Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 70751 

without prior proposal because we 

believe these SIP revisions are not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: October 26, 2005. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–23089 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R05–OAR–2005–IN–0010; FRL–8001–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of 

Vigo County 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 

Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Vigo County 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

proposed determination is based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 2002–2004 seasons that demonstrate 

that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been 

attained in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve a request 

from the State of Indiana to redesignate 

Vigo County to attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This request was 

submitted by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) on 

July 5, 2005 and supplemented on 

October 20, 2005 and November 4, 2005. 

In proposing to approve this request, 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

State’s plan for maintaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in this area through 2015 

as a revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is also 

finding adequate and is proposing to 

approve the State’s 2015 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for this area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 23, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–

IN–0010, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comments 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

3. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

4. Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

5. Mail: You may send written 

comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch Criteria Pollutant 

Section, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. 

6. Hand delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch Criteria Pollutant 

Section, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R05–OAR–2005–IN–0010. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including any 

personal information provided and may 

be made available online at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through RME, regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and 

the federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through RME or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. We 

recommend that you telephone Steve 

Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6052 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. This Facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052, 

rosenthal.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to Take? 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing to Take These 

Actions? 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 

70752 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of Indiana’s Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) 

VII. Proposed Actions 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to 

Take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

make a determination that the Vigo 

County, Indiana nonattainment area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard and 

that Vigo County has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA is thus 

proposing to approve the request to 

change the legal designation of the Vigo 

County area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Indiana’s maintenance plan SIP 

revision for Vigo County (such approval 

being one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment status). The 

maintenance plan is designed to keep 

Vigo County in attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS for the next 10 years. 

Additionally, EPA is announcing its 

action on the Adequacy Process for the 

newly-established 2015 MVEBs. The 

Adequacy comment period for the 2015 

MVEBs began on July 12, 2005, with 

EPA’s posting of the availability of this 

submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

(at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/ 

conform/adequacy.htm). The Adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs ended 

on August 11, 2005. No requests for this 

submittal or adverse comments on this 

submittal were received during the 

Adequacy comment period. Please see 

the Adequacy Section of this 

rulemaking for further explanation on 

this process. Therefore, we are finding 

adequate and proposing to approve the 

State’s 2015 MVEBs for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 

presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred 

to as precursors of ozone. 

The CAA establishes a process for air 

quality management through the 

NAAQS. Vigo County was designated 

unclassifiable/attainment under the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS, which was revoked 

on June 15, 2005. On July 18, 1997, EPA 

promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone 

standard of 0.08 parts per million 

(ppm). This new standard is more 

stringent than the previous 1-hour 

standard. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These designations and 

classifications became effective June 15, 

2004. The CAA required EPA to 

designate as nonattainment any area 

that was violating the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS based on the three most recent 

years (2001–2003) of air quality data. 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—

that address planning and control 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

(Both are found in title I, part D.) 

Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as 

‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains 

general, less prescriptive, requirements 

for nonattainment areas for any 

pollutant—including ozone—governed 

by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA 

refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment) 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. Some ozone 

nonattainment areas are subject only to 

the provisions of subpart 1. Other ozone 

nonattainment areas are also subject to 

the provisions of subpart 2. Under 

EPA’s 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule, signed on April 15, 2004, (69 FR 

23951) an area was classified under 

subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone 

design value (i.e., the 3-year average 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentration), if it 

had a 1-hour design value at or above 

0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design 

value in Table 1 of subpart 2). All other 

areas are covered under subpart 1, based 

upon their 8-hour design values. Vigo 

County was designated as a subpart 1, 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area by 

EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) 

based on air quality monitoring data 

from 2001–2003. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 

50, the 8-hour ozone standard is 

attained when the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations is 

less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 

0.084 ppm) when rounding is 

considered. 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix 

I. See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for 

further information. The data 

completeness requirement is met when 

the average percent of days with valid 

ambient monitoring data is greater than 

90%, and no single year has less than 

75% data completeness as determined 

in Appendix I of Part 50. 

On July 5, 2005, Indiana requested 

that EPA redesignate Vigo County to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. This request was 

supplemented with submittals dated 

October 20, 2005 and November 4, 2005. 

