Evansville area, the ozone

season is defined in 40 CFR Part 52 to

be April through September.

Review of current ozone data for the

period of 1995 through 1997 for the

Evansville area, including Vanderburgh,

Posey, and Warrick Counties, shows

that the one-hour ozone standard has

not been violated in the area during the

most recent 3 years. Only a single

exceedance of the one-hour ozone

standard was monitored in the area

during this 3-year period: 0.131 parts

per million, recorded at the Booneville

site in Warrick County in 1995. IDEM,

in an October 3, 1997 letter to the EPA,

confirmed that there were no current

ozone standard violations in the area

and that the ozone data for the area

through September, 1997 were quality

assured. The October 3, 1997 letter

listed the four highest daily one-hour

ozone concentrations at all ozone

monitoring sites in the Evansville area

(including those in Posey, Vanderburgh,

and Warrick Counties) during each year

for the 1995 through 1997 period,

confirming the lack of ozone standard

violations in the area during this period.

Based on the current ozone

monitoring data, it has been determined

that the ozone standard has been

attained in the Evansville area. As noted

in the proposed rulemaking (62 FR

12138), this, along with approval of

Indiana’s maintenance plan and the

State having met the redesignation

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of

the CAA, forms the basis for final

approval of IDEM’s redesignation

request for Vanderburgh County. It

should be noted that the lack of an

ozone standard violation for the period

of 1995 through 1997 moots the issues

surrounding the ozone standard

violation monitored in 1994 at the Alcoa

site.

III. Responses to Public Comments

EPA received 20 sets of comments on

the March 14, 1997 proposed

rulemaking, including 89 individual

comments with significant overlap (the

comments have been grouped into

several general categories and are

addressed below in summary form). All

of these comment sets contained

comments generally critical of EPA’s

proposed approval of the redesignation

or of the proposed technical basis for

the approval. The following discussion

addresses the comments with one

general exception. Those comments

addressing EPA’s treatment of the 1994

Alcoa ozone standard violation or

emission contributions to that standard

violation are not generally addressed,

since those comments are rendered

moot by the 1995 through 1997

monitored ozone data demonstrating

attainment of the standard at the Alcoa

site and at other sites in the Evansville

area as a whole.

A. Air Quality and Designation Timing

1. Comment

Several commenters note that EPA

and IDEM failed to redesignate

Vanderburgh County to nonattainment

in 1988 or 1989 following a violation of

the ozone standard in the 1986 through

1989 time period. The commenters note

that, had EPA or IDEM done so,

Vanderburgh County would have been

subject to stationary source Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

requirements under the pre-1990 CAA.

Response

It is true that a monitor in

Vanderburgh County recorded a

violation of the one-hour ozone

standard during the 1987–1989 time

period. The decisive ozone standard

exceedance was recorded in 1989 and

was not reported in quality assured form

to the EPA until the last half of 1989,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64727

in keeping with quality assurance and

data reporting requirements.

During 1990, EPA was considering

how to address the new ozone standard

violation in the Evansville area. Under

the CAA prior to its 1990 revision, EPA

could not unilaterally redesignate an

area to nonattainment without an

initiating request from the State

containing the area. EPA could,

however, request a SIP revision under

section 110 of the CAA to address an air

quality problem despite the lack of a

nonattainment designation. Under

section 110 of the CAA, this ‘‘SIP-call’’

can require the State to address the

problem in a timely manner, but cannot

prescribe specific measures, such as the

adoption of RACT rules, which can only

be required in areas specifically

designated as nonattainment.

Before a SIP-call could be used in the

Evansville area, the CAA was revised.

Under section 182 of the revised CAA,

Vanderburgh County was classified as a

marginal nonattainment area for ozone.

Under section 182(a) of the revised

CAA, sources located in marginal ozone

nonattainment areas are not subject to

new RACT requirements (sources in

marginal nonattainment areas are

subject only to correction of existing

RACT regulations). It should also be

noted that the SIP-call process would

have extended well past the November

15, 1990 adoption time of the CAA

revisions.

2. Comment

A commenter concurs with EPA’s

proposed rule that, if no ozone standard

violation is monitored in Vanderburgh

County or in its downwind environs

during the 1995 through 1997 time

period, the Clean Air Act would allow

Vanderburgh County to be redesignated

to attainment of the ozone standard. The

commenter believes, however, that no

action should be taken to redesignate

Vanderburgh County until all of the data

have been quality assured,

demonstrating that there have been no

ozone standard violations through 1997

and through the entire 1995–1997

period. To do otherwise would be

premature and probably illegal. Other

commenters also oppose the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County

until all of the data in the region,

including Warrick County, demonstrate

monitored attainment of the ozone

standard.

Response

As noted above, on October 3, 1997,

IDEM confirmed that the 1997 ozone

data for Vanderburgh, Posey, and

Warrick Counties had been quality

assured through September (the end of

the defined ozone season). The 1995

through 1997 ozone data demonstrate

that no violation of the ozone standard

has occurred in the Evansville area,

including in Posey and Warrick

Counties, during the most recent 3

years.

B. Regional Air Quality Impacts

1. Comment

Commenters note that industrial

source emissions must be ‘‘cleaned-up’’

in Vanderburgh County as well as in its

surrounding counties before the area

can be redesignated to attainment. The

commenters believe that a regional

ozone problem exists in the area. The

commenters state that emission

reductions in Vanderburgh County only

would not be sufficient to address the

regional ozone problem of the

Evansville area (Vanderburgh, Gibson,

Posey, and Warrick Counties).

Response

As noted above, attainment of the

ozone standard has been monitored in

the entire area. This was accomplished

without the implementation of a regionwide emission reduction program

mandating controls beyond emission

reductions already required in the area,

such as those resulting from the

implementation of the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emission Control Program

(FMVCP).

With regard to the regional nature of

the area’s peak ozone concentrations, it

should be noted that the Ozone

Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)

process has reached closure, with the

participating States recommending a

range of possible Oxides of Nitrogen

(NOx) emission reduction requirements

to the EPA. On November 7, 1997 (62

FR 60318), the EPA proposed

rulemaking that would require States to

meet statewide NOX emission budgets.

The implementation of requirements to

attain the NOX emission budgets in the

eastern United States should

significantly reduce the amount of

ozone transported into the Evansville

area or generated by Evansville

emissions and transported to downwind

areas. Assuming that the rulemaking is

finalized, the State of Indiana is

expected to reduce regional NOX

emissions to comply with the allowed

NOX emission budget. These NOx

emission reductions should reduce

regional ozone levels.

