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


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN77-1; FRL-5709-2]


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

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to approve the ozone maintenance plan 
submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request and the 
redesignation request submitted by the State of Indiana for the purpose 
of redesignating Vanderburgh County (Evansville) from marginal 
nonattainment to attainment for ozone. Ground-level ozone, commonly 
known as smog, is an air pollutant which forms on hot summer days and 
which harmfully affects lung tissue and breathing passages. The 
redesignation to attainment of the health-based ozone air quality 
standard is based on a request from the State of Indiana to redesignate 
this area and approve its maintenance plan, and on the supporting data 
the State has submitted in support of the requests. Under the Clean Air 
Act, a designation can be changed if sufficient data are available to 
warrant such a change, and a maintenance plan is put in place which is 
designed to ensure the area maintains the ozone air quality standard 
for the next ten years.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis 
(Technical Support Documents) are available for inspection at the 
following address:

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

    Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, codified at 42 U.S.C. 
7401-7671q. Pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or the Act), Vanderburgh County (Evansville) was designated as 
nonattainment for ozone and was classified as marginal (see 56 FR 56694 
(November 6, 1991)).

I. Background

    The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted 
an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for Vanderburgh 
County (Evansville) on November 4, 1993. On July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35044), 
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a 
direct final rulemaking approving the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) for ozone. On the same day, a proposed rulemaking was also 
published in the Federal Register which established a 30-day public 
comment period for the redesignation approval and noted that, if 
adverse comments were received regarding the direct final rulemaking, 
the USEPA would withdraw the direct final rulemaking and would address 
the adverse comments through a revised final rulemaking. The USEPA 
received adverse comments, and published a withdrawal of the direct 
final rulemaking on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44040).
    Subsequent to the July 8, 1994 direct final rulemaking, the USEPA 
was informed by the IDEM that a possible violation of the ozone NAAQS 
had been monitored at a privately-operated industrial site owned by the 
Aluminum Corporation of America (Alcoa) in Warrick County. (At the time 
IDEM contacted the USEPA concerning the possible violation, the State 
had not yet completed quality assurance of the data. The violation, as 
noted below, was subsequently quality-assured.) Warrick County 
(designated as attainment for ozone) adjoins Vanderburgh County to the 
east. Because Warrick County can be considered to be a nearby area 
downwind of Vanderburgh County on certain days, the USEPA questioned 
whether the monitored violation in Warrick County should be considered 
in any subsequent rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County. The IDEM indicated its intent to investigate the high ozone 
values, and requested that the USEPA not act on the redesignation 
petition pending the outcome of that technical investigation. IDEM 
completed its investigation and submitted the results to the USEPA on 
June 5, 1995. IDEM's investigation concluded that the Alcoa data are 
unusual, are biased high (relative to peak ozone concentrations at 
other monitors in the area during the May through June, 1994 time 
period), and are not representative of the Vanderburgh County 
nonattainment area. IDEM recommended that the USEPA should proceed with 
the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment so that the 
maintenance plan could become federally enforceable.
    The USEPA Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed 
rulemaking: (1) summarizes and evaluates the redesignation request; (2) 
analyzes recent State data for monitors inside and outside of the 
Evansville nonattainment area; (3) responds to public comments on the 
July 8, 1994

[[Page 12138]]

rulemaking; and (4) reviews the State's and public's submittals and 
technical concerns regarding the monitored ozone NAAQS violation in 
Warrick County and its impact on the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County.
    This notice summarizes USEPA's review and analysis of the 
redesignation request. Details of the review and analysis are contained 
in USEPA's TSD. Comments received from the public with regard to the 
July 8, 1994 proposed rulemaking and received subsequent to that 
proposal are also addressed in this notice.

II. USEPA'S General Comments and Conclusions

    After a review of all available information, the USEPA believes it 
is reasonable to repropose the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to 
attainment and, thus, allow for formal public review and comment on 
IDEM's technical support document and USEPA's evaluation. As described 
below, the redesignation request for Vanderburgh County satisfies the 
specific criteria of section 107(d)(3)(E). A critical issue, however, 
concerns the ozone monitoring data indicating a violation of the ozone 
standard in Warrick County, Indiana, a county that is part of the 
Evansville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) but is not part of the 
Evansville ozone nonattainment area. (The Evansville MSA consists of 
Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties in Indiana and Henderson 
County in Kentucky. The Evansville ozone nonattainment area consists 
solely of Vanderburgh County. For the Evansville area, which is 
classified as marginal nonattainment for ozone, the USEPA does not 
require the entire MSA to be designated as nonattainment for ozone.) 
Those data, which are discussed in detail later in this notice, 
demonstrate that Warrick County has experienced a current violation of 
the ozone NAAQS based on five exceedances of the ozone standard (0.12 
parts per million, one-hour averaged, not to be exceeded on average 
more than one day per year at any monitoring site in the area under 
consideration) that were monitored in May and June of 1994. No 
violations of the ozone NAAQS have been monitored in Vanderburgh County 
itself since the 1988-1990 period.
    The validity and significance of the monitoring data showing a 
violation at the Alcoa site in Warrick County has been the subject of 
much review and analysis by both the IDEM and the USEPA. In its TSD 
reviewing the Alcoa data and data from other ozone monitoring sites in 
the area during the period of the 1990 ozone NAAQS violation, the IDEM 
contends that, although the Alcoa data have met quality assurance 
criteria, the data are unusual, are biased high, and are not 
representative of the Evansville nonattainment area. The USEPA, 
however, has reviewed the data and has concluded that the data have met 
the USEPA's quality assurance criteria, are valid, are acceptable for 
review of attainment status.
    The USEPA has also reviewed the data and other pertinent 
information in an effort to determine whether and to what extent 
emissions from Vanderburgh County contributed to the ozone NAAQS 
violation in Warrick County. The USEPA conducted this evaluation 
because Warrick County adjoins Vanderburgh County and because section 
107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act defines a nonattainment area as an 
area that either itself violates a standard that contributes to a 
standard violation in a nearby area. If the USEPA were to conclude that 
Evansville does contribute significantly to nonattainment of the ozone 
standard in Warrick County, the language of section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) 
would present an obstacle to taking final action redesignating 
Vanderburgh County to attainment.
    The USEPA intends to take final action approving the redesignation 
of Vanderburgh County to attainment if any of the following three 
events occur. First, if Warrick County attains the ozone standard prior 
to final action by the USEPA on this redesignation request, the USEPA 
would no longer need to consider the issue of any possible contribution 
of Vanderburgh County to violations in Warrick County. This could occur 
following the 1997 ozone season (April through October) as the standard 
violation in Warrick County was monitored in 1994; and USEPA's 
methodology for determining attainment of the ozone NAAQS involves the 
consideration of data only from the most recent three years. Second, 
the USEPA could take final action approving the Vanderburgh County 
redesignation request if it determines that Vanderburgh County does not 
significantly contribute to an ozone nonattainment problem in Warrick 
County. Third, the USEPA could approve the Vanderburgh County 
redesignation request if the USEPA determines that the information 
available is not sufficient to determine whether or not Vanderburgh 
County contributes significantly to a nonattainment problem in Warrick 
County.
    To complete its review process, the USEPA also seeks comment on 
whether or not the Warrick County ozone standard violation data should 
be excluded from consideration of the Vanderburgh County ozone 
attainment status. Comments on this issue will allow the public to 
address IDEM's proposed basis for approval of the Evansville 
redesignation request. In addressing this issue, commenters should also 
take into consideration and respond to the facts that the Warrick 
County ozone standard violation has been quality assured and that the 
Clean Air Act and USEPA policy require the consideration of the ozone 
standard violation when reviewing the attainment status of Vanderburgh 
County.
    The USEPA requests comment on all of these issues in light of the 
information and data in the docket, including the analyses of the data 
and other information performed by IDEM and USEPA. The USEPA will 
carefully and fully evaluate those comments and the issues they raise 
before taking final action regarding the Vanderburgh County 
redesignation request.
    At this time, the state of the science of predicting and 
understanding the formation and transport of ozone in the Evansville 
MSA is incomplete. The USEPA does not have the benefit of ozone 
modeling information for the Evansville MSA, such as would be provided 
by the use of the Urban Airshed Model. The USEPA recognizes that the 
State of Indiana, along with 36 other states, is actively involved in 
the super-regional ozone modeling analyses being conducted through the 
Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). Although the Evansville MSA 
has been included in the national Regional Oxidant Modeling (ROM) 
modeling domain and in the OTAG modeling domain, the scope of these 
models is regional in nature and is not conclusive as to the impact of 
emissions from Vanderburgh County on ozone formation in the Evansville 
MSA.
    The USEPA encourages the State of Indiana to follow through on its 
commitment to implement early the contingency measures provided for in 
the maintenance plan for Vanderburgh County and to consider emission 
controls beyond the boundaries of Vanderburgh County as a means to 
assure future good air quality in Warrick County. The USEPA notes the 
commitment made by the State of Indiana to implement contingency 
measures even prior to their being triggered under provisions of the 
maintenance plan and to work with the local Evansville community and