The redesignation request included 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

data for the period of 2002 through 

2004, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for 

ozone had been attained for Vigo 

County. Under the CAA, nonattainment 

areas may be redesignated to attainment 

if sufficient complete, quality-assured 

data are available for the Administrator 

to determine that the area has attained 

the standard and the area meets the 

other CAA redesignation requirements 

in section 107(d)(3)(E). 

III. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

providing that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (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 SIP 

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. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations’’, Memorandum 

from William G. Laxton, Director 

Technical Support Division, June 18, 

1990; 

‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 

of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G. 

T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests 

to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 70753 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

‘‘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,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, dated 

November 30, 1993. 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take 

These Actions? 

On July 5, 2005, Indiana requested 

redesignation of Vigo County to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Indiana supplemented this 

request with submittals dated October 

20, 2005 and November 4, 2005. EPA 

believes that the area has attained the 

standard and has met the requirements 

for redesignation set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

V. What Would Be the Effect of These 

Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

and maintenance plan would change the 

official designation of the area for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR 

part 81. It would also incorporate into 

the Indiana SIP a plan for maintaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015. 

The maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures to remedy future 

violations of the 8-hour NAAQS, and 

establishes MVEBs for the year 2015 of 

2.48 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 3.67 

tpd NOX for Vigo County. 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to making a 

determination that the Vigo County 

nonattainment area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone standard and that the area 

has met all other applicable section 

107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The 

basis for EPA’s determinations is as 

follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that Vigo County has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For 

ozone, an area may be considered to be 

attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if 

there are no violations, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 

Appendix I, based on three complete, 

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To 

attain this standard, the 3-year average 

of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations 

measured at each monitor within an 

area over each year must not exceed 

0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding 

convention described in 40 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I, the standard is attained if 

the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. 

The data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58, and recorded in Aerometric 

Information Retrieval System (AIRS). 

The monitors generally should have 

remained at the same location for the 

duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

IDEM submitted ozone monitoring 

data for the 2002 to 2004 ozone seasons. 

The State quality assures monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 

and the Indiana Quality Assurance 

Manual and records the data in the 

AIRS database, thus making the data 

publicly available. IDEM operates two 

ozone monitors in Vigo County: Terre 

Haute and Sandcut. The data for 2002–

2004 have been quality assured and are 

recorded in AIRS. For the Terre Haute 

monitor, data completeness averaged 

98%, 98%, and 100% in 2002, 2003 and 

2004, respectively. For the Sandcut 

monitor, data completeness averaged 

96%, 93% and 97% in 2002, 2003 and 

2004, respectively. The annual fourth 

highest 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations and the three-year 

average fourth-high 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations are summarized in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1.—ANNUAL FOURTH-HIGH 8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATION AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGE FOURTH-HIGH

8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS IN VIGO COUNTY, INDIANA

Site Year 

4th high 8-hour 

average 

(ppm) 

3-year average 

for ending year 

(ppm) 

Terre Haute .............................................................................................................................. 2002 0.082 NA 

Terre Haute .............................................................................................................................. 2003 0.066 NA 

Terre Haute .............................................................................................................................. 2004 0.057 0.068 

Sandcut .................................................................................................................................... 2002 0.099 NA 

Sandcut .................................................................................................................................... 2003 0.080 NA 

Sandcut .................................................................................................................................... 2004 0.072 0.084 

It should be noted that preliminary 

2005 monitoring data show that Vigo 

County continues to attain the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, IDEM 

has committed to continue monitoring 

in these areas in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes 

that the data submitted by Indiana 

provide an adequate demonstration that 

Vigo County has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we are 

70754 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP call, requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states, including Indiana, to reduce their 

statewide emissions of NOX in order to reduce the 

transport of ozone and ozone. In compliance with 

EPA’s NOX SIP call, IDEM has developed rules 

governing the control of NOX emissions from 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU 

industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA 

approved Indiana’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the 

NOX SIP Call on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56465). 

On December 11, 2003 (68 FR 69025) EPA approved 

revisions to these rules. 

proposing to find that Vigo County has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard. 