In addition, the commenters cite no

policy requiring such a region-wide

emission reduction. Since Vanderburgh

County is a marginal nonattainment

area, the CAA does not require emission

reductions over a larger region, such as

a metropolitan statistical area.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that, when the

State was asked to put a monitor in

Posey County in 1988, the State refused,

saying that what happened in

Vanderburgh County from an emissions

control standpoint would also happen

in the contiguous counties. The

commenter believes that, in reality, the

State only contemplated emission

controls in Vanderburgh County, for

which the nonattainment designation

was imposed. The commenter believes

that this restriction of emission controls

was wrong given that emissions in

surrounding counties exceed those in

Vanderburgh County.

Response

Based on Indiana’s 1990 base year

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

emissions inventory for the Evansville

area, emissions of VOC in Vanderburgh

County exceeded those from any of the

surrounding counties. Based on this fact

and the fact that, at the time of the

designation of Vanderburgh County as

nonattainment for ozone, the ozone

standard violation was limited to

Vanderburgh County, it was appropriate

to assume that the emission control

measures should focus on Vanderburgh

County. In addition, since only

Vanderburgh County was designated as

nonattainment for ozone, it was

reasonable to focus attention on

emission controls there.

The commenters provide no data

showing that emissions of VOC in the

surrounding counties, on a county-bycounty basis or as an area total, exceed

those in Vanderburgh County.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that, in 1988, the

commenter was assured by the State

that, if Vanderburgh County was

designated as nonattainment for ozone,

all of the surrounding counties would

be given the same designation. Only

Vanderburgh County, however, was

proposed for the nonattainment status.

To the commenter, it appears that

political and industrial interests in the

counties surrounding Vanderburgh

County were able to persuade the State

to make only Vanderburgh County

nonattainment. Meanwhile, EPA and

IDEM have refused to discuss ozone

precursor emission controls for the

surrounding counties.

Response

Designation of Vanderburgh County

only and not the entire metropolitan

area as nonattainment for ozone is
64728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

entirely consistent with the

requirements for marginal

nonattainment area designations under

section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the CAA.

IDEM acted within the requirements

and limits of the CAA in selecting only

Vanderburgh County as the marginal

ozone nonattainment area. This decision

was supported given that the ozone

standard violation in the 1987 through

1989 period was limited to Vanderburgh

County, and that the VOC emissions of

Vanderburgh County exceeded those of

any of the surrounding counties at that

time.

4. Comment

A commenter states that, according to

section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA, the

State and the Administrator are required

to find that an area is nonattainment if

it does not meet (or contributes to

ambient air quality in a nearby area that

does not meet) an air quality standard.

The commenter believes that clearly

Posey, Gibson, and Warrick County

emissions contributed to the ozone

standard violation that occurred in

Vanderburgh County. The entire area

should have been designated as

nonattainment for ozone.

Response

In addition to responses to similar

comments above, it is noted that no

modeling data or similar ozone

production and transport analyses exist

which would indicate that emissions

from Posey, Gibson, and Warrick

Counties contributed to the 1988–1989

ozone standard violation in

Vanderburgh County. Until such data

are made available, one can not draw

this conclusion other than through

speculation. Given the data available

and the requirements of section

107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the CAA (this section

of the CAA only defines minimum

nonattainment area sizes for areas

classified as serious or above for ozone,

the State is given more discretion in

selecting the size of nonattainment areas

for areas classified as marginal or

moderate nonattainment), EPA believes

that the State of Indiana acted in

keeping with the requirements of the

CAA in selecting only Vanderburgh

County as the nonattainment area.

C. Ozone Transport Assessment Group

1. Comment

Commenters question the need for the

EPA to rely on OTAG-related emission

reductions (expected to be required

through future rulemaking), since these

emission reductions are not yet tangible

and are not sufficient to avoid ozone

problems during hot summers. Reliance

on ‘‘possible’’ future emission

reductions from OTAG while ignoring

the Alcoa ozone standard violation is

incongruous and explains why poor air

quality continues in the Evansville area.

Response

Although EPA mentioned the

potential benefits from OTAG-related

emission reductions in the proposed

rulemaking, it did not rely on these

future emission reductions as a basis for

the proposed redesignation of

Vanderburgh County. The Evansville

area has attained the ozone standard

without these emission reductions. In

addition, the State’s maintenance plan

for this area shows continued

maintenance of the ozone standard

without considering the impacts of

these emission reductions.

In discussing the OTAG-related

emission reductions expected in the

near future, the EPA was simply noting

that these emission reductions would

lower the background ozone

concentrations in the Evansville area,

further lowering the ozone

concentrations in the area. Such

decreases in ozone concentrations

would act to reduce the risk of future

violations of the one-hour and eighthour ozone standards. The State of

Indiana actively participated in the

OTAG process and is expected to reduce

NOX emissions to comply with the

resulting NOX emission budget. This

NOX emission reduction is expected to

reduce area ozone levels and transport

of ozone into downwind areas.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that EPA’s

reliance on emission reductions

resulting from OTAG is unacceptable

until EPA is sure what rules will come

out of the OTAG process. It is the

commenter’s understanding that the

OTAG process has nearly broken down.

Deadlines have been missed. It is not

clear what ozone precursor emission

reductions will result from this process.

In addition, EPA does not offer proof

that OTAG controls will be

implemented or that resulting emission

reductions will be of sufficient quantity

to achieve the ozone standard in the

Evansville area. To rely on conjecture

that OTAG emission reductions will

occur is not consistent with the

Congressional intent of making the air

healthy in the Evansville area.

Response

As noted above, the EPA has not

relied on OTAG-related emission

reductions to attain the ozone standard

in the Evansville area. The area has

attained the ozone standard without

such future emission reductions.

The OTAG process has not broken

down. The OTAG process has reached

closure, and the OTAG States have

recommended a range of possible NOX

emission reduction requirements to the

EPA. EPA proposed a SIP-call on

November 7, 1997 in response to the

recommendations of OTAG. Therefore,

it is likely, assuming that the

rulemaking is finalized, that significant

NOX emission reductions in the eastern

half of the United States will result from

the OTAG process. These emission

reductions should also lower ozone

levels in the Evansville area in the

future, but are not being relied on to

meet or to maintain the one-hour ozone

standard in the Evansville area.

D. Source Growth and the Maintenance

Plan

1. Comment

Several commenters believe that the

maintenance plan submitted with

Indiana’s redesignation request is

outdated and should be updated to

reflect the emission increases that have

occurred or are expected to occur in the

region as a result of source growth. The

commenters note the source impacts of

new sources, such as A.K. Steel, the

Casino Aztar River Boat (indirect traffic

growth), and the Toyota truck plant to

be located in neighboring Gibson

County. The commenters believe that

these new sources lead to increases in

population, vehicle miles traveled, and

industrial emissions, invalidating the

existing maintenance plan. The

commenters state that EPA should

review the maintenance plan in light of

these new emissions and that the

maintenance plan submitted in 1993 is

obsolete.

