[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64725-64736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32188]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN77-2; FRL-5933-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve an ozone maintenance 
plan submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request 
and a redesignation request submitted by the State of Indiana for the 
purpose of redesignating Vanderburgh County (Evansville) from marginal 
nonattainment to attainment of the one-hour ozone national ambient air 
quality standard. Besides being based on information contained in the 
State's redesignation request, the approval of this redesignation 
request is also based on review of the ozone data for this area over 
the three most recent years, 1995 through 1997. EPA finds the State's 
maintenance plan and redesignation request to be acceptable and notes 
that, based on the most recent three years of ozone data, the area is 
currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard. This action does not 
address the area's attainment of the recently promulgated eight-hour 
ozone standard, which will be addressed in future rulemaking.

DATES: This action is effective December 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's redesignation request and maintenance 
plan, EPA's analyses (technical support documents and proposed and 
final rulemakings), and public comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking 
are available for inspection at the following address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is 
recommended that you telephone Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 before 
visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were 
enacted. Public Law 101-549, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Pursuant 
to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), 
Vanderburgh County, Indiana was designated as nonattainment for the 
one-hour ozone standard and was classified as marginal (see 56 FR 56694 
(November 6, 1991)).
    The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted 
an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan as a SIP revision 
for Vanderburgh County on November 4, 1993. On July 8, 1994 (59 FR 
35044), EPA published a direct final rulemaking approving the 
redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone 
standard. On the same day, a proposed rulemaking was also published in 
the Federal Register which established a 30-day public comment period 
for the redesignation approval and noted that, if adverse comments were 
received regarding the final rulemaking, EPA would withdraw the direct 
final rulemaking and would address the comments through a revised final 
rulemaking. EPA received adverse comments, and published a withdrawal 
of the direct final rulemaking on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44040).
    Subsequent to the July 8, 1994 direct final rulemaking, EPA was 
informed by IDEM that a possible violation of the ozone standard had 
been monitored at a privately-operated industrial site owned by the 
Aluminum Corporation of America (Alcoa) in Warrick County. Warrick 
County (designated as attainment for ozone) adjoins Vanderburgh County 
to the east. Because Warrick County can be considered to be a nearby 
area downwind of Vanderburgh County on certain days, EPA questioned 
whether the monitored violation in Warrick County should be considered 
in any subsequent rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County. IDEM indicated its intent to investigate the high ozone values 
and requested that EPA not act on the redesignation request pending the 
outcome of that technical investigation. IDEM completed its 
investigation and submitted the results to the EPA on June 5, 1995. 
IDEM's investigation concluded that the Alcoa peak ozone concentrations 
were unusual during the period of the monitored ozone standard 
violation, were biased high (relative to peak ozone concentrations at 
other area monitoring sites during the May through June, 1994 time 
period), and were not

[[Page 64726]]

representative of the Vanderburgh County nonattainment area peak ozone 
levels. IDEM recommended that EPA proceed with the redesignation of 
Vanderburgh County to attainment so that the maintenance plan could 
become federally enforceable.
    Due to the large extent of additional data received after the July 
8, 1994 direct final rulemaking and the extent of public comments on 
that rulemaking, EPA concluded that it was appropriate to repropose 
rulemaking for this redesignation action. EPA evaluated all available 
information, including public comments on the July 8, 1994 direct final 
rulemaking, and proposed to approve the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County to attainment of the ozone standard on March 14, 1997 (62 FR 
12137).
    Based on the available information at the time of the March 14, 
1997 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to take final action approving 
the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment if any of the 
following three events occurred: (1) If Warrick County attained the 
ozone standard prior to final rulemaking action by the EPA on the 
Vanderburgh County redesignation; (2) if EPA determined that 
Vanderburgh County did not significantly contribute to an ozone 
nonattainment problem in Warrick County; or (3) if the EPA determined 
that the information available is not sufficient to determine whether 
or not Vanderburgh County significantly contributed to a nonattainment 
problem in Warrick County. EPA also solicited public comment on whether 
the 1994 Warrick County ozone standard violation data should be 
excluded from consideration of the Vanderburgh County ozone attainment 
status.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, replacing the one-hour, 0.12 parts 
per million standard with an eight-hour, 0.08 parts per million 
standard (62 FR 38856). EPA is in the process of developing guidance 
and proposed rules to implement the new ozone standard based on a 
Presidential Directive signed on July 16, 1997, and published in the 
Federal Register on July 18, 1997. Today's action is a redesignation to 
attainment for Vanderburgh County for the one-hour, 0.12 parts per 
million standard and approval of the maintenance plan as it relates to 
the one-hour standard only. EPA's decision to redesignate Vanderburgh 
County to attainment and to approve the maintenance plan as a SIP 
revision is based on the requirements of section 107 of the Act and 
existing EPA policy and guidance as they pertain to the one-hour 
standard. Today's decision does not in any way make a determination 
regarding Vanderburgh County's attainment status for the newly 
promulgated eight-hour standard. Decisions regarding the attainment 
status of areas for the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS will be made by EPA 
at a later date.

II. Current Air Quality

    A violation of the one-hour, 0.12 parts per million ozone standard 
occurs in an area when the annual average number of expected daily 
exceedances of the ozone standard exceeds 1.0 at any site in the area 
based on the most recent 3 years of ozone data. Therefore, the 
condition for a violation of the ozone standard would generally require 
that more than 3 exceedances of the ozone standard be monitored during 
the 3 most recent years of monitoring at any site in the area.
    To review the ozone data for possible ozone standard violations, 
one must consider the defined ozone season for the area. The ozone 
season is that portion of the year when one may expect relatively high 
ozone concentrations exceeding the standard. Outside of this period, 
ozone standard exceedances are rarely or never recorded. The 
calculation of expected ozone standard exceedance rates takes into 
account the potential for ozone standard exceedances on days during the 
ozone season with invalid or missing data. For the State of Indiana, 
including the Evansville area, the ozone season is defined in 40 CFR 
Part 52 to be April through September.
    Review of current ozone data for the period of 1995 through 1997 
for the Evansville area, including Vanderburgh, Posey, and Warrick 
Counties, shows that the one-hour ozone standard has not been violated 
in the area during the most recent 3 years. Only a single exceedance of 
the one-hour ozone standard was monitored in the area during this 3-
year period: 0.131 parts per million, recorded at the Booneville site 
in Warrick County in 1995. IDEM, in an October 3, 1997 letter to the 
EPA, confirmed that there were no current ozone standard violations in 
the area and that the ozone data for the area through September, 1997 
were quality assured. The October 3, 1997 letter listed the four 
highest daily one-hour ozone concentrations at all ozone monitoring 
sites in the Evansville area (including those in Posey, Vanderburgh, 
and Warrick Counties) during each year for the 1995 through 1997 
period, confirming the lack of ozone standard violations in the area 
during this period.
    Based on the current ozone monitoring data, it has been determined 
that the ozone standard has been attained in the Evansville area. As 
noted in the proposed rulemaking (62 FR 12138), this, along with 
approval of Indiana's maintenance plan and the State having met the 
redesignation requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, forms 
the basis for final approval of IDEM's redesignation request for 
Vanderburgh County. It should be noted that the lack of an ozone 
standard violation for the period of 1995 through 1997 moots the issues 
surrounding the ozone standard violation monitored in 1994 at the Alcoa 
site.