[[Page 12139]]

surrounding areas to adopt additional emission control programs and 
regulations and to submit these regulations as a revision to the State 
implementation plan. The USEPA is relying on the State to follow 
through on that commitment in order to obtain additional emission 
reductions that will provide greater assurance of good air quality in 
the Evansville MSA in the future.
    In support of this approach, the IDEM has attended meetings with 
the Evansville community to discuss the ozone concentrations in the 
area and appropriate control measures to reduce emissions of ozone 
forming chemicals. A broad-based community group called the Action 
Committee for Ozone Reduction Now (ACORN) has recommended four measures 
to be voluntarily adopted by the State and local authorities to reduce 
emissions. These four measures are: (1) high volume low pressure paint 
gun change outs for auto body refinishing and paint spraying 
operations; (2) Stage I gasoline vapor recovery; (3) pollution 
prevention and education task force; and (4) less polluting gasoline. 
ACORN suggests that all remedial ozone reduction measures shall apply 
to people and industry in Vanderburgh County and adjacent counties. The 
USEPA believes that these measures applied in the Evansville area will 
contribute to continued attainment of the ozone standard in Vanderburgh 
County and will contribute to improved air quality in the downwind 
communities.
    The USEPA recently published an Advanced Notice of Intent (ANI) 
describing the OTAG process referred to above and setting forth USEPA's 
plans to take action in 1997 to require that control measures be 
adopted and implemented to reduce emissions that are transported to 
other areas and contribute to high ozone concentrations downwind of the 
emission sources (see 62 FR 1420 (January 10, 1997)). IDEM has 
committed to participate actively in this process and to implement 
emission control measures resulting from this process. This effort 
should lead to regional ozone precursor reductions that may 
significantly reduce the transport of ozone into the Evansville area 
and may result in further emission reductions within the Evansville 
area itself. A redesignation of Evansville to attainment would not 
impede the implementation of any emission controls resulting from the 
OTAG process or USEPA's anticipated actions.
    The USEPA believes that emission reductions occurring as a result 
of USEPA's anticipated actions in 1997, early implementation of 
contingency measures committed to by the State of Indiana, and 
implementation of measures proposed by ACORN will provide additional 
assurance that the air quality in Vanderburgh County and its downwind 
environs will be improved, and that future violations of the ozone 
NAAQS will not occur in these areas.

III. Technical Review

A. Redesignation Review Criteria

    Under the CAA, designations can be changed if sufficient data are 
available to warrant such change. The CAA provides the requirements for 
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 
107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (1) the Administrator 
determines that the area has attained the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS); (2) the Administrator has fully approved the 
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) 
the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable 
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a 
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 
175A; and (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    The USEPA has provided guidance on processing redesignation 
requests in documents including the following:
    1. ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
    2. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for 
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry, 
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
    3. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On 
or after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
    4. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response 
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.
    5. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992.
    6. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 
Branch, June 1, 1992.
    7. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 
FR 13498), April 16, 1992.

B. Review Of The Redesignation Request

1. The area must have attained the Ozone NAAQS.
    For ozone, an area may be considered as attaining the NAAQS if 
there are no violations, as determined in accordance with the 
regulation codified at 40 CFR Sec. 50.9, based on three (3) consecutive 
calendar years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation occurs 
when the ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1.0) 
average expected exceedance per year at any site in the area. An 
exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds 
0.12 parts per million (ppm). The data should be collected and quality-
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be 
available to the public for review.
    The redesignation request for Evansville relies on ozone monitoring 
data for the years 1990 through 1996, to show that Evansville is 
attaining the NAAQS for ozone. IDEM has collected quality assured data 
in Vanderburgh County at two locations (or monitoring sites) for the 
period of 1990 through 1996 showing attainment of the ozone standard. 
In general, the USEPA considers the three most recent years of data for 
a redesignation request and the three most recent years of data from 
these two sites have no exceedances of the ozone standard. These data 
are quality assured and are recorded in the AIRS. In addition, ozone 
monitoring data has been collected at two sites in Warrick County as 
downwind monitoring sites for Evansville. The two monitors at Boonville 
and Tecumseh High Schools also demonstrate attainment of the ozone 
standard. The PSD industrial monitoring site at Alcoa has collected 
valid data which recorded a violation of the ozone standard for the

[[Page 12140]]

most recent three years of data (1994-1996).
    As discussed above, there are issues concerning the role of 
emissions from Vanderburgh County in contributing to a violation of the 
ozone NAAQS monitored in 1994 in Warrick County. As stated there, the 
USEPA is requesting comment on these issues.
2. The Area must have a fully approved SIP under Section 110(k); and 
the Area must have met all applicable requirements under Section 110 
and Part D.
    Before Vanderburgh County (Evansville) may be redesignated to 
attainment for ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable 
requirements of section 110 and Part D. USEPA interprets section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that, for a redesignation request to be 
approved, the State must have met all requirements that became 
applicable to the subject area prior to or at the time of the 
submission of the redesignation request.
    Vanderburgh County is covered by a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
approved under section 110 of the CAA. Indiana has implemented this SIP 
in Vanderburgh County.
    In the case of marginal ozone nonattainment areas, such as 
Vanderburgh County, the section 172(c)(1) Reasonably Available Control 
Measures were superseded by section 182(a)(2) Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) requirements, which did not require newly-
designated marginal ozone nonattainment areas to submit RACT 
corrections. See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I, 57 
FR at 13503, and the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT fix-up 
rulemaking published at 58 FR 49458. Thus, no additional RACT 
submissions were required for Vanderburgh County to be redesignated. 
Also, by virtue of provisions of section 182(a), marginal areas were 
not required to submit a demonstration that the SIP provides for 
attainment.
    The section 172(c)(3) base year emissions inventory requirement has 
been met by the submission and approval of the 1990 base year inventory 
required under subpart 2 of part D, section 182(a)(1). (50 FR 31544, 
(June 20, 1994)). Indiana submitted a SIP revision covering regulations 
requiring the submittal of annual emission statements by facilities 
with potential VOC emissions equal to or exceeding 25 tons per year. A 
direct final rulemaking approving this SIP revision was published on 
June 10, 1994 (59 FR 29953).
    As for the section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirement, 
USEPA has determined that areas being redesignated to attainment need 
not comply with the NSR requirement prior to redesignation, provided 
that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D 
NSR in effect. A memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, titled 
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' fully describes the rationale 
for this view, and is based on the Agency's authority to establish de 
minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. See Alabama Power Co. v. 
Costle, 636 F. 2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Once the area is 
redesignated to attainment, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) program, which has been delegated to Indiana, will become 
effective immediately. Additionally, the USEPA has approved a NSR 
revision to the Indiana SIP which meets the requirements of part D of 
the Act. See 59 FR 51108 (October 7, 1994). This NSR SIP revision 
became effective in December 1994.
(a) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to 
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that, before they are 
taken, Federal actions conform to the air quality planning goals in the 
applicable State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies 
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or 
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal 
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the 
conformity revisions to be submitted by the States must be consistent 
with Federal conformity regulations that the Act required the USEPA to 
promulgate. Congress provided for the State revisions to be submitted 
one year after the date of promulgation of final USEPA conformity 
regulations.
    The USEPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations 
on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and general conformity regulations 
on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that 
States adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in 
the SIP for areas designated as nonattainment or subject to a 
maintenance plan approved under section 175A of the Act. Pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.396 of the transportation conformity rule and 40 CFR 51.851 of 
the general conformity rule, the State of Indiana is required to submit 
a SIP revision containing conformity criteria and procedures consistent 
with those established in the Federal rule. However, the federal 
transportation conformity regulations are currently being amended for 
the third time. Indiana intends to submit transportation conformity 
regulations when the federal regulations complete rulemaking. Because 
the redesignation request was submitted before these SIP revisions came 
due, they are not applicable requirements under section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v).
    Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless 
of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement 
conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet adopted, the 
USEPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being 
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request.
    For the reasons just discussed, the USEPA believes that the ozone 
request for Vanderburgh County may be approved notwithstanding the lack 
of fully approved State transportation and general conformity rules. 
See also the Tampa, Florida ozone redesignation of December 7, 1995 (60 
FR 62748).
(b) Subpart 2 Requirements
    Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the requirements 
of section 182(a) of subpart 2. Indiana has met all of the applicable 
requirements of that subsection with respect to the Evansville area. 
The emissions inventory required by section 182(a)(1) has been 
approved. (See 59 FR 31544 (June 20, 1994)). The emission statement SIP 
required by section 182(a)(3)(B) has been approved. (See 59 FR 29953 
(June 10, 1994)). As noted above, RACT corrections were not required 
under section 182(a)(2) for areas such as Vanderburgh County that were 
not designated nonattainment until after the 1990 CAA Amendments. 
Similarly, section 182(a)(2) does not require the submission of an 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) SIP revision for Vanderburgh County 
since the area was not required to have an I/M program before the 
enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Finally, the State need not 
comply with the requirements of section 182(a) concerning revisions to 
the part D NSR program in order for the Vanderburgh County area to be 
redesignated for the reasons explained above in connection with the 
discussion of the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement.