Response

Although the maintenance plan was

submitted in 1993, prior to the source

growth noted by the commenters, and

uses 1990 as the attainment base year,

EPA sees no reason to disapprove the

maintenance plan based on source

growth in recent years. This conclusion

is based on several reasons. First,

despite any source growth, Vanderburgh

County is currently attaining the ozone

standard and has continuously attained

the standard throughout the period

during which the redesignation request

has been pending. To the extent that the

Alcoa monitor indicated nonattainment

during this period, the nonattainment

problem was not monitored in

Vanderburgh County itself, but rather in

neighboring Warrick County (current

data shows that Warrick County is also
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64729

attaining the one-hour ozone standard).

Therefore, the source growth has not

prevented attainment of the standard in

Vanderburgh County. Second, in the

case of the future emissions from the

Toyota truck plant, IDEM, through the

source permit development process, has

evaluated the ozone impacts of these

emissions on the Evansville area,

including potential impacts on critical

ozone monitoring sites in Warrick

County. The State has concluded that

increased ozone precursor emissions

from this facility will not cause an

ozone standard violation at any of the

monitoring sites. Finally, the

maintenance plan submitted by IDEM

contains provisions for addressing

unexpected emission increases. As

noted in the March 14, 1997 proposed

rulemaking (62 FR 12141), IDEM

commits to periodically review area

emissions and to conduct a review of

the ozone impacts of increasing

emissions if the VOC, NOX, or Carbon

Monoxide (CO) emissions in the area

increase above the 1990 level. If the

review indicates that the increased

emissions have the potential to cause a

violation of the ozone standard, IDEM

would determine and adopt the

emission controls needed to eliminate

the potential air quality problem.

Therefore, increasing emissions should

not present a problem for maintenance

of the ozone standard in this area as

long as IDEM implements the

maintenance plan.

As additional insurance toward

maintenance of the standard, it should

be noted that, based on the adopted

maintenance plan, if increasing

emissions do cause a future violation of

the standard, IDEM is committed to

select emission control measures from

the contingency measure list for

implementation toward attainment of

the ozone standard.

Finally, it is noted that the

commenters have presented no air

quality analyses to demonstrate that the

new sources (or indirect sources) in the

area have the potential to cause future

violations of the ozone standard. The

EPA continues to find Indiana’s

maintenance plan to be acceptable.

2. Comment

Because of recent source growth in

Vanderburgh County and in

Southwestern Indiana, a commenter

believes that the EPA should not

redesignate Vanderburgh County to

attainment of the ozone standard until

the State implements an equitable

program that regulates hydrocarbon

emissions (VOC emissions) from

industrial sources.

Response

Under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the

CAA, EPA may not approve the

redesignation of an area to attainment of

a standard until the State has met all

requirements applicable to the area

under section 110 and part D of the

CAA. As stated in the proposed

rulemaking for the Vanderburgh County

redesignation, the EPA believes that the

State of Indiana has complied with the

requirements of the CAA as they pertain

to the Evansville ozone situation (the

CAA requirements, as noted above, do

not require additional VOC emission

controls for industrial sources in the

Evansville area). In addition, as noted

above, the area has attained the onehour ozone standard without the

implementation of additional VOC

emission controls on industrial sources.

Therefore, EPA has no basis for

requiring additional emission controls

on industrial sources.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that he had

expected the 1990 ozone nonattainment

designation for Vanderburgh County to

have resulted in emission reductions in

the area. Instead of emission reductions,

the commenter believes that the

available information points to

industrial and mobile source growth.

The commenter believes that local

economic development efforts have

increased since Vanderburgh County

became nonattainment for ozone with

resulting increases in the number of

polluting industries.

Response

Responses to comments 1 and 2 of

this subsection generally address this

comment. With regard to the last point

of the comment, there is no evidence

that local economic development efforts

have focused on attracting polluting

industries to Vanderburgh County since

Vanderburgh County became

nonattainment for ozone. In fact, it

should be noted that a Toyota truck

plant has chosen to locate in Gibson

County (an ozone attainment area)

rather than in Vanderburgh County,

where a larger labor force may be found.

The nonattainment designation of

Vanderburgh County, thus, may have

been a factor in the location of this plant

outside of Vanderburgh County.

Therefore, the commenter’s last point is

not supported.

4. Comment

Commenters note that EPA’s and

IDEM’s use of 1990 as a base year for the

maintenance plan is not an accurate

reflection of the current conditions. The

commenters state that Evansville’s

economy has significantly changed in

the last few years, and it follows that

ozone precursor emission data would be

very different if data from 1994 and

1995 were used for decision making in

1997 and 1998. The commenters believe

that the current data should be used as

a matter of policy and common sense.

Response

As noted above, Indiana’s

maintenance plan for the Evansville

area commits the State to periodically

review the area’s emissions and to take

action if the VOC, NOX, or CO emissions

in Vanderburgh County increase to

levels above those in 1990. If emissions

have significantly increased in a manner

previously not accounted for in the

maintenance plan, a periodic review of

the emissions should detect this growth

and should lead to corrective actions, if

determined to be needed to prevent an

ozone standard violation. In addition, it

should be noted that the choice of 1990

as the maintenance demonstration base

year was appropriate when IDEM

prepared the redesignation request in

1993.

Also as noted above, the area is

currently attaining the ozone standard.

If emissions have increased to above1990 levels, this would imply that

emission levels higher than those in

1990 could be sustained without

violating the ozone standard. Requiring

the maintenance plan to be revised to

incorporate the higher emissions would

not result in a requirement for

additional emission controls to

compensate for the increase in

emissions, but would allow one to

assume that emissions exceeding the

1990 levels (assuming emissions have

increased to levels above the 1990

levels) would not cause a violation of

the one-hour ozone standard. The

current maintenance plan encourages

the State to maintain lower emissions in

the area.

5. Comment

A commenter notes that, according to

recent press releases, several firms,

including GE Plastics in Posey County

and American Steel Extrusion in

Vanderburgh County, have applied to

IDEM for permits to increase VOC

emissions with no offsets from other

sources as required by the Act.

Response

This is not an issue relevant to the

redesignation at hand, but, instead, is

relevant to new source review

requirements. The commenters should

address this issue through comments on

the new source permits when they are

reviewed under Indiana’s source
64730 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

permitting procedures. Indiana allows

for public review of such new source

permits.