III. Responses to Public Comments

    EPA received 20 sets of comments on the March 14, 1997 proposed 
rulemaking, including 89 individual comments with significant overlap 
(the comments have been grouped into several general categories and are 
addressed below in summary form). All of these comment sets contained 
comments generally critical of EPA's proposed approval of the 
redesignation or of the proposed technical basis for the approval. The 
following discussion addresses the comments with one general exception. 
Those comments addressing EPA's treatment of the 1994 Alcoa ozone 
standard violation or emission contributions to that standard violation 
are not generally addressed, since those comments are rendered moot by 
the 1995 through 1997 monitored ozone data demonstrating attainment of 
the standard at the Alcoa site and at other sites in the Evansville 
area as a whole.

A. Air Quality and Designation Timing

1. Comment
    Several commenters note that EPA and IDEM failed to redesignate 
Vanderburgh County to nonattainment in 1988 or 1989 following a 
violation of the ozone standard in the 1986 through 1989 time period. 
The commenters note that, had EPA or IDEM done so, Vanderburgh County 
would have been subject to stationary source Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) requirements under the pre-1990 CAA.
Response
    It is true that a monitor in Vanderburgh County recorded a 
violation of the one-hour ozone standard during the 1987-1989 time 
period. The decisive ozone standard exceedance was recorded in 1989 and 
was not reported in quality assured form to the EPA until the last half 
of 1989,

[[Page 64727]]

in keeping with quality assurance and data reporting requirements.
    During 1990, EPA was considering how to address the new ozone 
standard violation in the Evansville area. Under the CAA prior to its 
1990 revision, EPA could not unilaterally redesignate an area to 
nonattainment without an initiating request from the State containing 
the area. EPA could, however, request a SIP revision under section 110 
of the CAA to address an air quality problem despite the lack of a 
nonattainment designation. Under section 110 of the CAA, this ``SIP-
call'' can require the State to address the problem in a timely manner, 
but cannot prescribe specific measures, such as the adoption of RACT 
rules, which can only be required in areas specifically designated as 
nonattainment.
    Before a SIP-call could be used in the Evansville area, the CAA was 
revised. Under section 182 of the revised CAA, Vanderburgh County was 
classified as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone. Under section 
182(a) of the revised CAA, sources located in marginal ozone 
nonattainment areas are not subject to new RACT requirements (sources 
in marginal nonattainment areas are subject only to correction of 
existing RACT regulations). It should also be noted that the SIP-call 
process would have extended well past the November 15, 1990 adoption 
time of the CAA revisions.
2. Comment
    A commenter concurs with EPA's proposed rule that, if no ozone 
standard violation is monitored in Vanderburgh County or in its 
downwind environs during the 1995 through 1997 time period, the Clean 
Air Act would allow Vanderburgh County to be redesignated to attainment 
of the ozone standard. The commenter believes, however, that no action 
should be taken to redesignate Vanderburgh County until all of the data 
have been quality assured, demonstrating that there have been no ozone 
standard violations through 1997 and through the entire 1995-1997 
period. To do otherwise would be premature and probably illegal. Other 
commenters also oppose the redesignation of Vanderburgh County until 
all of the data in the region, including Warrick County, demonstrate 
monitored attainment of the ozone standard.
Response
    As noted above, on October 3, 1997, IDEM confirmed that the 1997 
ozone data for Vanderburgh, Posey, and Warrick Counties had been 
quality assured through September (the end of the defined ozone 
season). The 1995 through 1997 ozone data demonstrate that no violation 
of the ozone standard has occurred in the Evansville area, including in 
Posey and Warrick Counties, during the most recent 3 years.

B. Regional Air Quality Impacts

1. Comment
    Commenters note that industrial source emissions must be ``cleaned-
up'' in Vanderburgh County as well as in its surrounding counties 
before the area can be redesignated to attainment. The commenters 
believe that a regional ozone problem exists in the area. The 
commenters state that emission reductions in Vanderburgh County only 
would not be sufficient to address the regional ozone problem of the 
Evansville area (Vanderburgh, Gibson, Posey, and Warrick Counties).
Response
    As noted above, attainment of the ozone standard has been monitored 
in the entire area. This was accomplished without the implementation of 
a region-wide emission reduction program mandating controls beyond 
emission reductions already required in the area, such as those 
resulting from the implementation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission 
Control Program (FMVCP).
    With regard to the regional nature of the area's peak ozone 
concentrations, it should be noted that the Ozone Transport Assessment 
Group (OTAG) process has reached closure, with the participating States 
recommending a range of possible Oxides of Nitrogen (NO<INF>x</INF>) 
emission reduction requirements to the EPA. On November 7, 1997 (62 FR 
60318), the EPA proposed rulemaking that would require States to meet 
statewide NO<INF>X</INF> emission budgets. The implementation of 
requirements to attain the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to comply with the allowed 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission budget. These NO<INF>x</INF> emission 
reductions should reduce regional ozone levels.
    In addition, the commenters cite no policy requiring such a region-
wide emission reduction. Since Vanderburgh County is a marginal 
nonattainment area, the CAA does not require emission reductions over a 
larger region, such as a metropolitan statistical area.
2. Comment
    A commenter notes that, when the State was asked to put a monitor 
in Posey County in 1988, the State refused, saying that what happened 
in Vanderburgh County from an emissions control standpoint would also 
happen in the contiguous counties. The commenter believes that, in 
reality, the State only contemplated emission controls in Vanderburgh 
County, for which the nonattainment designation was imposed. The 
commenter believes that this restriction of emission controls was wrong 
given that emissions in surrounding counties exceed those in 
Vanderburgh County.
Response
    Based on Indiana's 1990 base year Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 
emissions inventory for the Evansville area, emissions of VOC in 
Vanderburgh County exceeded those from any of the surrounding counties. 
Based on this fact and the fact that, at the time of the designation of 
Vanderburgh County as nonattainment for ozone, the ozone standard 
violation was limited to Vanderburgh County, it was appropriate to 
assume that the emission control measures should focus on Vanderburgh 
County. In addition, since only Vanderburgh County was designated as 
nonattainment for ozone, it was reasonable to focus attention on 
emission controls there.
    The commenters provide no data showing that emissions of VOC in the 
surrounding counties, on a county-by-county basis or as an area total, 
exceed those in Vanderburgh County.
3. Comment
    A commenter notes that, in 1988, the commenter was assured by the 
State that, if Vanderburgh County was designated as nonattainment for 
ozone, all of the surrounding counties would be given the same 
designation. Only Vanderburgh County, however, was proposed for the 
nonattainment status. To the commenter, it appears that political and 
industrial interests in the counties surrounding Vanderburgh County 
were able to persuade the State to make only Vanderburgh County 
nonattainment. Meanwhile, EPA and IDEM have refused to discuss ozone 
precursor emission controls for the surrounding counties.
Response
    Designation of Vanderburgh County only and not the entire 
metropolitan area as nonattainment for ozone is