[[Page 12141]]

3. The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the SIP, federal 
measures and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
    Implementation of VOC emission controls, such as the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Emission Control Program, and permanent, enforceable emission 
reductions from source closures have led to VOC emission reductions. A 
listing of major source VOC emissions for 1988 and 1990 shows that 
stationary source VOC emissions in Vanderburgh County declined by 339 
tons per year (approximately 1.1 tons per day) between 1988 and 1990. 
Permanent VOC emission reductions due to source closures and 
implementation of emission controls totaled 570 tons per year in the 
same period (some of this emission reduction was offset by source 
growth). Indiana asserts that these point source emission reductions 
are permanent and enforceable. Indiana further states that it will not 
renew the permits of closed sources, will require these sources to 
undergo review under PSD or NSR requirements if they seek to restart, 
and will prohibit these facilities from banking the pre-closure 
emissions against future source growth.
4. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan meeting the 
requirements of Section 175A.
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance 
of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after 
redesignation. A September 4, 1992, USEPA memorandum from the Director 
of the Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, to Directors of Regional Air Divisions regarding 
redesignation provides further guidance on the required content of a 
maintenance plan.
    An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five areas: 
the attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring 
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. 
The attainment emissions inventory identifies the emissions level in 
the area which is sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS, and includes 
emissions during the period when the area attained the NAAQS (the first 
three year period when a violation of the NAAQS was not recorded). 
Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that future emissions will not 
exceed the level established by the attainment inventory. Provisions 
for continued operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring 
network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The State must show 
how it will track and verify the progress of the maintenance plan. 
Finally, the maintenance plan must include contingency measures which 
ensure prompt correction of any violation of the ozone standard. The 
Act also requires [section 175(b)] a second SIP revision eight years 
after an area is redesignated to attainment to assure maintenance of 
the NAAQS for an additional 10 years beyond the first 10 year 
maintenance period.
    The details of the Evansville maintenance plan are reviewed in the 
April 26, 1994 TSD, which concludes that the maintenance plan meets all 
of the applicable requirements. The State commits to continue 
monitoring of ozone during the 10-year maintenance period. Any changes 
in the monitoring systems will be subject to USEPA approval.
    To help verify maintenance of the standard, the State commits to 
require stationary sources to annually submit information on their 
emissions in accordance with the States emission statement rule (326 
IAC 2-6). Data from these emission statements and other data sources 
will be used to determine if emissions have exceeded 1990 base year 
levels.
    Finally, the State has selected a joint set of possible contingency 
emission control measures and a 2-level approach for triggering of 
contingency measures. A level I response occurs in the event that the 
ozone NAAQS is violated. This response entails conducting an analysis 
to determine the level of control measures needed to assure expeditious 
future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Measures that could be 
implemented quickly would be selected so as to be in place within 12 
months after the State is aware of a NAAQS violation. (Note that the 
State has not preselected specific contingency measures to be 
implemented in case a level I response is required.) A level II 
response would be implemented in the event that: (a) The monitored 
ambient levels of ozone exceed 0.115 ppm more than once in any year at 
any site in the redesignated area; (b) the level of VOC, Oxides of 
Nitrogen (NO<INF>X), or Carbon Monoxide (CO), emissions increase above 
the 1990 (attainment) emissions level; or (c) the level of total VOC 
emissions for any future year has increased above the level recorded in 
the prior year sufficiently so that an increase of the same magnitude 
in the following year could result in a level of emissions exceeding 
those recorded in 1990 by five percent or more. A level II response 
would consist of a study to determine whether the noted trends are 
likely to continue, and if so, to determine control measures necessary 
to reverse the trends, taking into consideration ease and timing of 
implementation as well as economic and social considerations. The 
contingency portion of the maintenance plan for the Evansville area was 
found to be acceptable. In addition, demonstration of maintenance was 
successfully made through emission projections through 2006. (Note that 
the use of 2006 covers a period extending for ten ozone seasons from 
now and complies with USEPA redesignation policy given the State's 
November 4, 1993 submittal date for a complete redesignation request 
and the State's assumption of a two-year period for USEPA's processing 
of the rulemaking on the redesignation request.) See the April 26, 1994 
TSD for a summary of the contingency measures the State has identified.
    The emissions summary for VOC and NO<INF>X are provided below for 
the Vanderburgh County area:

                                 Table 1.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Point       Area      Mobile    Off-Road                      
                     Year                        sources    sources    sources     mobile    Biogenic    Totals 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..........................................      12.76      12.46      25.25       7.50       8.37      66.34
1995..........................................      13.74      12.82      20.77       7.74       8.37      63.44
2000..........................................      14.73      13.18      16.29       8.00       8.37      60.57
2006..........................................      15.91      13.61      10.91       8.28       8.37      57.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007..........................................      16.11      13.68      10.01       8.33       8.37      56.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12142]]


                                  Table 2. NO<INF>X Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Point       Area      Mobile    Off-Road                      
                     Year                        sources    sources    sources     mobile    Biogenic    Totals 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..........................................       2.78       2.14      14.11       7.70       n.a.      26.73
1995..........................................       2.98       2.27      13.31       7.86       n.a.      26.42
2000..........................................       3.18       2.41      12.52       8.02       n.a.      26.13
2006..........................................       3.42       2.57      11.56       8.21       n.a.      25.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007..........................................       3.46       2.60      11.40       8.24       n.a.      25.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that the 2007 emission estimates were derived by the USEPA using 
source growth rates provided by the State.
    The State commits to continuing the operation of the monitors in 
the area. It will also track the maintenance of the area by regularly 
updating the emissions inventory for the area.
    If the monitored air quality levels exceed the NAAQS, the 
contingency plan will be triggered. In addition, Indiana is required to 
submit a revision to the maintenance plan eight years after 
redesignation to attainment which demonstrates that the NAAQS will be 
maintained for a second 10 year period.
5. Implementation of All Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the 
Act
    As indicated above, all requirements of the Act applicable to this 
area have been met through SIP revision submittals. These SIP revisions 
have been approved through final rulemaking.

IV. Responses to Comments on the July 8, 1994 Direct Final 
Rulemaking

    Five sets of comments were received concerning the July 8, 1994 
direct final rulemaking on the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to 
attainment of the ozone standard. The summarized comments and USEPA's 
responses are presented below:
    Comment: A commenter objects to redesignating Vanderburgh County to 
attainment because of Vanderburgh County's lack of past performance in 
dealing with the area's ozone problem. In support of this position, the 
commenter submitted several newspaper articles and an organization 
publication noting the lack of such action on the part of Vanderburgh 
County/Evansville officials. The commenter is concerned that 
designating Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone NAAQS will 
only exacerbate an already existing problem.
    Response: During the years of 1990 through 1993, quality assured 
ozone monitoring data were collected at six sites in Indiana and at two 
sites in Kentucky within or in the proximity of the Evansville 
nonattainment area. No violations of the ozone standard were monitored 
during this period. Therefore, the area's ozone levels have shown 
improvement over the 1987-1989 ozone standard violation levels, which 
were the basis for the nonattainment designation for Vanderburgh 
County. At the time of the redesignation request, sufficient ``clean'' 
air quality data existed to support the redesignation request. Air 
quality data through 1996 from monitors within the Vanderburgh County 
nonattainment area continue to show attainment of the ozone standard.
    Vanderburgh County is currently a marginal ozone nonattainment 
area. The Act provides only minimal ozone precursor reduction 
requirements (the correction of deficient rules and 1.1 for 1 offsets 
for major new sources) for such an area. Since emission control rules, 
such as RACT for stationary sources, were not previously required and 
are not currently required for the Evansville area, leaving the 
nonattainment designation in place for the area would not result in 
significant new emission reduction requirements for this area.
    Reductions in emissions have been gained through vehicle per mile 
emission rate decreases through the implementation of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Emission Control Program (these emission rate decreases are 
offset in part by increases in vehicle miles traveled). In addition, 
permanent source closures have occurred in the area as noted in the 
State's demonstration of maintenance. The USEPA believes these emission 
reductions will tend to result in improved air quality.
    Comment: A commenter objects to the redesignation because the 
commenter believes ozone levels in the vicinity of the Evansville area 
are higher than those reported for Vanderburgh County. The commenter, 
referencing several newspaper articles, believes that ozone levels are 
not measured in the areas of highest ozone concentrations.
    Response: The USEPA has reviewed ozone data for the Vanderburgh 
County nonattainment area, as well as data from outside the 
nonattainment area in evaluating the redesignation request. The ozone 
concentrations being reported to the public in the newspaper articles 
referenced by the commenter were only from Vanderburgh County monitors 
and did not include data from adjoining counties, outside of the 
nonattainment area. Ozone is also monitored at three sites in adjoining 
Warrick County. It is noted that higher peak ozone concentrations may 
be found in Warrick County. The extent, however, of the impact of 
emissions from Vanderburgh County on ozone concentrations in Warrick 
County is unclear.
    Ozone, at relatively high concentrations, and its precursors, most 
notably VOC and NOx, can be transported over considerable distances 
downwind of a precursor source area. Maximum ozone levels are generally 
found 15 to 30 (or more) miles downwind of the sources of ozone 
precursors. Given this, IDEM considered the 1990 through 1993 ozone 
data from Vanderburgh County and counties surrounding Vanderburgh 
County in the redesignation request submitted on November 4, 1993. 
These data showed no violation of the ozone NAAQS prior to the 1994 
ozone season. The USEPA considers the area covered in IDEM's data 
analysis to be adequate.
    Comment: A commenter objects to the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County for two reasons. The first reason is the low use of Evansville 
buses. The commenter believes that improving the quality of the 
Evansville bus service will increase ridership and contribute to 
improving air quality. The second reason is based on the commenter's 
concerns about the chemicals being emitted by industries in the 
Evansville area. The commenter is concerned that some emissions are 
toxins and carcinogens and that this problem should be addressed before 
the area is redesignated to attainment of the ozone standard.
    Response: The USEPA agrees with the commenter that improved bus 
service and increased citizen usage of buses would help to reduce the 
emission of ozone precursors. USEPA encourages improvements in bus 
service and greater