In addition, if the emissions in the

area do increase as result of the source

permit revisions, IDEM would have to

take these emission increases into

account under the periodic emissions

review covered by the maintenance

plan. If the emissions increases are

determined to have a potential to cause

a future ozone standard violation, the

State would have to activate emission

control measures to mitigate the

problem.

Finally, it should be noted that, since

Vanderburgh County is being

redesignated to attainment for ozone,

new sources will not be required to

obtain future offsets for new source

growth.

6. Comment

A commenter notes that the EPA has

failed to meet the tests required under

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air

Act. The commenter believes that the

EPA has erred in not meeting the test of

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) since there is a

current (1994) violation of the ozone

standard in the Evansville area. The

EPA has also erred in not meeting the

test of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), which

sets the requirement that permanent and

enforceable emission reductions be

shown to be responsible for the

observed improvement in air quality.

The commenter questions how the EPA

can make a declaration of the

connection between emission

reductions and air quality given that no

SIP has ever been put into place for the

Evansville area as was required by the

Clean Air Act when Vanderburgh

County was designated as

nonattainment for ozone.

The commenter notes that during the

years of 1988 through 1993, when the

area was first recommended for

redesignation to attainment, the only

reductions in ozone precursors came

about as a result of a serious economic

slump. Several VOC emitters shut

down, resulting in the improved air

quality observed. As soon as the local

economy rebounded, monitors in the

area again showed exceedances of the

standard, including the Warrick County

ozone standard violation.

The commenter notes that, in the past

several years, there has been a large

economic development, which will

cause further air quality deterioration.

The Toyota truck plant in Gibson

County has been permitted to emit 3,490

tons of VOC per year just seven miles

north of Vanderburgh County. The

General Electric facility in Posey County

has undergone substantial growth. A

soybean processing plant is scheduled

for construction in Posey County that

will emit as much as 1,400 tons of VOC

per year. In addition, in Posey County,

the Countrymark Refinery is increasing

emissions to near-capacity levels.

In Warrick County, the Alcoa facility

has increased emissions significantly. In

addition, a new cold rolled steel facility

(A.K. Steel) is under construction with

plans to add a hot rolled mill in the next

phase of expansion.

Within Vanderburgh County, power

plants which operated at limited

capacity are gearing toward total

capacity operation due to the

deregulation of the electric utility

industry. The Evansville area sports the

largest concentration of coal-fired power

plants in the United States, with 3 of the

top 10 plants in the United States

located within this area.

The Casino Aztar River Boat has led

to significantly higher vehicle traffic

within the last year. In addition, growth

in the retail sector during the last two

years has led to significant traffic

growth.

All of these facts concerning source

growth dispute any EPA declaration that

reductions in ozone precursors have

taken place in this area.

Response

At the time IDEM submitted the

redesignation request in 1993, VOC and

NOX emission reductions had occurred,

contributing to the air quality

improvement observed subsequent to

1988. These emission reductions have

occurred primarily through source

closures, which IDEM has made

permanent and enforceable through the

termination of source permits, and

through mobile source emission

reductions pursuant to the Federal

Motor Vehicle Emission Control

Program (FMVCP). At the time of the

redesignation request submittal, it was

appropriate to give credit to these

permanent and enforceable emission

reductions as contributors to the

observed air quality improvement in the

Evansville area.

With regard to recent emission

impacts from new source growth, it is

acknowledged that such source growth

has occurred. It is noted, however, that

this does not constitute a problem for

Indiana’s maintenance plan. The

maintenance plan for the area contains

contingency measures triggered by

increases in emissions exceeding the

1990 attainment year emissions levels. If

the periodic review of VOC and NOX

emissions shows increases to levels

exceeding the 1990 levels, IDEM has

committed to initiate a study of the

impact of the emissions increase on air

quality and to take action in terms of

additional emission controls if the

analyses indicate the emission increases

have a potential to cause a future ozone

standard violation. Therefore, the

maintenance plan contains safeguards

against the impacts of unexpected

emission increases, and the EPA sees no

reason at this time to disapprove the

maintenance plan on the basis of any

recent emission increases.

It is noted that the maintenance plan

did assume some future growth in

emissions would occur as a result of

changes in the economy and,

nonetheless, demonstrated maintenance

of the ozone standard in Vanderburgh

County for 10 years into the future.

Moreover, despite any recent emission

increases from new source growth, the

1995 through 1997 ozone data

demonstrate continuing attainment of

the ozone standard in Vanderburgh

County and current attainment of the

ozone standard in surrounding counties.

Although part of this attainment may be

due to favorable meteorology, it must be

noted that this attainment period

includes 1995, a year particularly noted

for meteorological conditions favorable

to high ozone concentrations. Despite

this, ozone standard exceedances were

not prevalent in the Evansville area

during this period (a single ozone

standard exceedance of 0.131 parts per

million was recorded at the Booneville

site in 1995, with no other exceedances

in the area). Obviously, the growth in

VOC emissions did not contribute to an

ozone standard violation in 1995

despite favorable meteorological

conditions. Equally important, despite

new source growth, no ozone standard

exceedances were recorded in the area

during the 1995 through 1997 period.

These observations argue against the

concerns of the commenter regarding

the impacts of new source growth.

Although the emission increases

resulting from source growth bear

watching through the maintenance plan,

the fact that these emission increases

exist does not lead to the conclusion

that the maintenance plan is flawed or

should be disapproved.

E. Action Committee for Ozone

Reduction Now

The proposed rulemaking described a

public forum process used in the

Evansville area to select contingency

measures for possible adoption and

implementation. Although this public

forum has resulted in the selection of

possible emission control measures

which may further improve ozone levels

in the Evansville area, it should be

noted that the State has not relied on

these measures to attain the one-hour
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64731

standard, the EPA has not relied on

these measures as a basis for its

approval of Indiana’s redesignation

request for Vanderburgh County.

The group formed to carry out the

selection of possible control measures

was given the title of the Action

Committee for Ozone Reduction Now

(ACORN). The following comments

relate to EPA’s discussion of ACORN

and the selected emission control

measures.

1. Comment

A commenter notes that, through

participation in the ACORN process, the

following concerns may be raised with

regard to the resulting emission control

measures:

a. There are no requirements for

enforcement of the proposed emission

reductions;

b. The proposed emission reductions

do not address the regional nature of the

ozone problem in Vanderburgh County.

The commenter believes that the high

ozone levels monitored in Vanderburgh

County may be attributed to ozone

precursor emissions outside of

Vanderburgh County; and,

c. The proposed emission reductions

do not address the ozone impacts of the

area’s expanding population, increasing

traffic, and increasing industrial

emissions.