[[Page 64728]]

entirely consistent with the requirements for marginal nonattainment 
area designations under section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the CAA. IDEM acted 
within the requirements and limits of the CAA in selecting only 
Vanderburgh County as the marginal ozone nonattainment area. This 
decision was supported given that the ozone standard violation in the 
1987 through 1989 period was limited to Vanderburgh County, and that 
the VOC emissions of Vanderburgh County exceeded those of any of the 
surrounding counties at that time.
4. Comment
    A commenter states that, according to section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of 
the CAA, the State and the Administrator are required to find that an 
area is nonattainment if it does not meet (or contributes to ambient 
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) an air quality 
standard. The commenter believes that clearly Posey, Gibson, and 
Warrick County emissions contributed to the ozone standard violation 
that occurred in Vanderburgh County. The entire area should have been 
designated as nonattainment for ozone.
Response
    In addition to responses to similar comments above, it is noted 
that no modeling data or similar ozone production and transport 
analyses exist which would indicate that emissions from Posey, Gibson, 
and Warrick Counties contributed to the 1988-1989 ozone standard 
violation in Vanderburgh County. Until such data are made available, 
one can not draw this conclusion other than through speculation. Given 
the data available and the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of 
the CAA (this section of the CAA only defines minimum nonattainment 
area sizes for areas classified as serious or above for ozone, the 
State is given more discretion in selecting the size of nonattainment 
areas for areas classified as marginal or moderate nonattainment), EPA 
believes that the State of Indiana acted in keeping with the 
requirements of the CAA in selecting only Vanderburgh County as the 
nonattainment area.

C. Ozone Transport Assessment Group

1. Comment
    Commenters question the need for the EPA to rely on OTAG-related 
emission reductions (expected to be required through future 
rulemaking), since these emission reductions are not yet tangible and 
are not sufficient to avoid ozone problems during hot summers. Reliance 
on ``possible'' future emission reductions from OTAG while ignoring the 
Alcoa ozone standard violation is incongruous and explains why poor air 
quality continues in the Evansville area.
Response
    Although EPA mentioned the potential benefits from OTAG-related 
emission reductions in the proposed rulemaking, it did not rely on 
these future emission reductions as a basis for the proposed 
redesignation of Vanderburgh County. The Evansville area has attained 
the ozone standard without these emission reductions. In addition, the 
State's maintenance plan for this area shows continued maintenance of 
the ozone standard without considering the impacts of these emission 
reductions.
    In discussing the OTAG-related emission reductions expected in the 
near future, the EPA was simply noting that these emission reductions 
would lower the background ozone concentrations in the Evansville area, 
further lowering the ozone concentrations in the area. Such decreases 
in ozone concentrations would act to reduce the risk of future 
violations of the one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards. The State of 
Indiana actively participated in the OTAG process and is expected to 
reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to comply with the resulting 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission budget. This NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions in the 
eastern half of the United States will result from the OTAG process. 
These emission reductions should also lower ozone levels in the 
Evansville area in the future, but are not being relied on to meet or 
to maintain the one-hour ozone standard in the Evansville area.

D. Source Growth and the Maintenance Plan

1. Comment
    Several commenters believe that the maintenance plan submitted with 
Indiana's redesignation request is outdated and should be updated to 
reflect the emission increases that have occurred or are expected to 
occur in the region as a result of source growth. The commenters note 
the source impacts of new sources, such as A.K. Steel, the Casino Aztar 
River Boat (indirect traffic growth), and the Toyota truck plant to be 
located in neighboring Gibson County. The commenters believe that these 
new sources lead to increases in population, vehicle miles traveled, 
and industrial emissions, invalidating the existing maintenance plan. 
The commenters state that EPA should review the maintenance plan in 
light of these new emissions and that the maintenance plan submitted in 
1993 is obsolete.
Response
    Although the maintenance plan was submitted in 1993, prior to the 
source growth noted by the commenters, and uses 1990 as the attainment 
base year, EPA sees no reason to disapprove the maintenance plan based 
on source growth in recent years. This conclusion is based on several 
reasons. First, despite any source growth, Vanderburgh County is 
currently attaining the ozone standard and has continuously attained 
the standard throughout the period during which the redesignation 
request has been pending. To the extent that the Alcoa monitor 
indicated nonattainment during this period, the nonattainment problem 
was not monitored in Vanderburgh County itself, but rather in 
neighboring Warrick County (current data shows that Warrick County is 
also

[[Page 64729]]