[[Page 12143]]

usage to reduce pollutant emissions. Such actions, however, cannot be 
mandated by the USEPA. State and local agencies are generally free to 
choose the mixtures of transportation control measures used to control 
pollutant emissions. In addition, since the Evansville area is 
classified as marginal nonattainment for ozone, the Act does not 
require such emission controls.
    While the USEPA shares the commenter's concerns over chemicals 
emitted by industries (some of the VOC which act as ozone precursors 
are possible toxins and carcinogens), control of air toxins and 
carcinogens is addressed under separate provisions of the Act (section 
112) and is expected to result in a decline in these emissions in the 
future. The designation of an area as attainment or nonattainment for 
ozone is only for the purpose of controlling ozone. For redesignation 
purposes, USEPA evaluates, among other factors, whether the State has 
met all applicable requirements for the area under Title I, section 110 
(State Implementation Plans) and part D (nonattainment plan provisions 
under section 172(c)). USEPA has determined that the State has met 
these requirements. While the control of air toxins is the subject of 
section 112 of the Act, not the SIP program, the USEPA encourages 
States to take VOC and toxins/carcinogens into account when selecting 
control measures to help assure maximum environmental benefits from 
emission control measures. The USEPA, however, cannot compel such 
actions under the Act for the purposes of controlling ozone levels.
    Comment: Commenters argue that the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County to attainment is disapprovable on the following bases:
    1. The State, at the time of the redesignation request submittal, 
had failed to correct the State's part D New Source Review (NSR) 
regulations. The State has failed to meet the Act's requirement that 
the SIP must comply with Act and be fully approved at the time the 
redesignation request is submitted;
    2. The State has failed to demonstrate that the air quality 
improvements in the Evansville area are due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions. The commenters argue that a September 
4, 1992 USEPA redesignation policy guidance is clear in requiring 
analysis of whether the improved air quality has resulted in part from 
either unique meteorological conditions or temporary changes in 
economic conditions. Air quality improvements due to these air quality 
impacts are not permanent, and, therefore, are not creditable;
    3. The State has failed to fully predict the impacts of future 
transportation projects on growth in vehicle miles traveled and on 
mobile source emissions; and
    4. The USEPA has failed to consider the impacts on downwind ozone 
transport caused by the redesignation and the associated loss of 
emission control requirements.
    Response: The following presents USEPA's responses to each of the 
comments above in the order given:
    1. USEPA believes that nonattainment areas can be redesignated to 
attainment of the ozone standard notwithstanding the lack of a fully 
approved NSR program meeting the requirements of the Act and the 
absence of such an NSR program from the contingency plan. USEPA 
believes that not requiring a fully approved NSR program as a 
prerequisite to the submittal of the State's request for redesignation 
is justifiable as an exercise of the USEPA's general authority to 
establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. See Alabama 
Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). A 
memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, titled ``Part D New Source Review 
(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment,'' fully describes the rationale for this view, and is based 
on the Agency's authority to establish de minimis exceptions to 
statutory requirements. Once the area is redesignated to attainment, 
the PSD program, which has been delegated to Indiana, will become 
effective immediately. Additionally, it is noted that the USEPA has 
approved a NSR revision to the Indiana SIP which meets the requirements 
of part D of the Act. See 59 FR 51108 (October 7, 1994). This NSR SIP 
revision became effective in December 1994.
    2. The September 4, 1992 USEPA policy guidance referred to by the 
commenter states that ``attainment resulting from temporary reduction 
in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdowns due to 
temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable 
meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.'' Neither the State nor 
the USEPA has neglected these issues in preparing and analyzing 
Indiana's redesignation request. Rather, the USEPA believes that the 
State has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality 
was not due to temporary economic downturn or unusually favorable 
meteorology.
    With respect to the issue of temporary emission reductions due to 
economic downturn, the USEPA noted in this rulemaking and the July 8, 
1994 direct final rulemaking (59 FR 35048) that the State has shown 
that attainment of the ozone standard is attributable to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions. These emission reductions have 
resulted from permanent source closures and implementation of the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program. These emission 
reductions are permanent and enforceable. In the case of source 
closures, the source permits associated with these sources have been 
terminated and will not be reissued. Reopening of these sources would 
involve subjecting these sources to new source review requirements. It 
is USEPA's judgment that these emission reductions have contributed to 
the air quality improvement observed prior to the redesignation request 
submittal.
    With respect to the issue of unusual meteorology, the State has 
compared the average meteorological parameters of maximum daily 
temperature, daily mean wind speed, percent of possible sunshine, and 
relative humidity for the periods of May through August, 1990 through 
1992, with the 30-year (1961-1990) averages for these parameters. The 
1990-1992 averages were found to be equivalent to the 30-year averages 
with only minor differences. Based on a comparison of these average 
parameters, it was concluded that the 1990-1992 period was not 
atypically non-conducive to ozone formation.
    3. The USEPA conformity rule (58 FR 62218) requires the States to 
conduct conformity analyses for both nonattainment areas and attainment 
areas subject to maintenance plans. The State of Indiana is preparing 
its conformity rule to comply with USEPA's conformity rule. Therefore, 
any major federally funded and State funded projects in the 
redesignated area would be addressed through State conformity analyses 
and would be subject to the emissions budget established by the 
maintenance plan. Minor changes in the public transportation system 
would not be subject to the conformity analyses. The State's 
predictions of future year emissions did assume growth in mobile source 
activity. Moreover, the review required by the maintenance plan if 
ozone levels over 115 ppb are monitored gives the State the opportunity 
to adjust those predictions in light of transportation projects that 
were not known at the time of submission of the maintenance plan.
    4. As discussed above, in accord with section 107(d)(1)(A), the 
USEPA is

[[Page 12144]]

considering information regarding the extent of the contribution of 
sources in Vanderburgh County to its downwind environs and is 
requesting comment on that issue in this notice. The USEPA notes, 
however, that this redesignation would not result in an increase in 
emissions from Vanderburgh County. Existing emission controls will not 
be dropped or relaxed as a consequence of the redesignation. Indeed, 
the maintenance demonstration projects stable or declining emissions 
from Vanderburgh County sources during the 10-year maintenance period, 
which means that any emission reduction contribution from Vanderburgh 
County sources would not be expected to decline after redesignation. 
Furthermore, as Vanderburgh County itself is attaining the ozone NAAQS, 
even if it remained designated nonattainment, under section 181(b)(2) 
of the Act, it would not be ``bumped-up'' to a moderate classification, 
and no new emission controls would be required to be adopted. Thus, 
additional emission controls would not be required as a consequence of 
a disapproval of the Vanderburgh County redesignation. The USEPA 
further notes that, if it concludes, on the basis of the OTAG modeling 
results or otherwise, that additional controls are needed in upwind 
areas to reduce transported emissions having effects on other states, a 
SIP-call to require such measures would be based on section 
110(a)(2)(D) of the Act and could apply to areas regardless of whether 
they are designated attainment or nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS. 
Therefore, the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment for 
ozone will not preclude the USEPA from obtaining emission reductions if 
needed to prevent excessive ozone transport from this area to other 
states.

V. IDEM Technical Support Document

    Additional comments were submitted by IDEM during the comment 
period for the direct final rulemaking. These comments were primarily 
directed to the unusual nature of the 1994 ozone standard violation 
recorded in Warrick County. The validity of this ozone standard 
violation and its impacts on Indiana's redesignation request are 
discussed in the TSD for this proposed rulemaking. The State's comments 
submitted during the public comment period are addressed through that 
discussion.

VI. Public Comments Subsequent to the 1994 Ozone Standard Violation in 
Warrick County, Indiana

    Subsequent to the 1994 ozone standard violation discussed above, a 
number of public comments were received by the USEPA regarding the 
redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment of the ozone 
standard. These comments can be divided into two main subgroups. The 
first subgroup of comments from United States Congressmen, the State of 
Indiana, Evansville and Vanderburgh County local agency 
representatives, and business and industrial representatives favor the 
redesignation of Vanderburgh County to attainment. Many of these 
commenters are concerned about the possible economic impacts of 
Vanderburgh County remaining a nonattainment area. These commenters 
raised the following general comments in support of the redesignation:
    Comment: Many commenters support IDEM's analysis of the 1994 ozone 
data and the IDEM conclusion that the Alcoa data may reflect a positive 
bias during the April 22 through June, 1994 period.
    Response: IDEM's review of the 1994 ozone data is discussed in 
detail above. The USEPA's conclusions regarding this analysis and the 
validity of its conclusions are contained in the Background and 
Conclusion section of the TSD for this rulemaking.
    Comment: Some commenters have noted that the Warrick County ozone 
standard violation, having occurred outside of Vanderburgh County, 
should not be used to disapprove the redesignation of Vanderburgh 
County.
    Response: The USEPA believes that a thorough review of all data is 
necessary before taking final action on the State's request. Among 
other factors, the Evansville nonattainment area is attaining the ozone 
standard based on quality assured data from monitors located within 
Vanderburgh County. On the other hand, even though the Alcoa monitor is 
located outside the Evansville nonattainment area, the USEPA also 
considered the data from this monitor in reviewing and evaluating the 
State's request.
    As explained above, on the basis of both section 107(d)(1) of the 
Act and USEPA's written redesignation policy (September 4, 1992 
memorandum titled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment'' from John Calcagni to Air Division Directors), 
ozone data from all ozone monitors in an area and its downwind environs 
are to be considered when reviewing a redesignation request. This means 
that ozone data from Warrick County and other counties surrounding 
Vanderburgh County must be considered when reviewing the redesignation 
request for Vanderburgh County. Of course, these analyses must also 
consider wind directions leading to high ozone levels in these outlying 
areas. The temporal and meteorological aspects of ozone formation 
typically produce peak ozone concentrations 15 to 30 miles downwind (or 
farther for large source areas) of the ozone precursor source area. 
This means that peak ozone concentrations can be produced outside of a 
single county source/nonattainment area. Since Warrick County is 
downwind of Vanderburgh County on some high ozone days, the USEPA is 
technically justified in considering ozone data from this County when 
evaluating the attainment status of Vanderburgh County.
    Comment: Many commenters note that IDEM has developed a viable 
maintenance plan to deal with emission increases above the 1990 
emission total (the attainment emissions level) and to deal with future 
violations of the ozone standard.
    Response: USEPA concurs with this comment as reflected in the April 
26, 1994 TSD and believes that the State's maintenance plan shows 
continued attainment of the standard through the year 2006. (USEPA has 
projected continued attainment through 2007 using source growth rates 
provided by the State. Although the State, in compliance with USEPA 
maintenance demonstration policy, projects continued attainment through 
2006, the timing of rulemaking on this issue led the USEPA to consider 
projection of emissions through 2007.) Permanent and enforceable 
controls such as the Federal motor vehicle control program are in place 
and should ensure that emissions will not exceed the level of the 1990 
attainment base year during the 10-year maintenance period. 
Furthermore, the maintenance plan contains contingency measures in the 
event of a violation of the ozone NAAQS.
    The maintenance plan has not accounted for the emissions increases 
resulting from traffic growth associated with the operation of a 
proposed floating casino in the area or with traffic that will be drawn 
to the new Toyota truck plant planned for Gibson County, which adjoins 
Vanderburgh County to the north. The State and USEPA currently lack 
data to assess the impacts of these traffic impacts. Consequently, the 
USEPA is proposing approval at this time. The USEPA also notes that the 
maintenance plan provides additional