Response

The following addresses the three

issues:

a. The ACORN process, as discussed

in the proposed rulemaking led to

recommendations for the following four

emission control measures: (1) High

volume low pressure (HVLP) paint gun

change outs for autobody refinishing

and paint spraying operations; (2) Stage

I gasoline vapor recovery during loading

of underground storage tanks at gasoline

service stations; (3) establishment of a

pollution prevention and education task

force; and (4) use of less polluting

gasoline. To implement measures (1),

(2), and (4) in an enforceable manner,

the State must adopt the measures in the

form of enforceable regulations. IDEM

has informed the EPA that the State is

in the process of adopting measures (1)

and (2), and are giving further

consideration to measure (4), which is

not being processed for adoption at this

time. Implementation and enforcement

of the measures in the future will help

maintain the ozone concentrations in

the area at below-standard levels.

The third measure, establishment of a

pollution prevention and education task

force, may not lead to specific

regulations, but will probably lead to a

list of suggested pollution prevention

procedures. Since pollution prevention

procedures may be applied to many

sources and source categories, it is

impossible for the State to develop

emission control regulations for all or

most source categories. The State,

however, may take an active role in

promoting the use of such procedures.

It is not clear at this time whether the

pollution prevention task force has

actually been established or, if so,

whether the task force has made specific

recommendations for pollution

prevention measures. In addition, it

should be noted that this process may

be community-based, with local

residents and industries taking the lead

rather than the State;

b. See responses to comments in

subsection B. above; and

c. See responses to comments in

subsection D. above.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that, since

Vanderburgh County was redesignated

as nonattainment for ozone, no formal

program was implemented to reduce

ozone levels, and nothing has been done

to implement the ACORN proposals.

Response

As noted in the proposed rulemaking,

since Vanderburgh County is classified

as a marginal ozone nonattainment area

and since the area was not subject to

RACT rule correction requirements or to

vehicle inspection/maintenance

program correction requirements, the

State is not required by the CAA to

develop new emission control

regulations for this area. The State has

met all requirements relevant to the

marginal nonattainment status of this

area.

With regard to the implementation of

the ACORN proposals, see the response

above.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that reliance on

IDEM, local officials, and ACORN for

local controls is unacceptable for several

reasons. First, the ACORN proposals are

minimal in scope and the ACORN

process has broken down. Second, the

ACORN emission reductions, if they

occur, are voluntary pollution

prevention techniques. Although the

voluntary approach has been available

in the past, industries have failed to

reduce emissions. The commenter

believes that the voluntary emission

reductions must be backed by RACT

requirements on any industry that fails

to make a documented effort to reduce

emissions.

Response

The ACORN process has not broken

down and has reached conclusion with

the recommendation of the four

emission control measures discussed

above. These measures have the

potential to produce significant

emission reductions. Stage I emission

controls, use of cleaner fuels, and use of

HVLP spray guns have the potential to

produce significant emission reductions

if supported by State adopted

regulations. Pollution prevention, if

aggressively pursued and promoted,

also has a potential for significant

emission reductions. Regardless of the

emission controls selected, the emission

controls will be useful in offsetting the

impacts of source growth and will lower

the potential for future ozone standard

exceedances. (These emission

reductions will contribute toward

attainment of the eight-hour ozone

standard.)

With regard to RACT, because of the

marginal ozone nonattainment

classification of Vanderburgh County

and section 182(a) of the CAA, RACT is

not required in Vanderburgh County. In

addition, because of the attainment of

the ozone standard during the 1995

through 1997 period, the

implementation of RACT is not needed

to attain the one-hour ozone standard.

4. Comment

A commenter notes that EPA’s

proposed redesignation is loaded with

supposition, hope, and wishes that the

paper pushing of industries and ACORN

will pay off in attaining and maintaining

the standard. The proposed

redesignation, however, misses the

point of the CAA which is to improve

the health of humans. No amount of

wishing will change the ill health that

local residents experience in the

summer months, when industrial

emissions are trapped by the

meteorological inversions that are

common in the area. Calling the area

‘‘attainment’’ will not reduce one pound

of pollution and will hasten degradation

of the region’s air by allowing massive

increases in pollution in the one county

that is nonattainment.

Response

The Clean Air Act, in part D, specifies

the minimum requirements for State

ozone control plans for various ozone

classifications. The State of Indiana has

met the requirements for marginal areas

in Vanderburgh County. Given the 1995

through 1997 attainment of the ozone

standard and the State’s compliance

with SIP requirements, Vanderburgh
64732 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

County qualifies for the designation of

attainment.

5. Comment

While the commenter participated in

the ACORN process and endorses the

recommendations it has made, the

commenter notes that it was the belief

of the ACORN participants that the

proposals that came out of the process

would do little to actually reduce ozone

precursors. In addition, nowhere in

EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking

nor in its associated technical support

document does the EPA offer any

concrete evidence that the air quality

will be improved to healthful levels as

a result of the recommendations of

ACORN, even if fully implemented.

The commenter notes that ACORN

provided only the ‘‘lowest common

denominator’’ approach and offered a

bare minimum emission control

proposal on which the group could

reach consensus. The commenter

believes this allowed the industry to

write its own regulations because the

industrial sector of the ACORN group

stifled the solutions offered by the

citizen representatives.

For EPA to claim that ACORN’s

recommendations reflect the desire of

the community is dishonest. It was

apparent to the commenter that ACORN

was used by IDEM to achieve a noaction, minimal result that would satisfy

the industry and appease the public.

Response

As noted above, the 1995 through

1997 ozone data demonstrate that the

Evansville area has attained the ozone

standard without the implementation of

the ACORN recommendations. EPA is

not relying on the impacts of the

ACORN-related controls to justify the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County to

attainment of the ozone standard.

Nonetheless, it must also be noted that

source growth is anticipated in this area.

(EPA sees no data countering IDEM’s

source growth estimates for

Vanderburgh County contained in the

maintenance plan. Much of the large

source growth has occurred outside of

Vanderburgh County. The maintenance

plan only deals with emission changes

within Vanderburgh County. EPA does

not require the State to consider source

growth outside of the existing

nonattainment area as part of the

maintenance plan.) Although not yet

quantified, it must be recognized that

the ACORN measures, if implemented,

have the potential to offset source

growth impacts.

Insufficient data are available to allow

the EPA or IDEM to determine the full

extent of the emission impacts of

ACORN’s recommendations. Until

adopted regulations are in place and

pollution prevention recommendations

have been selected, it is impossible to

determine all of the emission impacts.

Nonetheless, assuming that emission

control regulations are adopted, it must

be concluded that the ACORN

recommendations could lead to

significant emission reductions.