attaining the one-hour ozone standard). Therefore, the source growth 
has not prevented attainment of the standard in Vanderburgh County. 
Second, in the case of the future emissions from the Toyota truck 
plant, IDEM, through the source permit development process, has 
evaluated the ozone impacts of these emissions on the Evansville area, 
including potential impacts on critical ozone monitoring sites in 
Warrick County. The State has concluded that increased ozone precursor 
emissions from this facility will not cause an ozone standard violation 
at any of the monitoring sites. Finally, the maintenance plan submitted 
by IDEM contains provisions for addressing unexpected emission 
increases. As noted in the March 14, 1997 proposed rulemaking (62 FR 
12141), IDEM commits to periodically review area emissions and to 
conduct a review of the ozone impacts of increasing emissions if the 
VOC, NO<INF>X</INF>, or Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions in the area 
increase above the 1990 level. If the review indicates that the 
increased emissions have the potential to cause a violation of the 
ozone standard, IDEM would determine and adopt the emission controls 
needed to eliminate the potential air quality problem. Therefore, 
increasing emissions should not present a problem for maintenance of 
the ozone standard in this area as long as IDEM implements the 
maintenance plan.
    As additional insurance toward maintenance of the standard, it 
should be noted that, based on the adopted maintenance plan, if 
increasing emissions do cause a future violation of the standard, IDEM 
is committed to select emission control measures from the contingency 
measure list for implementation toward attainment of the ozone 
standard.
    Finally, it is noted that the commenters have presented no air 
quality analyses to demonstrate that the new sources (or indirect 
sources) in the area have the potential to cause future violations of 
the ozone standard. The EPA continues to find Indiana's maintenance 
plan to be acceptable.
2. Comment
    Because of recent source growth in Vanderburgh County and in 
Southwestern Indiana, a commenter believes that the EPA should not 
redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone standard 
until the State implements an equitable program that regulates 
hydrocarbon emissions (VOC emissions) from industrial sources.
Response
    Under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, EPA may not approve the 
redesignation of an area to attainment of a standard until the State 
has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and 
part D of the CAA. As stated in the proposed rulemaking for the 
Vanderburgh County redesignation, the EPA believes that the State of 
Indiana has complied with the requirements of the CAA as they pertain 
to the Evansville ozone situation (the CAA requirements, as noted 
above, do not require additional VOC emission controls for industrial 
sources in the Evansville area). In addition, as noted above, the area 
has attained the one-hour ozone standard without the implementation of 
additional VOC emission controls on industrial sources. Therefore, EPA 
has no basis for requiring additional emission controls on industrial 
sources.
3. Comment
    A commenter notes that he had expected the 1990 ozone nonattainment 
designation for Vanderburgh County to have resulted in emission 
reductions in the area. Instead of emission reductions, the commenter 
believes that the available information points to industrial and mobile 
source growth. The commenter believes that local economic development 
efforts have increased since Vanderburgh County became nonattainment 
for ozone with resulting increases in the number of polluting 
industries.
Response
    Responses to comments 1 and 2 of this subsection generally address 
this comment. With regard to the last point of the comment, there is no 
evidence that local economic development efforts have focused on 
attracting polluting industries to Vanderburgh County since Vanderburgh 
County became nonattainment for ozone. In fact, it should be noted that 
a Toyota truck plant has chosen to locate in Gibson County (an ozone 
attainment area) rather than in Vanderburgh County, where a larger 
labor force may be found. The nonattainment designation of Vanderburgh 
County, thus, may have been a factor in the location of this plant 
outside of Vanderburgh County. Therefore, the commenter's last point is 
not supported.
4. Comment
    Commenters note that EPA's and IDEM's use of 1990 as a base year 
for the maintenance plan is not an accurate reflection of the current 
conditions. The commenters state that Evansville's economy has 
significantly changed in the last few years, and it follows that ozone 
precursor emission data would be very different if data from 1994 and 
1995 were used for decision making in 1997 and 1998. The commenters 
believe that the current data should be used as a matter of policy and 
common sense.
Response
    As noted above, Indiana's maintenance plan for the Evansville area 
commits the State to periodically review the area's emissions and to 
take action if the VOC, NO<INF>X</INF>, or CO emissions in Vanderburgh 
County increase to levels above those in 1990. If emissions have 
significantly increased in a manner previously not accounted for in the 
maintenance plan, a periodic review of the emissions should detect this 
growth and should lead to corrective actions, if determined to be 
needed to prevent an ozone standard violation. In addition, it should 
be noted that the choice of 1990 as the maintenance demonstration base 
year was appropriate when IDEM prepared the redesignation request in 
1993.
    Also as noted above, the area is currently attaining the ozone 
standard. If emissions have increased to above-1990 levels, this would 
imply that emission levels higher than those in 1990 could be sustained 
without violating the ozone standard. Requiring the maintenance plan to 
be revised to incorporate the higher emissions would not result in a 
requirement for additional emission controls to compensate for the 
increase in emissions, but would allow one to assume that emissions 
exceeding the 1990 levels (assuming emissions have increased to levels 
above the 1990 levels) would not cause a violation of the one-hour 
ozone standard. The current maintenance plan encourages the State to 
maintain lower emissions in the area.
5. Comment
    A commenter notes that, according to recent press releases, several 
firms, including GE Plastics in Posey County and American Steel 
Extrusion in Vanderburgh County, have applied to IDEM for permits to 
increase VOC emissions with no offsets from other sources as required 
by the Act.
Response
    This is not an issue relevant to the redesignation at hand, but, 
instead, is relevant to new source review requirements. The commenters 
should address this issue through comments on the new source permits 
when they are reviewed under Indiana's source

[[Page 64730]]