[[Page 12145]]

protection against unanticipated emission increases as it contains 
triggers for assessment of the need for additional emission controls if 
the emissions are subsequently projected to increase above the 1990 
base year emissions level. Through this process, previously 
unanticipated emission increases could trigger the need for additional 
emission controls. It should also be noted that if the emission 
increases resulting from the traffic growth of concern here cause a 
future violation of the ozone NAAQS, the maintenance plan will obligate 
the State to select additional emission control measures to eliminate 
the air quality problem. In addition, the State will revise the 
maintenance plan within eight years and can include the additional 
emissions resulting from the traffic growth at that time.
    Comment: Commenters in favor of the redesignation claim that 
Vanderburgh County has been singled out for nonattainment status even 
though emissions from Posey and Warrick Counties, Indiana and Henderson 
and Daviess Counties, Kentucky may have also contributed to the ozone 
standard violation at the Alcoa site and the elevated ozone levels at 
the other monitoring sites in the Evansville area.
    Response: The USEPA does not believe that Vanderburgh County is 
being singled out. It was initially designated as nonattainment in 1991 
as a consequence of an ozone standard violation within its boundaries, 
and the USEPA is now proposing to redesignate it to attainment. The 
USEPA has evaluated the available information concerning the 
meteorology and the sources of the emissions that led to the ozone 
standard violation in Warrick County, and is requesting comment on 
issues regarding the effect of the contribution of Vanderburgh County 
emissions to that violation. The meteorological data indicate that 
emissions from other areas may have contributed to the exceedances 
monitored in Warrick County.
    Comment: Several commenters assert that never before has one single 
monitor been used to override the evidence of all remaining monitors in 
a region. The commenters believe the evidence in favor of redesignating 
Vanderburgh County to attainment is overwhelming and that the USEPA 
should not base a decision with such economic impact on questionable 
information when all other information points toward attainment of the 
ozone standard.
    Response: When an area's attainment status is determined, each 
monitor in the area is judged independently. Ozone is not directly 
emitted into the atmosphere, but results from complex photochemical 
reactions involving organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen and solar 
radiation. The relationships between primary emissions and ozone 
formation tend to produce large separations spatially and temporally 
between the major precursor emission sources and the areas of high 
ozone pollution. This suggests that the meteorological transport 
process and relationships between sources and sinks (reactions with 
airborn chemicals or reactions with surfaces that locally reduce ozone 
levels) need to be considered in the placement of monitoring stations 
and in the evaluation of the monitoring data.
    USEPA's redesignation policy requires attainment of the ozone 
standard at all ozone monitors in an area seeking redesignation to 
attainment. Each monitor in an area is judged independently because 
ozone formation, transport, and sinks can lead to spatial differences 
in monitoring results. Nonetheless, monitoring results at a given site 
can represent the impact of emissions from a large upwind source area. 
In addition, each monitor represents a geographic region within a 
community. Therefore, USEPA believes it is appropriate and necessary 
for each monitor in the area to meet the standard to ensure people in 
these areas are not being exposed to levels above the standard. Because 
of distribution of sources within an area, the nature of ozone 
formation and the effects of meteorology, it is not expected that all 
monitors will show equivalent readings. Within a nonattainment area, if 
any one monitor shows a violation of the standard, the area is 
considered to be in nonattainment of the standard. The USEPA has always 
considered ozone on a per monitor basis, refusing to redesignate an 
area to attainment if the ozone standard is violated at any monitoring 
site in the nonattainment area. Monitors outside of the nonattainment 
area are evaluated for impacts from the area under consideration. The 
CAA in section 107(d)(1)(A)(i), as noted above, defines nonattainment 
as ``any area that does not meet (or contributes to ambient air quality 
in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary 
ambient air quality standard for the pollutant, * * *''.
    The USEPA promulgated federal monitoring regulations that 
established minimum monitor requirements and criteria for uniform 
monitor siting and quality assurance procedures (40 CFR part 58). Only 
data meeting these siting and quality control requirements are used in 
regulatory decisions. The valid, quality assured violation of the ozone 
standard recorded in Warrick County thus must be considered by the 
USEPA when considering the redesignation of Vanderburgh County.
    Comment: Several commenters believe that the Alcoa monitoring site, 
as a special purpose/prevention of significant deterioration monitor 
site, has not ever been part of Evansville's ambient monitoring system, 
and, therefore, data from this site should not be considered when 
reviewing the designation of Vanderburgh County.
    Response: The IDEM has never formally identified the monitors 
belonging in the monitoring network for each nonattainment area. In 
IDEM's March 15, 1991, submittal to support the State's proposal for 
the classification and designation of Vanderburgh County as marginal 
nonattainment for ozone and to exclude surrounding counties from this 
designation, IDEM included ozone data from the Alcoa site as part of 
the monitoring system used to judge the attainment status of 
Vanderburgh County and to justify the exclusion of Warrick County from 
the nonattainment area. The CAA requires nonattainment areas with 
moderate and above classifications to include the entire MSA to assure 
that the entire source area is included in the nonattainment area. In 
the case of marginal ozone nonattainment areas, such as the Evansville 
area, the CAA gives the States and USEPA discretion in determining the 
size of the nonattainment area. In 1991, the USEPA accepted IDEM's 
recommendation to restrict the nonattainment area to only Vanderburgh 
County.
    The Alcoa monitor has historically been used to make decisions 
about the Evansville area. There is, however, no ``official'' 
monitoring system declared by Indiana for the Evansville area. The 
USEPA has in the past considered data from PSD monitors when making 
designation decisions as long as the data met the quality assurance 
standards for ambient air networks. The quality assurance tests 
conducted on the Alcoa monitor were all well within the required 
limits. All data in the AIRS data system have been quality assured by 
the State air agencies as having met the requirements for valid data to 
be used in the decision-making process.
    Comment: A commenter notes that, on two of the exceedance days at 
the Alcoa site, winds were from the east placing this site upwind of 
the Evansville area not downwind of it.
    Response: The USEPA agrees with the commenter. It is apparent from 
the meteorological data that emissions from areas other than 
Vanderburgh County may have contributed to the 1994 ozone

[[Page 12146]]