EPA has never stated that the ACORN

recommendations represent the wishes

of the entire public in the Evansville

area. Since ACORN had wide

representation from government,

industry, and the public, it must be

assumed that some people involved in

the ACORN process may have raised

some objections to the recommended

emission control measures or may have

recommended emission controls not

finally selected. The indication that the

ACORN recommendations are a

consensus opinion implies some level of

dissent on selected emission control

measures as well as on the emission

control measures not selected.

6. Comment

A commenter notes that the reliance

on Pollution Prevention (P2), if it is ever

implemented, as a voluntary measure to

gain nearly two-thirds of the total

ACORN-recommended emission

reduction is very suspect. Throughout

the ACORN process, proponents of the

P2 approach informed the officials that

P2 is purely ‘‘market driven’’ and would

carry no cost to anyone except the cost

to local government for staffing a P2

office to provide education and support

for P2 efforts. The commenter believes

that this supposition can not be

supported.

It is obvious that market driven P2 has

been available in the area’s history to

cure the area’s air pollution problem. If

P2 can be achieved at no cost to

industry, it would have already been in

place for economic reasons. The fact is

that P2 is little more than a hope, wish,

and dream for most of the area’s

industry and it will require substantial

capital investment for whomever takes

this path.

The commenter believes EPA’s

reliance on a voluntary emission

reduction program in an area with a

history of resisting air pollution controls

does not comply with the intent of the

CAA. The commenter believes that P2

should be backed up with a requirement

for the implementation of RACT for

sources that fail to make a good faith

effort to reduce their emissions using P2

techniques. The imposition of RACT

gives industries incentives to implement

P2 techniques.

Response

P2 programs are designed to reduce

emissions through process changes that

should be economically advantageous to

the industries, such as process changes

to reduce waste and the need for raw

materials, lowering production costs. If

P2 programs are successfully

established, some industries should take

advantage of the programs from an

economic standpoint.

The EPA has never placed significant

reliance on voluntary programs in areas

with continuing air quality problems

and ozone classifications requiring

definitive emission controls under the

CAA. Nonetheless, the EPA has seen the

merit in promoting P2 programs as

supplements to other controls. Since P2

programs are intended to provide

industries with economic incentives to

reduce emissions, one can assume that

the industries will adopt such programs

if the programs are implementable and

well understood by the industrial

representatives. P2 implementation does

require significant efforts to document

P2 approaches and to properly educate

the applicable industries. Significant

up-front investments may be needed,

but should result in long term payoffs

through lowered production costs. EPA

acknowledges that such efforts may not

be easy or quickly embraced by the

industries.

Again, as already indicated above,

RACT cannot be required in the

Evansville area given the area’s marginal

ozone classification.

7. Comment

With regard to the proposal of

ACORN relative to paint spray guns, a

commenter notes that, according to local

automobile refinishing shop owners, the

proposal to require HVLP painting guns

is virtually unenforceable. The

commenter believes that the proposed

ordinance will simply require such

establishments to have only one HVLP

apparatus in each of the refinishing

shops with no requirement for the

complete conversion of the painting

operations.

Response

The EPA has been informed by IDEM

that the State of Indiana is in the

process of developing a regulation to

require the use of HVLP units in the

larger automobile refinishing shops. The

EPA sees no reason why the State would

be unable to produce a regulation

requiring the use of HVLP units for all

applicable coating operations. Naturally,

the State may wish to exclude smaller

shops from the application requirements

of such a rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64733

F. New Ozone Standard

1. Comment

Commenters question the need for a

redesignation now just prior to

promulgation of a new ozone standard

(this comment was prepared prior to the

July 18, 1997 promulgation of the

revised ozone standard). The

commenters question whether this is to

permit new industries to develop before

the new standard goes into effect.

Response

The designation being considered in

this action is pertinent to only the onehour standard. Designations for the

eight-hour standard will be made in the

future in accordance with the process

for designating areas under the new

standard and this redesignation

rulemaking action has no relevance for

that future designation action.

Moreover, it would be inappropriate to

maintain the one-hour nonattainment

designation, if no longer applicable, on

the assumption that the Evansville area

might be designated as nonattainment

for the eight-hour ozone standard in the

future.

2. Comment

A commenter states that, taken within

the context of the proposed (now

promulgated) ozone standard, it does

not make sense to proceed with the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County

under the one-hour standard. It

appeared to the commenter that the EPA

was proposing the redesignation so that

it could occur prior to the

implementation of the new ozone

standard, providing the EPA with an

additional three years of time before

strict enforcement of whatever changes

in the ozone standard are made. The

commenter notes that this undermines

the efforts of local citizens to clean up

the air quality in the area.

Response

As noted above, the original one-hour

ozone standard and the new eight-hour

ozone standard are considered to be

separable in terms of requiring emission

controls and determining the area’s

attainment status. To do otherwise

would result in the Evansville area

being arbitrarily treated differently than

other areas in the country which are

currently attaining the one-hour

standard or for which the one-hour

standard may be revoked on the basis of

air quality data attaining the one-hour

standard (see discussion below

regarding the revocation of the one-hour

standard).

G. Toxics and Health Concerns

1. Comment

A resident, who lives close to the

Alcoa facility in Warrick County,

believes that the toxic emissions from

this company are very harmful and

detrimental to the local environment,

including causing pitting and dark spots

on building surfaces. The commenter

believes that many residents in the area

suffer with breathing problems.

Response

The EPA is very concerned about

breathing problems caused by toxic

emissions and other air pollutants. It is

recommended that the commenter

contact both EPA and IDEM with

specific information on this problem to

allow further considerations.

Nonetheless, it should be noted here

that the issue at hand is the ozone

attainment status of Vanderburgh

County. The EPA is unaware of any data

linking air pollutant emissions from the

Alcoa facility with an ozone standard

violation in the Evansville area

(including Warrick County) during the 3

most recent years.

2. Comment

A commenter notes that evidence of

increased respiratory distress is

mounting in area residents and that

there is evidence that air quality is often

the cause of a sickness that crosses the

socioeconomic and age related

population strata. This sickness is

referred to by area doctors as the

‘‘Evansville Crud,’’ an upper respiratory

malady that depletes body energy and

causes coughing and fluid drainage from

the respiratory system.

Response

EPA acknowledges that air pollution

may be causing some respiratory

problems in residents in this area. It is

not clear that these problems are due to

the impacts of ozone, which is the focus

of this rulemaking. The commenter

provides no data linking elevated ozone

concentrations to the observed health

problems. The EPA sees no reason to

delay the redesignation based on the

summarized health problems. The

commenter is encouraged to work with

health experts and IDEM to determine

the actual pollutants responsible for the

health problems and to determine the

appropriate emission control measures.