permitting procedures. Indiana allows for public review of such new 
source permits.
    In addition, if the emissions in the area do increase as result of 
the source permit revisions, IDEM would have to take these emission 
increases into account under the periodic emissions review covered by 
the maintenance plan. If the emissions increases are determined to have 
a potential to cause a future ozone standard violation, the State would 
have to activate emission control measures to mitigate the problem.
    Finally, it should be noted that, since Vanderburgh County is being 
redesignated to attainment for ozone, new sources will not be required 
to obtain future offsets for new source growth.
6. Comment
    A commenter notes that the EPA has failed to meet the tests 
required under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. The commenter 
believes that the EPA has erred in not meeting the test of section 
107(d)(3)(E)(i) since there is a current (1994) violation of the ozone 
standard in the Evansville area. The EPA has also erred in not meeting 
the test of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), which sets the requirement that 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions be shown to be 
responsible for the observed improvement in air quality. The commenter 
questions how the EPA can make a declaration of the connection between 
emission reductions and air quality given that no SIP has ever been put 
into place for the Evansville area as was required by the Clean Air Act 
when Vanderburgh County was designated as nonattainment for ozone.
    The commenter notes that during the years of 1988 through 1993, 
when the area was first recommended for redesignation to attainment, 
the only reductions in ozone precursors came about as a result of a 
serious economic slump. Several VOC emitters shut down, resulting in 
the improved air quality observed. As soon as the local economy 
rebounded, monitors in the area again showed exceedances of the 
standard, including the Warrick County ozone standard violation.
    The commenter notes that, in the past several years, there has been 
a large economic development, which will cause further air quality 
deterioration. The Toyota truck plant in Gibson County has been 
permitted to emit 3,490 tons of VOC per year just seven miles north of 
Vanderburgh County. The General Electric facility in Posey County has 
undergone substantial growth. A soybean processing plant is scheduled 
for construction in Posey County that will emit as much as 1,400 tons 
of VOC per year. In addition, in Posey County, the Countrymark Refinery 
is increasing emissions to near-capacity levels.
    In Warrick County, the Alcoa facility has increased emissions 
significantly. In addition, a new cold rolled steel facility (A.K. 
Steel) is under construction with plans to add a hot rolled mill in the 
next phase of expansion.
    Within Vanderburgh County, power plants which operated at limited 
capacity are gearing toward total capacity operation due to the 
deregulation of the electric utility industry. The Evansville area 
sports the largest concentration of coal-fired power plants in the 
United States, with 3 of the top 10 plants in the United States located 
within this area.
    The Casino Aztar River Boat has led to significantly higher vehicle 
traffic within the last year. In addition, growth in the retail sector 
during the last two years has led to significant traffic growth.
    All of these facts concerning source growth dispute any EPA 
declaration that reductions in ozone precursors have taken place in 
this area.
Response
    At the time IDEM submitted the redesignation request in 1993, VOC 
and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions shows increases to levels exceeding the 
1990 levels, IDEM has committed to initiate a study of the impact of 
the emissions increase on air quality and to take action in terms of 
additional emission controls if the analyses indicate the emission 
increases have a potential to cause a future ozone standard violation. 
Therefore, the maintenance plan contains safeguards against the impacts 
of unexpected emission increases, and the EPA sees no reason at this 
time to disapprove the maintenance plan on the basis of any recent 
emission increases.
    It is noted that the maintenance plan did assume some future growth 
in emissions would occur as a result of changes in the economy and, 
nonetheless, demonstrated maintenance of the ozone standard in 
Vanderburgh County for 10 years into the future. Moreover, despite any 
recent emission increases from new source growth, the 1995 through 1997 
ozone data demonstrate continuing attainment of the ozone standard in 
Vanderburgh County and current attainment of the ozone standard in 
surrounding counties. Although part of this attainment may be due to 
favorable meteorology, it must be noted that this attainment period 
includes 1995, a year particularly noted for meteorological conditions 
favorable to high ozone concentrations. Despite this, ozone standard 
exceedances were not prevalent in the Evansville area during this 
period (a single ozone standard exceedance of 0.131 parts per million 
was recorded at the Booneville site in 1995, with no other exceedances 
in the area). Obviously, the growth in VOC emissions did not contribute 
to an ozone standard violation in 1995 despite favorable meteorological 
conditions. Equally important, despite new source growth, no ozone 
standard exceedances were recorded in the area during the 1995 through 
1997 period. These observations argue against the concerns of the 
commenter regarding the impacts of new source growth.
    Although the emission increases resulting from source growth bear 
watching through the maintenance plan, the fact that these emission 
increases exist does not lead to the conclusion that the maintenance 
plan is flawed or should be disapproved.

E. Action Committee for Ozone Reduction Now

    The proposed rulemaking described a public forum process used in 
the Evansville area to select contingency measures for possible 
adoption and implementation. Although this public forum has resulted in 
the selection of possible emission control measures which may further 
improve ozone levels in the Evansville area, it should be noted that 
the State has not relied on these measures to attain the one-hour

[[Page 64731]]

standard, the EPA has not relied on these measures as a basis for its 
approval of Indiana's redesignation request for Vanderburgh County.
    The group formed to carry out the selection of possible control 
measures was given the title of the Action Committee for Ozone 
Reduction Now (ACORN). The following comments relate to EPA's 
discussion of ACORN and the selected emission control measures.
1. Comment
    A commenter notes that, through participation in the ACORN process, 
the following concerns may be raised with regard to the resulting 
emission control measures:
    a. There are no requirements for enforcement of the proposed 
emission reductions;
    b. The proposed emission reductions do not address the regional 
nature of the ozone problem in Vanderburgh County. The commenter 
believes that the high ozone levels monitored in Vanderburgh County may 
be attributed to ozone precursor emissions outside of Vanderburgh 
County; and,
    c. The proposed emission reductions do not address the ozone 
impacts of the area's expanding population, increasing traffic, and 
increasing industrial emissions.
Response
    The following addresses the three issues:
    a. The ACORN process, as discussed in the proposed rulemaking led 
to recommendations for the following four emission control measures: 
(1) High volume low pressure (HVLP) paint gun change outs for autobody 
refinishing and paint spraying operations; (2) Stage I gasoline vapor 
recovery during loading of underground storage tanks at gasoline 
service stations; (3) establishment of a pollution prevention and 
education task force; and (4) use of less polluting gasoline. To 
implement measures (1), (2), and (4) in an enforceable manner, the 
State must adopt the measures in the form of enforceable regulations. 
IDEM has informed the EPA that the State is in the process of adopting 
measures (1) and (2), and are giving further consideration to measure 
(4), which is not being processed for adoption at this time. 
Implementation and enforcement of the measures in the future will help 
maintain the ozone concentrations in the area at below-standard levels.
    The third measure, establishment of a pollution prevention and 
education task force, may not lead to specific regulations, but will 
probably lead to a list of suggested pollution prevention procedures. 
Since pollution prevention procedures may be applied to many sources 
and source categories, it is impossible for the State to develop 
emission control regulations for all or most source categories. The 
State, however, may take an active role in promoting the use of such 
procedures. It is not clear at this time whether the pollution 
prevention task force has actually been established or, if so, whether 
the task force has made specific recommendations for pollution 
prevention measures. In addition, it should be noted that this process 
may be community-based, with local residents and industries taking the 
lead rather than the State;
    b. See responses to comments in subsection B. above; and
    c. See responses to comments in subsection D. above.
2. Comment
    A commenter notes that, since Vanderburgh County was redesignated 
as nonattainment for ozone, no formal program was implemented to reduce 
ozone levels, and nothing has been done to implement the ACORN 
proposals.
Response
    As noted in the proposed rulemaking, since Vanderburgh County is 
classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area and since the area 
was not subject to RACT rule correction requirements or to vehicle 
inspection/maintenance program correction requirements, the State is 
not required by the CAA to develop new emission control regulations for 
this area. The State has met all requirements relevant to the marginal 
nonattainment status of this area.
    With regard to the implementation of the ACORN proposals, see the 
response above.
3. Comment
    A commenter notes that reliance on IDEM, local officials, and ACORN 
for local controls is unacceptable for several reasons. First, the 
ACORN proposals are minimal in scope and the ACORN process has broken 
down. Second, the ACORN emission reductions, if they occur, are 
voluntary pollution prevention techniques. Although the voluntary 
approach has been available in the past, industries have failed to 
reduce emissions. The commenter believes that the voluntary emission 
reductions must be backed by RACT requirements on any industry that 
fails to make a documented effort to reduce emissions.
Response
    The ACORN process has not broken down and has reached conclusion 
with the recommendation of the four emission control measures discussed 
above. These measures have the potential to produce significant 
emission reductions. Stage I emission controls, use of cleaner fuels, 
and use of HVLP spray guns have the potential to produce significant 
emission reductions if supported by State adopted regulations. 
Pollution prevention, if aggressively pursued and promoted, also has a 
potential for significant emission reductions. Regardless of the 
emission controls selected, the emission controls will be useful in 
offsetting the impacts of source growth and will lower the potential 
for future ozone standard exceedances. (These emission reductions will 
contribute toward attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard.)
    With regard to RACT, because of the marginal ozone nonattainment 
classification of Vanderburgh County and section 182(a) of the CAA, 
RACT is not required in Vanderburgh County. In addition, because of the 
attainment of the ozone standard during the 1995 through 1997 period, 
the implementation of RACT is not needed to attain the one-hour ozone 
standard.
4. Comment
    A commenter notes that EPA's proposed redesignation is loaded with 
supposition, hope, and wishes that the paper pushing of industries and 
ACORN will pay off in attaining and maintaining the standard. The 
proposed redesignation, however, misses the point of the CAA which is 
to improve the health of humans. No amount of wishing will change the 
ill health that local residents experience in the summer months, when 
industrial emissions are trapped by the meteorological inversions that 
are common in the area. Calling the area ``attainment'' will not reduce 
one pound of pollution and will hasten degradation of the region's air 
by allowing massive increases in pollution in the one county that is 
nonattainment.
Response
    The Clean Air Act, in part D, specifies the minimum requirements 
for State ozone control plans for various ozone classifications. The 
State of Indiana has met the requirements for marginal areas in 
Vanderburgh County. Given the 1995 through 1997 attainment of the ozone 
standard and the State's compliance with SIP requirements, Vanderburgh