standard violation at the Alcoa site. Emissions from other areas also 
appear to have contributed to the ozone standard exceedances on the 
days on which the Alcoa site was downwind of Vanderburgh County (the 
IDEM has noted relatively high background ozone concentrations on these 
days), as well as on the other two exceedance days.
    Comment: Commenters note that Evansville industries have spent 
millions of dollars to reduce emissions, particularly emissions of VOC, 
NOx, and chloroflourocarbons to improve air quality and protect the 
environment. They believe the redesignation of Vanderburgh County to 
attainment would recognize this effort and encourage further progress.
    Response: It is acknowledged that the Evansville industries have 
implemented emission controls to comply with various requirements of 
the Clean Air Act. Some of these controls probably have contributed to 
lower VOC emissions (the controls mentioned by the commenter, however, 
were implemented to reduce chlorofluorocarbon emissions, which are 
nonreactive and have little or no impacts on ground level ozone 
concentrations). To this extent, these facilities are recognized for 
contributing to lower ozone concentrations. Without these controls, the 
ozone levels could have been even higher in 1994. It should be noted 
that industries in Vanderburgh County are not required to have VOC RACT 
emission controls because Vanderburgh County was attainment prior to 
the enactment of the 1990 CAA.
    Comment: A commenter, noting the recent public discussions of the 
Evansville redesignation and the possible inadequacy of the current 
ozone standard to protect public health, questions the ability of the 
area to attain a tighter standard. This commenter also questions the 
assertions of local physicians blaming ozone levels for triggering many 
asthma attacks during the summer months. The commenter believes the 
physicians should consider the fact that Evansville area is located 
amidst an agricultural area and that the resulting particulates and 
pollen along with ozone, heat, and humidity may play a role in these 
asthma attacks at this time of the year.
    Response: The standard against which Evansville's attainment is 
judged is the current 0.12 parts per million ozone standard. The USEPA 
is not basing its decision on a possible, future tighter ozone 
standard, and the ability or inability of the Evansville area to attain 
a tighter standard is not an issue in this proposal.
    With regard to impacts of other factors in causing respiratory 
problems, it is agreed that such factors may have caused some of the 
respiratory problems observed in the area. It is noted that many health 
studies have confirmed the negative health impacts that ozone has on 
the respiratory system. These studies were the basis of the current 
ozone standard. Recent health studies further elaborate on these 
impacts and are the subject of USEPA's current proposal to revise the 
ozone standard. See 61 FR 65716, December 13, 1996. The connection 
between ozone and asthma attacks is discussed in that proposal and is 
not further discussed here.
    Comment: A commenter believes the siting of the Alcoa monitor is 
incorrect since this site may be impacted by particulate emissions from 
the Alcoa plant and the local coal-fired power plant and by ozone 
generated locally by high power lines carrying electricity from the 
power plant and to the Alcoa plant.
    Response: As noted in the June 5, 1995 TSD submitted by IDEM, IDEM 
did consider the factors mentioned by the commenter. These factors were 
ruled out as significant contributors to the high ozone levels 
monitored at the Alcoa site. The USEPA agrees with IDEM's analysis.
    Comment: A commenter questions the quality assurance of the Alcoa 
monitor. This commenter also wants to know why, if the Alcoa monitor 
was part of the monitoring system used to evaluate Evansville air 
quality, were no industrial representatives or the public previously 
aware of its existence?
    Response: Review of the quality assurance records in AIRS and the 
June 5, 1995 IDEM TSD show that Alcoa and the State actively 
participated in the quality assurance of the Alcoa monitor. Quality 
assurance records show that the monitor was performing well within 
acceptable quality assurance limits during the period with the 1994 
ozone standard violation. This monitor recorded ozone concentrations 
with very small error levels (small percentage differences from 
calibration and precision check ozone input levels) during this period. 
In addition, the State has quality assured Alcoa's ozone calibrator 
unit, removing this as a significant source of ozone concentration 
errors.
    As evidenced in the March 15, 1991 ozone designation/classification 
submittal, IDEM has been aware of the Alcoa ozone monitor for some 
time. In fact, IDEM has supplied Alcoa ozone data for inclusion in AIRS 
since 1988. The AIRS data are available to the public.
    Comment: A commenter is concerned that retaining the marginal 
nonattainment status for Vanderburgh County will ultimately result in 
its being bumped up to moderate nonattainment with serious economic 
consequences. The commenter believes that local environmental groups 
are not aware of this possibility nor thoroughly understand the 
consequences of such an action.
    Response: The USEPA evaluated the attainment status of Vanderburgh 
County at the end of 1993 as required by the CAA. Monitors in 
Vanderburgh County were indicating attainment of the ozone standard in 
1993 and continue to record attainment of the ozone standard. As noted 
above, this fact provides a basis for not bumping up Vanderburgh County 
to the classification of moderate nonattainment.
    The local environmental groups are aware of the impacts of a bump-
up of the area to moderate nonattainment. As evidenced by the comments 
addressed elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, some environmental 
groups have requested such a bump-up of the area.
    Comment: A commenter asserts that local environmental groups err in 
believing that the Evansville ozone problem is primarily due to 
industrial emissions. The environmental groups fail to recognize that 
38 percent of the VOC emissions originate from mobile sources and that 
19 percent of the emissions come from area sources. With the future 
emission controls required under other portions of the Clean Air Act, 
such as Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) for sources of 
toxic emissions and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the 
relative emissions contributions from industrial sources will decline. 
This means that control of other sources should be considered.
    Response: The commenter is correct that sources other than 
industrial sources may also share in contributing to the 1994 ozone 
standard violation. As evidenced in IDEM's 1990 base year inventory for 
Vanderburgh County (the source of the emission percentages expressed by 
the commenter), many sources contribute to this problem. It is 
reasonable to request that control of these emissions be considered 
along with the control of emissions from industrial sources.
    Comment: A commenter states that USEPA should not revise the ozone 
standard as recommended by the environmental groups in the Evansville 
area. The commenter believes that tightening of the standard would make 
it very difficult for the area to achieve

[[Page 12147]]

the goals of the State's maintenance plan. The commenter recommends 
that the 0.12 parts per million ozone standard remain in effect.
    Response: The revision of the ozone standard is not an issue in 
this action. In this action, USEPA is solely concerned with the 
attainment and maintenance of the current ozone standard.
    The second subgroup of comments was submitted by environmental 
groups and residents of the Evansville metropolitan area. These 
comments generally recommend disapproval of the redesignation of 
Vanderburgh County to attainment or criticize the USEPA for not 
following appropriate procedures in rulemaking and making decisions on 
this issue. These comments are summarized below:
    Comment: Commenters object to USEPA's October 11, 1995 decision to 
redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment based on the following 
facts/points:
    a. The Alcoa ozone standard violation has been quality assured by 
the State of Indiana as being valid;
    b. The Alcoa monitor has been and continues to be part of the 
Evansville area monitoring system;
    c. Redesignating Vanderburgh County in light of the 1994 ozone 
standard violation violates USEPA's own guidelines;
    d. No public hearing in Vanderburgh County was held to address the 
impacts of the 1994 ozone standard violation; and,
    e. Negative health impacts from ozone can occur at levels well 
below the current standard.
    Response: The overall responses to these comments are reflected in 
this entire proposed rulemaking. The following responses, however, are 
made to respond to the commenter's specific points:
    a. USEPA and IDEM agree that the data establishing the Alcoa ozone 
standard violation have been quality assured and are valid. IDEM, 
however, believes that a significant monitor bias can exist even when 
the monitor is producing quality assured results. IDEM's assertion of 
monitor bias is supported by the daily maximum ozone concentrations at 
the Alcoa site as compared to those for the other monitors in the area 
for the April-June, 1994 period and review of similar data for other 
periods.
    The USEPA has determined that the Alcoa data are valid and quality 
assured. The quality assurance data demonstrate that the monitor was 
performing correctly. The source of the high ozone concentrations 
measured at the Alcoa site is unclear. Source areas outside of 
Vanderburgh County appear to be contributing to the high ozone 
concentrations observed at the Alcoa site.
    b. As noted above, the IDEM has never formally identified the 
monitors belonging in the monitoring network for each nonattainment 
area. In IDEM's March 15, 1991, submittal to support the State's 
proposal for the classification and designation of Vanderburgh County 
as marginal nonattainment for ozone and to exclude surrounding counties 
from this designation, IDEM included ozone data from the Alcoa site as 
part of the monitoring system used to judge the attainment status of 
Vanderburgh County and to justify the exclusion of Warrick County from 
the nonattainment area.
    As noted above, the Alcoa monitor has historically been considered 
when making decisions about the Evansville area. There is, however, no 
``official'' monitoring system declared by Indiana for the Evansville 
area. It should be noted that an IDEM monitor at the Alcoa site has 
replaced the Alcoa monitor.
    c. As explained earlier in this notice, consistent with its 
existing guidance, the USEPA has evaluated the 1994 exceedances 
monitored at the Alcoa site and the information available concerning 
the sources of the emissions resulting in those exceedances. The USEPA 
believes that this proposal is consistent with USEPA's existing 
guidance regarding redesignations and the consideration of downwind 
monitored ozone concentrations. As stated earlier, the USEPA is 
requesting comment on this issue.
    d. The comment is correct. It should be noted that the USEPA is 
reopening the comment period for the rulemaking on this redesignation 
and allowing an extended 60 day comment period.
    e. On December 13, 1996, the USEPA proposed to revise the current 
ozone standard (61 FR 65716). The health effects of ozone 
concentrations below the current ozone standard are an issue being 
addressed in that rulemaking proceeding and are beyond the scope of 
this action, which is limited to whether or not the current ozone 
standard has been attained in Vanderburgh County.
    Comment: A number of commenters have requested the reopening of a 
public review, including public hearings and a public comment period, 
of the redesignation request, USEPA's decision on this issue, and the 
implications of the 1994 ozone standard violation. Some commenters have 
recommended that this issue be the subject of judicial review.
    Response: The USEPA will reopen the public comment period on this 
issue. The 1994 ozone standard violation, June 5, 1995 IDEM technical 
analysis submittal, and December 7, 1995 IDEM supplemental data all add 
significant new information to the data and information discussed in 
the July 8, 1994 USEPA rulemaking. On this basis and given the public 
interest in this issue, it is appropriate for the USEPA to repropose 
the rulemaking and to reopen the public comment period for this 
rulemaking.
    Comment: Commenters question the validity of the maintenance 
demonstration submitted with the redesignation request and the 
prospects for continued maintenance of the ozone standard. These 
commenters point out the initiation of river boat gambling in 
Evansville will draw in excess of 2 million additional cars or vehicle 
trips to the area per year. It is assumed that this growth in vehicle 
emissions was not factored into the State's maintenance plan.
    Response: The maintenance plan submitted by IDEM was complete and 
approvable at the time it was submitted on November 4, 1993. A public 
hearing on the maintenance plan was held by IDEM on August 24, 1993, in 
Evansville, Indiana. There was one person who commented on the 
maintenance plan and expressed concerns about a lack of sanctions in 
the plan should it not be properly implemented. IDEM's response was 
that, if the State fails to implement the plan, the USEPA may impose 
sanctions allowed under the CAA, such as withholding federal highway 
funds.
    The maintenance plan does take into account a measure of growth in 
mobile source emissions. To the extent that the maintenance plan does 
not include traffic growth due to the casino river boat and to the new 
Toyota truck plant in Gibson County, it may need to be reviewed when 
data on the traffic growths become available to determine the effect of 
these developments on the maintenance plan predictions. As noted 
elsewhere in this proposed action, this will be the case if the 
emission increases cause the Vanderburgh County VOC or NOx emissions to 
increase above attainment year base levels. Also, the transportation 
conformity process should prevent growth in mobile source emissions 
from exceeding the ``budget'' in an approved maintenance plan.
    The maintenance plan also has a margin of safety to allow for 
future growth in mobile sources as well as other sources. The 
Evansville maintenance plan has an extra 9 tons per day of VOC safety 
margin in 2006 and in 2007, and 1 ton per day NO<INF>X