3. Comment

A commenter believes that EPA and

IDEM have failed to demonstrate that

the respiratory health of Vanderburgh

County residents has improved due to

improved air quality. Although the

commenter realizes that such a test is

not required by the CAA, the

commenter believes that, since the

ozone standard is health-based, some

criteria for assessing the impact of

unhealthful air on a population could be

warranted in lieu of proof that

emissions have been reduced. Since it is

clear that emissions have not been

reduced in and around Evansville, some

quantitative criteria based on health

impacts should be offered to justify the

redesignation to attainment.

Response

A redesignation action requires EPA

to determine that certain statutory

criteria have been met. EPA has made

those findings here, including the

finding that the one-hour standard has

been attained. Monitoring attainment of

the one-hour standard is an indicator of

improved air quality. Given that the

ozone monitors in the Evansville area,

including all ozone monitors in Posey,

Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties,

have indicated attainment of the ozone

standard, one can conclude, based on

the one-hour standard, that ozone levels

are lower now than in 1988 or 1994,

when violations of the one-hour

standard were monitored in the area.

4. Comment

A commenter notes that, if the EPA

and IDEM had done their jobs eight

years ago when Vanderburgh County

went out of compliance with the ozone

standard in 1988, her daughter and

thousands of others may not have

developed asthma in the first place. She

notes that RACT on industrial sources

should have been put in place under the

pre-1990 Clean Air Act and thinks that,

if this had been done, air quality would

have been better by now. She thinks

EPA and IDEM have stalled in enforcing

emission controls to benefit polluting

industries and only respond favorably to

the wishes of the industries.

Response

The EPA and IDEM have sought to

comply with the current requirements of

the CAA. Because of the time involved

in redesignating areas to nonattainment

of the standard, and the additional time

for the State to develop air quality plans

and regulations and to implement those

regulations, RACT rules could not have

been adopted until well after the 1990

revision of the CAA. The revised CAA

set forth limited emission control

requirements for marginal ozone

nonattainment areas, such as

Vanderburgh County, eliminating the

requirement to implement new RACT

rules in this area. In any event,

Vanderburgh County is currently in
64734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

attainment of the standard and qualifies

for redesignation to attainment.

5. Comment

A commenter asserts that the EPA is

not using current data in the

determination of the amount of

pollution in the area. The commenter

questions what EPA thinks the TRI

database is for, and wants to know if the

EPA is familiar with the thousands of

journals which are reporting alarming

increases in many diseases related to

pollution. The commenter asserts that

EPA and IDEM are violating the rights

of citizens by not cleaning up pollution.

Response

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)

database identifies the sources and

emission rates of known hazardous

compounds and heavy metals. Only to

the extent that some of these

compounds are VOC does the TRI

database provide information relating to

ozone precursor emissions. TRI-based

VOC emissions are only a subset of the

total VOC emissions involved in the

formation of ozone. Generally, TRI–VOC

emissions are already incorporated into

the larger ozone-related VOC emission

inventories maintained by the State and

by the EPA.

The EPA is aware of the growing

number of journal entries indicating

adverse health effects due to various

pollutants. Several thousand articles

and study reports were reviewed in

conjunction with the recent tightening

revisions of the ozone and fine

particulate standards. Within the

constraints of the CAA, the EPA is

taking action to provide additional

protection for individuals subject to the

harmful effects of air pollution.

Nonetheless, the issue here is whether

or not Vanderburgh County (and its

downwind environs) continues to

violate the one-hour ozone standard.

The data indicate that this is not the

case. With regard to the tightened

standards, the Evansville area will be

independently evaluated for attainment

of these standards in the future. If the

area is found to be violating one or both

of these standards, additional emission

control measures may be warranted at

that time.

H. Miscellaneous Comments

1. Comment

A commenter contends that the

maintenance plan seems to lack

concrete plans of action and is not

legally enforceable. The commenter

doubts the merits of such a plan and

fails to see how it will protect the

public’s health from future ozone

standard violations.

Response

The maintenance plan outlines the

procedures that the State will take if a

future violation of the one-hour ozone

standard occurs or if the VOC emission

total in Vanderburgh County increases

to a level exceeding the 1990 attainment

year level (see a discussion later in this

rulemaking for possible impacts of an

anticipated revocation of the one-hour

ozone standard). In the event of an

ozone standard violation, it is clear that

the State, within one year of the

determination of the ozone standard

violation, must select additional

emission reduction controls sufficient to

prevent future ozone standard

violations. The maintenance plan lists a

number of emission control measures

that the State will consider for

implementation and elimination of the

air quality problem. The State is free to

select the appropriate emission control

strategy, but must demonstrate to the

EPA that the emission controls will be

adequate to prevent future ozone

standard violations, and must adopt

such measure or measures within the

year following the confirmation of the

ozone standard violation. In the case of

emission increases above the attainment

year level, the State must initiate a

study to determine if additional

emission controls are needed to prevent

a future ozone standard violation. EPA

views these commitments to be

adequate and enforceable.

2. Comment

A commenter states that putting

Vanderburgh County on the attainment

list is ‘‘false advertisement.’’ This

implies that Vanderburgh County could

continue ignoring its air quality

problems. Controlling emissions from

gasoline and use of low pressure paint

shop sprayers may be well and good,

but industry should also clean up its

emissions. These emissions reductions

should occur throughout the entire

region.

Response

The regional control component of

this comment has been dealt with in

responses to regional control comments

above.

Again, it is noted that the CAA does

not require RACT controls in the

Evansville area. This is due to the fact

that Vanderburgh County has been

classified as a marginal ozone

nonattainment area.

Redesignating Vanderburgh County to

attainment is not ‘‘false advertisement,’’

since it recognizes the improvement in

ozone levels in the Evansville area. It

should also be noted that the

redesignation does not send the signal

that the State or local officials can

simply forget about the impacts of the

area’s emissions on ozone levels. The

State will need to continue to track

ozone levels and VOC emissions in the

area and will need to take corrective

actions if future ozone standard

violations occur or if future VOC

emissions climb above attainment

levels.

3. Comment

A commenter notes that neither IDEM

nor EPA has done anything to require

further NOX emission reductions

(beyond those required under title IV of

the CAA) from coal-fired electric power

plants both in the immediate region as

well as in downwind areas in southern

Illinois and Kentucky.