[[Page 64732]]

County qualifies for the designation of attainment.
5. Comment
    While the commenter participated in the ACORN process and endorses 
the recommendations it has made, the commenter notes that it was the 
belief of the ACORN participants that the proposals that came out of 
the process would do little to actually reduce ozone precursors. In 
addition, nowhere in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking nor in its 
associated technical support document does the EPA offer any concrete 
evidence that the air quality will be improved to healthful levels as a 
result of the recommendations of ACORN, even if fully implemented.
    The commenter notes that ACORN provided only the ``lowest common 
denominator'' approach and offered a bare minimum emission control 
proposal on which the group could reach consensus. The commenter 
believes this allowed the industry to write its own regulations because 
the industrial sector of the ACORN group stifled the solutions offered 
by the citizen representatives.
    For EPA to claim that ACORN's recommendations reflect the desire of 
the community is dishonest. It was apparent to the commenter that ACORN 
was used by IDEM to achieve a no-action, minimal result that would 
satisfy the industry and appease the public.
Response
    As noted above, the 1995 through 1997 ozone data demonstrate that 
the Evansville area has attained the ozone standard without the 
implementation of the ACORN recommendations. EPA is not relying on the 
impacts of the ACORN-related controls to justify the redesignation of 
Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone standard. Nonetheless, it 
must also be noted that source growth is anticipated in this area. (EPA 
sees no data countering IDEM's source growth estimates for Vanderburgh 
County contained in the maintenance plan. Much of the large source 
growth has occurred outside of Vanderburgh County. The maintenance plan 
only deals with emission changes within Vanderburgh County. EPA does 
not require the State to consider source growth outside of the existing 
nonattainment area as part of the maintenance plan.) Although not yet 
quantified, it must be recognized that the ACORN measures, if 
implemented, have the potential to offset source growth impacts.
    Insufficient data are available to allow the EPA or IDEM to 
determine the full extent of the emission impacts of ACORN's 
recommendations. Until adopted regulations are in place and pollution 
prevention recommendations have been selected, it is impossible to 
determine all of the emission impacts. Nonetheless, assuming that 
emission control regulations are adopted, it must be concluded that the 
ACORN recommendations could lead to significant emission reductions.
    EPA has never stated that the ACORN recommendations represent the 
wishes of the entire public in the Evansville area. Since ACORN had 
wide representation from government, industry, and the public, it must 
be assumed that some people involved in the ACORN process may have 
raised some objections to the recommended emission control measures or 
may have recommended emission controls not finally selected. The 
indication that the ACORN recommendations are a consensus opinion 
implies some level of dissent on selected emission control measures as 
well as on the emission control measures not selected.
6. Comment
    A commenter notes that the reliance on Pollution Prevention (P2), 
if it is ever implemented, as a voluntary measure to gain nearly two-
thirds of the total ACORN-recommended emission reduction is very 
suspect. Throughout the ACORN process, proponents of the P2 approach 
informed the officials that P2 is purely ``market driven'' and would 
carry no cost to anyone except the cost to local government for 
staffing a P2 office to provide education and support for P2 efforts. 
The commenter believes that this supposition can not be supported.
    It is obvious that market driven P2 has been available in the 
area's history to cure the area's air pollution problem. If P2 can be 
achieved at no cost to industry, it would have already been in place 
for economic reasons. The fact is that P2 is little more than a hope, 
wish, and dream for most of the area's industry and it will require 
substantial capital investment for whomever takes this path.
    The commenter believes EPA's reliance on a voluntary emission 
reduction program in an area with a history of resisting air pollution 
controls does not comply with the intent of the CAA. The commenter 
believes that P2 should be backed up with a requirement for the 
implementation of RACT for sources that fail to make a good faith 
effort to reduce their emissions using P2 techniques. The imposition of 
RACT gives industries incentives to implement P2 techniques.
Response
    P2 programs are designed to reduce emissions through process 
changes that should be economically advantageous to the industries, 
such as process changes to reduce waste and the need for raw materials, 
lowering production costs. If P2 programs are successfully established, 
some industries should take advantage of the programs from an economic 
standpoint.
    The EPA has never placed significant reliance on voluntary programs 
in areas with continuing air quality problems and ozone classifications 
requiring definitive emission controls under the CAA. Nonetheless, the 
EPA has seen the merit in promoting P2 programs as supplements to other 
controls. Since P2 programs are intended to provide industries with 
economic incentives to reduce emissions, one can assume that the 
industries will adopt such programs if the programs are implementable 
and well understood by the industrial representatives. P2 
implementation does require significant efforts to document P2 
approaches and to properly educate the applicable industries. 
Significant up-front investments may be needed, but should result in 
long term payoffs through lowered production costs. EPA acknowledges 
that such efforts may not be easy or quickly embraced by the 
industries.
    Again, as already indicated above, RACT cannot be required in the 
Evansville area given the area's marginal ozone classification.
7. Comment
    With regard to the proposal of ACORN relative to paint spray guns, 
a commenter notes that, according to local automobile refinishing shop 
owners, the proposal to require HVLP painting guns is virtually 
unenforceable. The commenter believes that the proposed ordinance will 
simply require such establishments to have only one HVLP apparatus in 
each of the refinishing shops with no requirement for the complete 
conversion of the painting operations.
Response
    The EPA has been informed by IDEM that the State of Indiana is in 
the process of developing a regulation to require the use of HVLP units 
in the larger automobile refinishing shops. The EPA sees no reason why 
the State would be unable to produce a regulation requiring the use of 
HVLP units for all applicable coating operations. Naturally, the State 
may wish to exclude smaller shops from the application requirements of 
such a rule.