[[Page 12148]]

safety margin in 2006 and in 2007. It should also be noted that the 
maintenance plan does contain a trigger requiring extra analyses based 
on VOC emissions exceeding the 1990 base year level. In addition, the 
requirements for additional emission controls would be triggered should 
the increased VOC emissions cause a future violation of the ozone 
NAAQS. In the event of a future ozone standard violation, contingency 
measures would be invoked to correct the violation and bring the area 
back into attainment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that preparation of the USEPA TSD 
after the October 11, 1995 USEPA decision to redesignate Vanderburgh 
County is, at best, superfluous, and, at worse, a direct disregard of 
the rules and laws under which USEPA is supposed to operate.
    Response: The October 11, 1995, letter referred to by the commenter 
did not serve to redesignate Vanderburgh County; this can only be done 
through a rulemaking action such as this, with opportunity for public 
comment. It should also be recognized that the October 11, 1995 letter 
was not developed without considerable review of the available data by 
IDEM (as evidenced by IDEM's June 5, 1995 technical support document) 
and USEPA (USEPA had already given considerable thought to this issue 
in preparing to respond to comments on the July 8, 1994 direct final 
rulemaking). Many hours were spent before October 11, 1995, by both 
agencies reviewing the data and drawing initial conclusions regarding 
the merits of the 1994 ozone standard violation at the Alcoa site as 
well as other issues raised by the public. It should also be recognized 
that the USEPA believed it was appropriate to move ahead with 
rulemaking to redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment despite the 
violation of the ozone standard at the Alcoa site in Warrick County. As 
noted in the October 11, 1995 letter, this decision was based in part 
on a commitment by the IDEM to implement its maintenance plan. USEPA is 
relying on this commitment to implement one or more measures contained 
in the maintenance plan and others that are as needed to address any 
ozone air quality problem in the Evansville MSA. Finally, as noted 
elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, the USEPA is taking public 
comments for another 60 days from the date of this proposed action 
before making a final decision on redesignation request. Submitted 
comments will be addressed in a future final rulemaking action. 
Obviously, the October 11, 1995 letter does not represent a final 
conclusion on this issue.
    Comment: Some commenters recommend, based on 1994 and 1995 data, 
that Vanderburgh County remain designated as nonattainment for the 
ozone standard and bumped up to a classification of moderate.
    Response: When the USEPA evaluated marginal areas for attainment 
status at the end of 1993, Vanderburgh County and surrounding areas 
were demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard. The 1994 and 1995 
data for monitors in Vanderburgh County continue to show attainment of 
the standard. Consequently, bump up of Vanderburgh County to a 
classification of moderate is not justified.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the Alcoa monitor recorded 14 hours 
of ozone standard exceedances in 1994 and that additional exceedances 
of the standard were recorded in Boonville in 1995.
    Response: USEPA's TSD for this proposed rulemaking thoroughly 
discusses the ozone standard exceedances at the Alcoa monitor. With 
regard to the 1995 ozone standard exceedance at the Boonville site, it 
must be noted that this site has not recorded a violation of the ozone 
standard given the small number of exceedances recorded at this site in 
the last three years of data collection; the site has recorded less 
than one ozone standard exceedance per year during the last three 
years.
    Comment: A commenter objects to the fact that IDEM's June 5, 1995 
TSD was never subjected to a public review or a public hearing. IDEM's 
TSD is viewed as being seriously flawed as to its application of 
science. IDEM's conclusions in the TSD conflict with the conclusion (in 
the June 5, 1995 TSD and elsewhere) that the Alcoa data are quality 
assured. The commenter finds IDEM's conclusion of ``unexplained monitor 
bias'' to be scientifically unfounded.
    Response: As noted above and below, USEPA agrees that the June 5, 
1995 IDEM technical analysis and other related data should be subjected 
to public review. This is part of the basis for USEPA reproposing 
rulemaking on this action and reopening the public comment period on 
this issue.
    Comment: A commenter notes that USEPA's monitoring staff have 
indicated through internal USEPA memoranda that, as indicated by AIRS 
data, if there was monitor bias, it is more important to note that 
significant negative monitor biases are indicated for the Boonville, 
Tecumseh High School, and Scott School monitors during the April 20 
through June, 1994 period. The commenter interprets USEPA memoranda as 
indicating that these monitors may have been subject to -11 percent 
biases. The commenters note that this level of bias was sufficient to 
explain the concentration differences between the Alcoa monitored ozone 
concentrations and the ozone concentrations monitored at the other 
``downwind'' monitoring sites. In addition, the commenter notes that 
increasing ozone levels by 11 percent at the negatively biased monitors 
would add 2 days of ozone standard exceedance to the Boonville site 
(three exceedances in two years considering the 0.131 parts per million 
exceedance in 1995 at this site) and 1 day of ozone standard exceedance 
to the Tecumseh High School site.
    Response: The August 18, 1995 USEPA memorandum referred to by the 
commenter presents the annual precision upper and lower 95 percent 
confidence limits for the four sites operated by Indiana in the 
Evansville area. These data present ranges of precision data, but by no 
means imply that the monitors were operating with specific biases 
during the May through June, 1994 episodes. Although the data imply, 
for example, that the Boonville monitor tested lower than the actual 
test concentration, the data do not imply that the Boonville monitor 
operated at a -11 percent bias. The precision estimates for the 
Boonville monitor implied only a -1.2 to -3.6 percent difference 
between the actual concentration and the monitored concentration. The 
small size of the precision and audit data set led to the relatively 
large negative precision estimate at the lower end of the 95 percent 
confidence limit. The precision data do not indicate that the 
differences in ozone concentrations between the Alcoa and Boonville 
monitors during the April 22 through June, 1994 period can be simply or 
entirely explained on the basis of differences in quality assurance for 
the two monitors.
    It should also be noted that the use of the precision data in a 
manner as used by the commenter to draw conclusions regarding derived 
non-biased ozone concentrations is technically unacceptable. If the 
ozone monitors meet quality assurance limits, as all monitoring data 
included in AIRS have, it is inappropriate to modify the ozone 
concentrations based on precision data.
    Comment: Commenters note that Vanderburgh County has been 
designated as nonattainment for ozone for a number of years and that 
the USEPA, State, and local agencies have done little or nothing to 
correct this problem. One commenter believes that the State's and local 
agency's attempts

[[Page 12149]]