2. For Purposes of Redesignation the 

Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We are proposing to determine 

Indiana has met all currently applicable 

SIP requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for Vigo County under 

Section 110 of the CAA (general SIP 

requirements). We are also proposing to 

determine that the Indiana SIP meets all 

SIP requirements currently applicable 

for purposes of redesignation under Part 

D of Title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to Subpart 1 nonattainment 

areas), in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we are 

proposing to determine that the Indiana 

SIP is fully approved with respect to all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

proposed determinations, we have 

ascertained what SIP requirements are 

applicable to the areas for purposes of 

redesignation. As discussed more fully 

below, SIPs must be fully approved only 

with respect to currently applicable 

requirements of the CAA. 

a. Vigo County has met all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 and 

part D of the CAA. The September 4, 

1992 Calcagni memorandum (see 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992) describes 

EPA’s interpretation of section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this 

interpretation, to qualify for 

redesignation of an area to attainment, 

the state and the area must meet the 

relevant CAA requirements that come 

due prior to the state’s submittal of a 

complete redesignation request for the 

area. See also the September 17, 1993 

Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 

FR 12459, 12465–66 (Mar. 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete request remain applicable 

until a redesignation to attainment is 

approved, but are not required as a 

prerequisite to redesignation. See 

section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

General SIP requirements. Section 

110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the 

general requirements for a SIP. General 

SIP elements and requirements are 

delineated in section 110(a)(2). These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: submittal of a 

SIP that has been adopted by the state 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing; enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques; provisions for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; implementation of a 

source permit program; provisions for 

the implementation of part C, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and part D, New Source Review 

(NSR) permit programs; criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; 

provisions for air quality modeling; and 

provisions for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants (NOX SIP Call,1 Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR)(70 FR 25162)). 

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification. EPA 

believes that the requirements linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the state. 

We believe that these requirements 

should not be construed to be applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. Further, we believe that 

the other section 110 elements 

described above that are not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

in evaluating a redesignation request. 

This approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability of 

conformity and oxygenated fuels 

requirements for redesignation 

purposes, as well as with section 184 

ozone transport requirements. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We believe that section 110 elements 

not linked to the area’s nonattainment 

status are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Any section 110 

requirements that are linked to the part 

D requirements for 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas are not yet due, 

since, as explained below, no part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under the 8-hour standard 

became due prior to submission of the 

redesignation requests. Therefore, as 

discussed above, for purposes of 

redesignation, they are not considered 

applicable requirements. 

Part D Requirements. EPA has 

determined that the Indiana SIP meets 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of the CAA since no requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

became due for the 8-hour ozone 

standard prior to submission of the Vigo 

County redesignation request. Under 

part D, an area’s classification 

determines the requirements to which it 

will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, 

found in sections 172–176 of the CAA, 

sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the 

CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, 

establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. Vigo 

County was classified as subpart 1 

nonattainment area, and therefore 

subpart 2 requirements do not apply. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 70755 

Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP 

requirements. For purposes of 

evaluating this redesignation request, 

the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP 

requirements for Vigo County are 

contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

No requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

became due prior to submission of the 

redesignation request, and, therefore, 

none is applicable to the area for 

purposes of redesignation. Since the 

State of Indiana has submitted a 

complete ozone redesignation request 

for Vigo County prior to the deadline for 

any submissions required for purposes 

of redesignation, we have determined 

that these requirements do not apply to 

the Vigo County area for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Furthermore, EPA has determined 

that areas being redesignated need not 

comply with the requirement that a NSR 

program be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without part D NSR, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation. A more detailed rationale 

for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Indiana 

has demonstrated that the area will be 

able to maintain the standard without 

part D NSR in effect, and therefore, EPA 

concludes that the State need not have 

a fully approved part D NSR program 

prior to approval of the redesignation 

request. The State’s PSD program will 

become effective in Vigo County upon 

redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

Section 176 conformity requirements. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other Federallysupported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State conformity revisions 

must be consistent with Federal 

conformity regulations relating to 

consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability that the CAA required the 

EPA to promulgate. 

EPA approved Indiana’s general 

conformity SIP on January 14, 1998 (63 

FR 2146). Indiana does not have a 

Federally approved transportation 

conformity SIP. However, conformity 

analyses are performed pursuant to 

EPA’s Federal conformity rules. Indiana 

has submitted on-highway motor 

vehicle budgets for Vigo County of 2.84 

tpd of VOC and 3.67 tpd of NOX, based 

on the area’s 2015 level of emissions. 