[[Page 64733]]

F. New Ozone Standard

1. Comment
    Commenters question the need for a redesignation now just prior to 
promulgation of a new ozone standard (this comment was prepared prior 
to the July 18, 1997 promulgation of the revised ozone standard). The 
commenters question whether this is to permit new industries to develop 
before the new standard goes into effect.
Response
    The designation being considered in this action is pertinent to 
only the one-hour standard. Designations for the eight-hour standard 
will be made in the future in accordance with the process for 
designating areas under the new standard and this redesignation 
rulemaking action has no relevance for that future designation action. 
Moreover, it would be inappropriate to maintain the one-hour 
nonattainment designation, if no longer applicable, on the assumption 
that the Evansville area might be designated as nonattainment for the 
eight-hour ozone standard in the future.
2. Comment
    A commenter states that, taken within the context of the proposed 
(now promulgated) ozone standard, it does not make sense to proceed 
with the redesignation of Vanderburgh County under the one-hour 
standard. It appeared to the commenter that the EPA was proposing the 
redesignation so that it could occur prior to the implementation of the 
new ozone standard, providing the EPA with an additional three years of 
time before strict enforcement of whatever changes in the ozone 
standard are made. The commenter notes that this undermines the efforts 
of local citizens to clean up the air quality in the area.
Response
    As noted above, the original one-hour ozone standard and the new 
eight-hour ozone standard are considered to be separable in terms of 
requiring emission controls and determining the area's attainment 
status. To do otherwise would result in the Evansville area being 
arbitrarily treated differently than other areas in the country which 
are currently attaining the one-hour standard or for which the one-hour 
standard may be revoked on the basis of air quality data attaining the 
one-hour standard (see discussion below regarding the revocation of the 
one-hour standard).

G. Toxics and Health Concerns

1. Comment
    A resident, who lives close to the Alcoa facility in Warrick 
County, believes that the toxic emissions from this company are very 
harmful and detrimental to the local environment, including causing 
pitting and dark spots on building surfaces. The commenter believes 
that many residents in the area suffer with breathing problems.
Response
    The EPA is very concerned about breathing problems caused by toxic 
emissions and other air pollutants. It is recommended that the 
commenter contact both EPA and IDEM with specific information on this 
problem to allow further considerations. Nonetheless, it should be 
noted here that the issue at hand is the ozone attainment status of 
Vanderburgh County. The EPA is unaware of any data linking air 
pollutant emissions from the Alcoa facility with an ozone standard 
violation in the Evansville area (including Warrick County) during the 
3 most recent years.
2. Comment
    A commenter notes that evidence of increased respiratory distress 
is mounting in area residents and that there is evidence that air 
quality is often the cause of a sickness that crosses the socioeconomic 
and age related population strata. This sickness is referred to by area 
doctors as the ``Evansville Crud,'' an upper respiratory malady that 
depletes body energy and causes coughing and fluid drainage from the 
respiratory system.
Response
    EPA acknowledges that air pollution may be causing some respiratory 
problems in residents in this area. It is not clear that these problems 
are due to the impacts of ozone, which is the focus of this rulemaking. 
The commenter provides no data linking elevated ozone concentrations to 
the observed health problems. The EPA sees no reason to delay the 
redesignation based on the summarized health problems. The commenter is 
encouraged to work with health experts and IDEM to determine the actual 
pollutants responsible for the health problems and to determine the 
appropriate emission control measures.
3. Comment
    A commenter believes that EPA and IDEM have failed to demonstrate 
that the respiratory health of Vanderburgh County residents has 
improved due to improved air quality. Although the commenter realizes 
that such a test is not required by the CAA, the commenter believes 
that, since the ozone standard is health-based, some criteria for 
assessing the impact of unhealthful air on a population could be 
warranted in lieu of proof that emissions have been reduced. Since it 
is clear that emissions have not been reduced in and around Evansville, 
some quantitative criteria based on health impacts should be offered to 
justify the redesignation to attainment.
Response
    A redesignation action requires EPA to determine that certain 
statutory criteria have been met. EPA has made those findings here, 
including the finding that the one-hour standard has been attained. 
Monitoring attainment of the one-hour standard is an indicator of 
improved air quality. Given that the ozone monitors in the Evansville 
area, including all ozone monitors in Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick 
Counties, have indicated attainment of the ozone standard, one can 
conclude, based on the one-hour standard, that ozone levels are lower 
now than in 1988 or 1994, when violations of the one-hour standard were 
monitored in the area.
4. Comment
    A commenter notes that, if the EPA and IDEM had done their jobs 
eight years ago when Vanderburgh County went out of compliance with the 
ozone standard in 1988, her daughter and thousands of others may not 
have developed asthma in the first place. She notes that RACT on 
industrial sources should have been put in place under the pre-1990 
Clean Air Act and thinks that, if this had been done, air quality would 
have been better by now. She thinks EPA and IDEM have stalled in 
enforcing emission controls to benefit polluting industries and only 
respond favorably to the wishes of the industries.
Response
    The EPA and IDEM have sought to comply with the current 
requirements of the CAA. Because of the time involved in redesignating 
areas to nonattainment of the standard, and the additional time for the 
State to develop air quality plans and regulations and to implement 
those regulations, RACT rules could not have been adopted until well 
after the 1990 revision of the CAA. The revised CAA set forth limited 
emission control requirements for marginal ozone nonattainment areas, 
such as Vanderburgh County, eliminating the requirement to implement 
new RACT rules in this area. In any event, Vanderburgh County is 
currently in

[[Page 64734]]

attainment of the standard and qualifies for redesignation to 
attainment.
5. Comment
    A commenter asserts that the EPA is not using current data in the 
determination of the amount of pollution in the area. The commenter 
questions what EPA thinks the TRI database is for, and wants to know if 
the EPA is familiar with the thousands of journals which are reporting 
alarming increases in many diseases related to pollution. The commenter 
asserts that EPA and IDEM are violating the rights of citizens by not 
cleaning up pollution.
Response
    The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database identifies the sources 
and emission rates of known hazardous compounds and heavy metals. Only 
to the extent that some of these compounds are VOC does the TRI 
database provide information relating to ozone precursor emissions. 
TRI-based VOC emissions are only a subset of the total VOC emissions 
involved in the formation of ozone. Generally, TRI-VOC emissions are 
already incorporated into the larger ozone-related VOC emission 
inventories maintained by the State and by the EPA.
    The EPA is aware of the growing number of journal entries 
indicating adverse health effects due to various pollutants. Several 
thousand articles and study reports were reviewed in conjunction with 
the recent tightening revisions of the ozone and fine particulate 
standards. Within the constraints of the CAA, the EPA is taking action 
to provide additional protection for individuals subject to the harmful 
effects of air pollution. Nonetheless, the issue here is whether or not 
Vanderburgh County (and its downwind environs) continues to violate the 
one-hour ozone standard. The data indicate that this is not the case. 
With regard to the tightened standards, the Evansville area will be 
independently evaluated for attainment of these standards in the 
future. If the area is found to be violating one or both of these 
standards, additional emission control measures may be warranted at 
that time.