Response

This is the purpose of the OTAG–

related SIP–call referenced in the

proposed rulemaking and earlier in this

final rulemaking. To reduce the impacts

of ozone and ozone precursor transport,

such NOX emission reductions will be

required in the near future. As noted

above, on November 7, 1997 EPA

published a proposed rulemaking that

will require States in the eastern half of

the United States to reduce NOX

emissions to achieve prescribed NOX

budgets. The State of Indiana was an

active participant in the OTAG process,

which led to the NOX emission budget

proposed for Indiana.

IV. Ozone Standard Revocation

On July 16, 1997, President Clinton

concurred with the EPA on the revision

of the ozone standard to an eight-hour

averaged level. As part of that

concurrence, President Clinton

requested the EPA to revoke the onehour standard for areas currently

attaining the ozone standard. This

standard revocation was to occur within

a 90 day period following the

concurrence (the standard revocation

had not occurred at the time of the

publication of the current action).

The revocation, as planned by the

EPA, will consider 1994 through 1996

data in selecting appropriate areas for

revocation.

Based on 1994 through 1996 data,

Vanderburgh County may be subject to

revocation of the one-hour standard.

If the revocation of the one-hour

standard becomes effective for

Vanderburgh County, the attainment

status designation for this area will be

replaced by a notification of the

revocation of the one-hour standard.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64735

Future rulemaking and guidance on

EPA’s transition policy (policy

addressing the transition from the

application of the one-hour ozone

standard to the eight-hour ozone

standard) will address the implications

of this standard revocation for the area’s

maintenance plan and other ozonerelated emission control requirements.

V. Conclusions

None of the public comments

reviewed here warrants reversal of

EPA’s proposed approval of the

redesignation of Vanderburgh County to

attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard and approval of the State’s

maintenance plan for this area as a SIP

revision. Monitoring of ozone for the

1995 through 1997 period in

Vanderburgh County and its adjoining

Posey and Warrick Counties shows no

violations of the one-hour ozone

standard, demonstrating that this area

has attained the one-hour ozone

standard.

As noted above, on July 18, 1997 the

EPA promulgated a revised eight-hour

standard for ozone. The current

rulemaking makes no judgments

regarding the attainment of the revised

ozone standard in the Evansville area.

The attainment status of this area

relative to the new ozone standard will

be addressed in a future rulemaking.

VI. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA is approving the ozone

redesignation request and the ozone

maintenance plan submitted by Indiana

on November 4, 1993 as they apply to

Vanderburgh County. EPA is, therefore,

redesignating Vanderburgh County to

attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard. The EPA has completed its

analysis of the redesignation request

and SIP revision request based on a

review of the materials presented and in

consideration of the current, 1995

through 1997, ozone data in the area,

including ozone monitoring data in

Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick

Counties.

In taking this action, the EPA has

taken into consideration all relevant

public comments on the March 14, 1997

proposed rulemaking. None of the

public comments were found to form

the basis for a reversal of the proposed

approval.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

sections 603 and 604. Alternatively,

EPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

EPA certifies that the approval of the

redesignation request will not affect a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated here does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by February 9, 1998. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See Section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Volatile Organic Compounds, and

Nitrogen dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 52.777 is amended by

adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:

§ 52.777 Control Strategy: Photochemical

oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *

(s) Approval—On November 4, 1993,

the State of Indiana submitted a

maintenance plan and a request that

Vanderburgh County be redesignated to

attainment of the one-hour National

Ambient Air Quality Standard for
64736 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ozone. The redesignation request and

maintenance plan meet the

redesignation requirements in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990. The redesignation

meets the Federal requirements of

section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as

a revision to the Indiana ozone State

Implementation Plan.

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.315 the ozone table is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘Evansville Area: Vanderburgh County’’

to read as follows:

§ 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

INDIANA—OZONE

Designated areas

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

* * * * * * *

Evansville area: Vanderburgh

County.

December 9, 1997 ........................ Attainment.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–32188 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5933–6]

RIN 2060–AC28

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ethylene

Oxide Commercial Sterilization and

Fumigation Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: Today’s action suspends, on

an interim final basis, the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Ethylene Oxide

Commercial Sterilization and

Fumigation Operations (EO NESHAP).

The suspension allows affected sources

subject to the EO NESHAP to defer

compliance with the NESHAP for one

year until December 6, 1998. This action

does not change the level of the

standards or the intent of the NESHAP

promulgated in 1994.

DATES: This action is effective December

4, 1997.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act (Act), judicial review of this

final action is available only by filing a

petition for review in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit within 60 days of today’s

publication of this interim final rule.

Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the

requirements that are the subject of

today’s document may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–88–

03, category VIII Amendments,

containing information considered by

the EPA in developing this rule, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except for

Federal holidays, at the EPA’s Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, room M1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 260–7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying. This

docket also contains information

considered by the EPA in proposing and

promulgating the original EO NESHAP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning applicability

and rule determinations, contact the

appropriate EPA regional or Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA) representative:

Region I: Greg Roscoe, Air Programs

Enforcement Office Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region I, JFK Federal Building (SEA),

Boston, MA 02203, Telephone number

(617) 565–3221

Region II: Kenneth Eng, Air

Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY

10007, Telephone number (212) 637–

4080, Fax number (212) 637–3998

Region III: Walter K. Wilkie, U.S.

EPA, Region III (3AT12), 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107,

Telephone number (215) 566–2150, Fax

number (215) 566–2114

Region IV: Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region

IV (AR–4), 100 Alabama Street, SW,

Atlanta, GA 30303–3104, Telephone

number (404) 562–9131, Fax number

(404) 562–9095

Region V: Howard Caine (AE–17J),

U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, Telephone

number (312) 353–9685, Fax number

(312) 353–8289

Region VI: Sandra A. Cotter (6EN–

AT), U.S. EPA, Region VI (6PD–R), 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733,

Telephone number (214) 665–7347, Fax

number (214) 665–7446

Region VII: Bill Peterson, U.S. EPA,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101, Telephone

number (913) 551–7881

Region VIII: Heather Rooney, U.S.

EPA, Region VIII (8ART–AP), 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202–

2405, Telephone number (303) 312–

6971, Fax number (303) 312–6826

Region IX: Christine Vineyard, U.S.

EPA, Region IX (Air–4), 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone number (415) 744–1197

Region X: Chris Hall, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ–107), U.S. EPA, Region

X, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA

98101–9797, Telephone number (206)

553–1949 or (800) 424–4372 x1949

OECA: Julie Tankersley, U.S. EPA,

OECA (2223A), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460, Telephone

number (202) 564–7002, Fax number

(202) 564–0050.

For information concerning the

analyses performed in developing this

interim final rule, contact Mr. David

Markwordt, Policy, Planning and

Standards Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–0837 or fax

number (919) 541–0942. For

information concerning the accident