Vigo County must use the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets from the 

maintenance plan in any conformity 

determination that is effective on or 

after the effective date of the 

maintenance plan approval. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment since such 

areas would be subject to a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, 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 approved, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to view 

these requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 

(Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). Thus, 

the area has satisfied all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. 

b. For purposes of redesignation Vigo 

County has a fully approved applicable 

SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. 

EPA has fully approved the Indiana SIP 

for Vigo County under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals in approving 

a redesignation request (See the 

September 4, 1992 John Calcagni 

memorandum, page 3, Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage 

of the CAA of 1970, Indiana has adopted 

and submitted, and EPA has fully 

approved, provisions addressing the 

various required SIP elements 

applicable to Vigo County under the 1- 

hour ozone standard. No Vigo County 

area SIP provisions are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved, or 

partially approved. As indicated above, 

EPA believes that the section 110 

elements not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked to the area’s nonattainment 

status are not applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA also 

believes that since the part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation did not become due prior 

to submission of the redesignation 

request, they also are, therefore, not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA believes that Indiana has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in Vigo County is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other State-adopted 

measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

State has calculated the change in 

emissions between 1999 and 2004, one 

of the years Vigo County monitored 

attainment. The reduction in emissions 

and the corresponding improvement in 

air quality over this time period can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that Indiana has 

implemented in recent years. 

a. Permanent and enforceable 

controls implemented. The following is 

a discussion of permanent and 

enforceable measures that have been 

implemented in the area: 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT). Vigo County was 

not previously required to be covered by 

RACT regulations for existing sources 

under the CAA. However, Indiana has 

implemented statewide RACT controls 

through the following regulations: 

70756 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

326–IAC 8–2 Surface Coating Emission 

Limitations; 

326–IAC 8–3 Organic Solvent 

Degreasing Operations; 

326–IAC 8–4 Petroleum Sources; 

326–IAC 8–5 Miscellaneous 

Operations; and 

326–IAC 8–6 Organic Solvent 

Emission Limitations. 

NOX rules. In compliance with EPA’s 

NOX SIP call, Indiana developed rules 

to control NOX emissions from Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs), major nonEGU industrial boilers, and major 

cement kilns. These rules required 

sources to begin reducing NOX

emissions in 2004, with emission 

reductions increasing to 31 percent 

statewide by 2007. It should be noted 

that statewide NOX emissions actually 

began to decline in 2002 as sources 

phased in emission controls needed to 

comply with the State’s NOX emission 

control regulations. From 2004 on, NOX

emissions from EGUs are capped at a 

statewide total well below pre-2002 

levels. It should be noted that NOX

emissions are expected to further 

decline as the State meets the 

requirements of EPA’s Phase II NOX SIP 

call (69 FR 21604). 

Federal Emission Control Measures. 

Reductions in VOC and NOX emissions 

have occurred statewide as a result of 

Federal emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future as additional 

emission controls are implemented. 

Federal emission control measures have 

included: the National Low Emission 

Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 

emission standards for vehicles, 

gasoline sulfur limits, and heavy-duty 

diesel engine standards. In addition, in 

2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958). This 

rule will reduce off-road diesel 

emissions through 2010, with emission 

reductions starting in 2008. 

Indiana commits to maintain the 

implemented emission control measures 

after redesignation of Vigo County to 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Any revisions to emission control 

regulations and emission limits will be 

submitted to the EPA for approval as 

SIP revisions. 

b. Emission reductions. Indiana is 

using 1999 for the nonattainment year 

inventory, emissions from which are 

used to compare to the 2004 attainment 

year inventory to demonstrate that 

emission reductions (from 1999 to 2004) 

have contributed to the improvement in 

air quality. Emissions estimates were 

taken directly from the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), with the 

following exception. Point source 

emissions information was compiled 

from IDEM’s 1999 annual emissions 

statement database. 

For comparison, IDEM developed an 

inventory for 2004, one of the years the 

area monitored attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS. The point source sector 

information was compiled from IDEM’s 

2004 annual emissions statement 

database and the 2004 EPA Air Markets 

acid rain database. The area source 

sector information was taken from the 

Indiana 2002 periodic inventory 

submitted to EPA. These projections 

were made from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce Bureau of Economic 

Analysis growth factors with some 

updated local information. The nonroad 

sector emission estimates were 

developed using NONROAD with the 

following modifications. Emissions 

were estimated for two nonroad 

categories not included in NONROAD, 

commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. Recreational motorboat 

population and spatial surrogates (used 

to assign emissions to each county) were 

updated. The populations for the 

construction equipment category were 

reviewed and updated based upon 

surveys completed in the Midwest and 

the temporal allocation for agricultural 

sources was also updated. The onroad 

sector emissions were calculated using 

MOBILE 6.2. 