H. Miscellaneous Comments

1. Comment
    A commenter contends that the maintenance plan seems to lack 
concrete plans of action and is not legally enforceable. The commenter 
doubts the merits of such a plan and fails to see how it will protect 
the public's health from future ozone standard violations.
Response
    The maintenance plan outlines the procedures that the State will 
take if a future violation of the one-hour ozone standard occurs or if 
the VOC emission total in Vanderburgh County increases to a level 
exceeding the 1990 attainment year level (see a discussion later in 
this rulemaking for possible impacts of an anticipated revocation of 
the one-hour ozone standard). In the event of an ozone standard 
violation, it is clear that the State, within one year of the 
determination of the ozone standard violation, must select additional 
emission reduction controls sufficient to prevent future ozone standard 
violations. The maintenance plan lists a number of emission control 
measures that the State will consider for implementation and 
elimination of the air quality problem. The State is free to select the 
appropriate emission control strategy, but must demonstrate to the EPA 
that the emission controls will be adequate to prevent future ozone 
standard violations, and must adopt such measure or measures within the 
year following the confirmation of the ozone standard violation. In the 
case of emission increases above the attainment year level, the State 
must initiate a study to determine if additional emission controls are 
needed to prevent a future ozone standard violation. EPA views these 
commitments to be adequate and enforceable.
2. Comment
    A commenter states that putting Vanderburgh County on the 
attainment list is ``false advertisement.'' This implies that 
Vanderburgh County could continue ignoring its air quality problems. 
Controlling emissions from gasoline and use of low pressure paint shop 
sprayers may be well and good, but industry should also clean up its 
emissions. These emissions reductions should occur throughout the 
entire region.
Response
    The regional control component of this comment has been dealt with 
in responses to regional control comments above.
    Again, it is noted that the CAA does not require RACT controls in 
the Evansville area. This is due to the fact that Vanderburgh County 
has been classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment area.
    Redesignating Vanderburgh County to attainment is not ``false 
advertisement,'' since it recognizes the improvement in ozone levels in 
the Evansville area. It should also be noted that the redesignation 
does not send the signal that the State or local officials can simply 
forget about the impacts of the area's emissions on ozone levels. The 
State will need to continue to track ozone levels and VOC emissions in 
the area and will need to take corrective actions if future ozone 
standard violations occur or if future VOC emissions climb above 
attainment levels.
3. Comment
    A commenter notes that neither IDEM nor EPA has done anything to 
require further NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to achieve prescribed NO<INF>X</INF> budgets. 
The State of Indiana was an active participant in the OTAG process, 
which led to the NO<INF>X</INF> emission budget proposed for Indiana.

IV. Ozone Standard Revocation

    On July 16, 1997, President Clinton concurred with the EPA on the 
revision of the ozone standard to an eight-hour averaged level. As part 
of that concurrence, President Clinton requested the EPA to revoke the 
one-hour standard for areas currently attaining the ozone standard. 
This standard revocation was to occur within a 90 day period following 
the concurrence (the standard revocation had not occurred at the time 
of the publication of the current action).
    The revocation, as planned by the EPA, will consider 1994 through 
1996 data in selecting appropriate areas for revocation.
    Based on 1994 through 1996 data, Vanderburgh County may be subject 
to revocation of the one-hour standard.
    If the revocation of the one-hour standard becomes effective for 
Vanderburgh County, the attainment status designation for this area 
will be replaced by a notification of the revocation of the one-hour 
standard.

[[Page 64735]]

Future rulemaking and guidance on EPA's transition policy (policy 
addressing the transition from the application of the one-hour ozone 
standard to the eight-hour ozone standard) will address the 
implications of this standard revocation for the area's maintenance 
plan and other ozone-related emission control requirements.

V. Conclusions

    None of the public comments reviewed here warrants reversal of 
EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to 
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard and approval of the State's 
maintenance plan for this area as a SIP revision. Monitoring of ozone 
for the 1995 through 1997 period in Vanderburgh County and its 
adjoining Posey and Warrick Counties shows no violations of the one-
hour ozone standard, demonstrating that this area has attained the one-
hour ozone standard.
    As noted above, on July 18, 1997 the EPA promulgated a revised 
eight-hour standard for ozone. The current rulemaking makes no 
judgments regarding the attainment of the revised ozone standard in the 
Evansville area. The attainment status of this area relative to the new 
ozone standard will be addressed in a future rulemaking.

VI. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request and the ozone 
maintenance plan submitted by Indiana on November 4, 1993 as they apply 
to Vanderburgh County. EPA is, therefore, redesignating Vanderburgh 
County to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. The EPA has 
completed its analysis of the redesignation request and SIP revision 
request based on a review of the materials presented and in 
consideration of the current, 1995 through 1997, ozone data in the 
area, including ozone monitoring data in Posey, Vanderburgh, and 
Warrick Counties.
    In taking this action, the EPA has taken into consideration all 
relevant public comments on the March 14, 1997 proposed rulemaking. 
None of the public comments were found to form the basis for a reversal 
of the proposed approval.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603 and 
604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. EPA 
certifies that the approval of the redesignation request will not 
affect a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated here does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 9, 1998. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds, and 
Nitrogen dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: December 2, 1997.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


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

* * * * *
    (s) Approval--On November 4, 1993, the State of Indiana submitted a 
maintenance plan and a request that Vanderburgh County be redesignated 
to attainment of the one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

[[Page 64736]]

ozone. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the 
redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act 
as amended in 1990. The redesignation meets the Federal requirements of 
section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Indiana 
ozone State Implementation Plan.
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec. 81.315 the ozone table is amended by revising the entry 
for ``Evansville Area: Vanderburgh County'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                                 Indiana--Ozone                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification               
       Designated areas       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date               Type                 Date                   Type        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
Evansville area: Vanderburgh   December 9, 1997  Attainment.        .....................  .....................
 County.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                     

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-32188 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P