to deal with the ozone problems through an Ozone Action Days program 
are inconsequential. Therefore, the commenters believe that the area 
does not deserve a redesignation to attainment of the ozone standard 
and that a redesignation to attainment will assure that no effective 
actions are taken.
    Response: Initially, it should be noted that although Vanderburgh 
County has been designated as nonattainment, it has in fact been 
attaining the ozone standard since 1990 because no monitors in 
Vanderburgh County have recorded a violation of the ozone standard 
during that time period. Furthermore, it is incorrect to conclude that 
no emission reductions have been implemented in the Evansville area. 
Through the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program, the USEPA 
has brought about reductions in vehicle per mile emission rates. The 
Vanderburgh County maintenance plan estimates a 14% reduction in VOCs 
during the 1990 to 2006 time period because of cleaner automobiles. The 
maintenance plan in conjunction with other Act requirements, such as 
conformity, should prevent these reductions from being negated by 
increases in vehicle miles of travel and other emission increases. The 
State has adopted the general and transportation conformity rules, and 
submitted these rules to the USEPA on January 23, 1997. In addition, 
the State has terminated certain source permits subsequent to source 
closures to gain permanent emission reductions. All of these actions 
have reduced emissions in a permanent manner.
    It should be noted that Vanderburgh County is classified as a 
marginal ozone nonattainment area. Under the Clean Air Act, such an 
area is required to do little in the way of additional emission 
reductions beyond the impacts of the national programs, such as the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program. In terms of emission 
reductions, the State has complied with the Clean Air Act redesignation 
requirements. It should also be noted that, as discussed earlier, VOC 
RACT emission controls on stationary sources are not required in 
Vanderburgh County.
    Comment: A commenter notes that IDEM has correctly asserted that 
the Evansville ozone problem is regional in nature and that the problem 
should be dealt with on a regional basis. It is noted that, besides the 
regional nature of VOC emissions, the Evansville area is impacted by 
NO<INF>X emissions from significant sources in a much larger area. In 
addition, the commenter believes that mobile source emissions must be 
dealt with over a larger geographical area (the commenter, nonetheless, 
believes that Vanderburgh County should remain designated as 
nonattainment for ozone).
    Response: The USEPA agrees with many of these comments. The ozone 
data, both the Alcoa monitor ozone standard exceedances and the 
elevated ozone levels at other monitors, under various meteorological 
conditions imply that the high ozone levels in the Evansville area may 
originate from an area significantly larger than just Vanderburgh 
County. The State is encouraged to consider emission controls from a 
larger area to help maintain the ozone standard and to lower peak ozone 
levels if necessary to eliminate a future ozone standard violation.
    The USEPA also agrees that NO<INF>x emissions and motor vehicle 
emissions contribute to the elevated ozone concentrations. Control of 
these emissions will help maintain the ozone standard.
    Comment: A commenter, noting that no ozone standard violations have 
been recently recorded in Vanderburgh County, recommends that the 
nonattainment designation of Vanderburgh County be retained to protect 
the air quality in the lower Ohio Valley area. This commenter believes 
that, at minimum, the USEPA should redesignate Warrick County to 
nonattainment of the ozone standard even if the USEPA is ``forced'' to 
redesignate Vanderburgh County to attainment.
    Response: It is correct that no ozone standard violations have been 
recorded in Vanderburgh County during the most recent three years 
(1994-1996), thus demonstrating that Vanderburgh County is attaining 
the ozone standard. Furthermore, for the reasons explained above 
regarding the uncertainties connected with the determination of the 
extent of Vanderburgh County's contribution to the ozone concentrations 
monitored in Warrick County, the USEPA believes it is appropriate to 
propose approval of the Vanderburgh County redesignation request at 
this time.
    With respect to the status of Warrick County itself, USEPA notes 
that it has several options available to it in dealing with a violation 
in an attainment area, USEPA may: choose to redesignate the area to 
nonattainment; issue a SIP call; take enforcement action if the 
violation appears to be caused by compliance failures; or encourage the 
State to require more controls in the area (without an official SIP 
call).
    Currently, there is a stakeholders process underway to determine 
what controls are needed to address the Warrick County violation. The 
USEPA believes it is appropriate to give the stakeholders group 
(composed of representatives from the State, local officials, local 
industry, environmental groups, academia, and private citizens) an 
opportunity to solve the local air quality problems. If this process 
fails, USEPA can then use its authority, e.g., to issue a SIP call to 
the area or redesignate the area to nonattainment. The USEPA also notes 
that it expects to be taking steps in 1997 to require reductions in 
regional emissions as a response to the OTAG conclusions that will 
reduce ozone transport into the Evansville area. This may help to 
correct the Warrick County air quality violation.
    Comment: A commenter believes that it is USEPA's policy to consider 
all ozone monitors in an area to determine the attainment status of the 
area. Therefore, the commenter believes USEPA must consider the data 
from the Alcoa site in reviewing the attainment status of Vanderburgh 
County and surrounding counties.
    Response: The USEPA agrees with this comment. See the response to 
comments above.
    Comment: Several physicians object to the redesignation of 
Vanderburgh County based on concerns over chronic effects produced by 
ozone during the peak ozone periods and observations of increased 
pulmonary hospital admissions during these periods. These physicians 
urge the USEPA to not ignore the high ozone levels at the Alcoa 
monitoring site.
    Response: The USEPA believes that, if Vanderburgh County satisfies 
the statutory criteria for redesignation, including attainment of the 
current standard, it should be redesignated to attainment. In proposing 
this redesignation, the USEPA has not ignored the high ozone levels at 
the Alcoa monitoring site but has carefully analyzed those monitored 
concentrations and attempted to determine the sources of the ozone 
precursors that resulted in those monitored readings. This action is 
premised on the 0.12 ppm one-hour standard, which is the standard now 
in effect and which was established in accordance with sections 108 and 
109 of the Act to protect public health. The USEPA, however, has 
recently proposed revising the current ozone standard (61 FR 65716). 
That rulemaking is the appropriate forum for the submission of comments 
regarding the health

[[Page 12150]]

protections afforded by the ozone standard.
    Comment: A group of physicians and college professors have 
evaluated the Alcoa 1994 ozone data and have determined that the data 
are valid for purposes of evaluating the area's attainment status. They 
believe that the May 23, June 20, and June 21, 1994 data confirm that 
Vanderburgh County emissions have contributed to an ozone standard 
violation and that Vanderburgh County should retain its ozone 
nonattainment status.
    Response: As noted in this notice, the USEPA considers the data 
from the Alcoa site to be valid and relevant to the redesignation 
review. The good performance of the Alcoa monitor in quality assurance 
tests support the validity of the Alcoa ozone standard exceedances. 
However, the USEPA has also considered the meteorological patterns 
during this time period. As discussed above, the USEPA is requesting 
comment on the issues related to the potential contribution of 
emissions from Vanderburgh County to the violation in neighboring 
Warrick County in light of the data and information in the Docket.
    The USEPA encourages the State of Indiana to implement emission 
controls over an area larger than Vanderburgh County, and to follow 
through on its commitment to implement its maintenance plan contingency 
measures and to work with the local Evansville community and 
surrounding areas to adopt emission control programs and regulations, 
and submit these regulations as part of a State implementation plan 
revision.
    Comment: Commenters believe that the Alcoa monitor is located in an 
area where one may expect ozone levels resulting from Evansville area 
emissions to maximize. They believe the USEPA intends to ignore the 
Alcoa data and this fact of typical ozone formation, thus violating 
USEPA procedures.
    Response: The USEPA agrees with the commenters that the Alcoa 
monitor is in a location where relatively high ozone levels may be 
expected. Since this monitor is approximately 15 miles from Evansville, 
this site is a good choice for a peak downwind ozone site for the 
Evansville area. As should be evident from today's notice, USEPA has no 
intention of ignoring the Alcoa data. The validity of these data and 
their implications in this matter have been given very serious 
consideration. Even though the Alcoa monitor is located outside the 
Evansville nonattainment area, the USEPA did consider the data from 
this monitor in reviewing and evaluating the State's request.
    Comment: A commenter notes that he has seen recent indications of 
degraded air quality at sporting events attended by his child. During 
softball games on warm days, he has observed an increased incident of 
itchy, irritated eyes, and breathing difficulties, such as coughing and 
breathlessness. A particular incident, in which a player had to leave 
the field due to breathing difficulties, was not preceded by strenuous 
activity and resulted in the child being taken to a local hospital for 
observation. The child's breathing difficulties could not be attributed 
to any preexisting condition and her condition improved after she was 
removed from contact with the outside air. For the future of the 
children in the area, the commenter believes Vanderburgh County should 
remain marginal nonattainment for ozone.
    Response: The USEPA acknowledges the commenter's observations of 
possible negative health effects from air pollution. Unfortunately, the 
commenter has not equated these observations with the peak ozone 
concentrations on the days when these health effects were observed. It 
is not clear that they were observed in an area and at a time with high 
ozone concentrations.
    Comment: Several citizens have expressed concern that the USEPA has 
simply given in to political pressure to redesignate Vanderburgh County 
to attainment to support future industrial growth. Several of these 
citizens have children who suffer from allergies and respiratory 
problems. Other citizens are concerned about a high number of cancer-
related deaths and the dying of trees.
    Response: The USEPA recognizes that there may be illness associated 
with exposure to high levels of ozone. The current ozone standard (0.12 
ppm) is a health-based standard which the Agency has proposed to 
revise, as noted above. Concerns over public health have been heard; 
the State and the local community are committed to adopting additional 
controls in Evansville and the surrounding areas above and beyond those 
already being implemented in order to further reduce emissions.
    The USEPA has seriously considered the data in this issue. The 
USEPA, while weighing the various issues in this case, is very 
concerned about the impacts of its decisions on public health, as well 
as establishing the proper source-receptor relations to assess 
accountability for measured air quality levels.
    Comment: Several commenters have expressed an interest in the 
placement of ozone monitors in Posey County or, more specifically, in 
Mt. Vernon.
    Response: In the present rulemaking, USEPA must base its decision 
on the monitoring data available. Additionally, USEPA notes that IDEM 
has indicated a willingness to expand its ozone monitoring network to 
include Posey County.

VII. Proposed Action

    The USEPA proposes to approve the redesignation of Evansville 
(Vanderburgh County) to attainment for ozone and to approve the 
maintenance plan for the area.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
redesignation. Each request shall be considered separately in light of 
specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation 
to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VIII. Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) Impact

    On December 13, 1996, USEPA published proposed revisions to the 
ozone and particulate matter NAAQS (61 FR 65716 and 61 FR 65638). Also 
on December 13, 1996, USEPA published its proposed policy (61 FR 65752) 
regarding the interim implementation requirements for ozone and 
particulate matter during the time period following any promulgation of 
a revised ozone or particulate matter NAAQS. This IIP includes proposed 
policy regarding ozone redesignation actions submitted to and approved 
by the USEPA prior to the promulgation of a new ozone standard, as well 
as those submitted prior to and approved by the USEPA after the 
promulgation of a new ozone standard.
    Complete redesignation requests submitted and approved by EPA prior 
to the promulgation date of the revised ozone standard will be allowed 
to stand based on the maintenance plan's ability to demonstrate 
attainment of the current one-hour standard and compliance with 
existing redesignation criteria. Any redesignation requests submitted 
prior to promulgation of the revised ozone standard, but which are not 
approved by the USEPA prior to that promulgation date, must also 
include a maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment of both the 
current one-hour standard and the revised ozone standard to receive 
final approval by the USEPA of redesignation to attainment.
    As discussed above, the USEPA proposes to approve the Evansville 
redesignation request as demonstrating attainment under the current 
one-hour ozone standard. If the USEPA does not take final action prior 
to the

[[Page 12151]]

promulgation of the revised ozone standard and the request is otherwise 
approvable, the USEPA will work with the IDEM to as quickly as possible 
to supplement the maintenance plan to demonstrate attainment and 
maintenance of the revised ozone standard.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. Unfunded Mandates

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

    Dated: March 5, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-6510 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P