Based on the inventories described 

above, Indiana’s submittal documents 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

from 1999 to 2004 for Vigo County. 

Indiana also documented the change in 

emissions for the surrounding Western 

Indiana Counties of Clay, Parke, 

Sullivan and Vermillion. Emissions data 

are shown in Tables 2 and 3 below. 

TABLE 2.—COMPARISON OF 1999 AND 2004 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR VIGO COUNTY (TPSD) 

Sector 

VOC NOX

1999 2004 

Net change 

(1999–2004) 1999 2004 

Net change 

(1999–2004) 

Point ......................................................................................... 7.36 4.84 ¥2.52 26.65 28.67 2.02 

Area .......................................................................................... 14.18 6.48 ¥7.70 1.45 0.99 ¥0.46 

Nonroad ................................................................................... 2.32 2.76 0.44 5.28 3.39 ¥1.89 

Onroad ..................................................................................... 8.30 6.22 ¥2.08 12.29 9.42 ¥2.87 

Total .................................................................................. 32.16 20.30 ¥11.86 45.67 42.47 ¥3.20 

TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF 1999 AND 2004 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR SURROUNDING COUNTIES (TPSD) 

Sector 

VOC NOX

1999 2004 

Net change 

(1999–2004) 1999 2004 

Net change 

(1999–2004) 

Point ......................................................................................... 5.52 3.22 ¥2.30 82.39 62.90 ¥19.49 

Area .......................................................................................... 19.18 6.76 ¥12.42 0.94 0.54 ¥0.40 

Nonroad ................................................................................... 2.70 4.11 1.41 9.17 6.93 ¥2.24 

Onroad ..................................................................................... 7.20 6.12 ¥1.08 9.87 11.56 1.69 

Total .................................................................................. 34.60 20.21 ¥14.39 102.37 81.93 ¥20.44 

Table 2 shows that Vigo County 

reduced NOX emissions by 3.20 tpd and 

VOC emissions by 11.86 tpd between 

1999 and 2004. Table 3 shows emissions 

in the surrounding counties decreased 

by 14.39 tpd for VOC and 20.44 tpd for 

NOX. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 70757 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Indiana has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175a of the CAA. (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Vigo County 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Indiana submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in Vigo County for 

at least 10 years after redesignation. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets 

forth the required elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. Under section 175A, the 

plan must demonstrate continued 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS for 

at least ten years after the Administrator 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after the redesignation, the 

State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan which demonstrates 

that attainment will continue to be 

maintained for ten years following the 

initial ten-year maintenance period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency measures with a 

schedule for implementation as EPA 

deems necessary to assure prompt 

correction of any future 8-hour ozone 

violations. 

The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. An ozone 

maintenance plan should address the 

following items: The attainment VOC 

and NOX emissions inventories, a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance for the ten years of the 

maintenance period, a commitment to 

maintain the existing monitoring 

network, factors and procedures to be 

used for verification of continued 

attainment of the NAAQS, and a 

contingency plan to prevent or correct 

future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory. The State 

developed an inventory for 2004, one of 

the years the area monitored attainment 

of the 8-hour NAAQS. Inventory 

methodology is described in section 3 

above. The attainment level of 

emissions is summarized along with the 

2010 and 2015 projected emissions for 

Vigo County in Table 3 below. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance. As 

part of the redesignation request, IDEM 

submitted revisions to the 8-hour ozone 

SIP to include a 10-year maintenance 

plan as required by section 175A of the 

CAA. For Vigo County, this 

demonstration shows maintenance of 

the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring 

that current and future emissions of 

VOC and NOX remain at or below 

attainment year emission levels. A 

maintenance demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 

(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25430–25432 

(May 12, 2003). 

IDEM developed projected emissions 

inventories for 2010 and 2015. Onroad 

mobile source emissions were projected 

using Mobile 6.2 in accordance with 

‘‘Procedures for Preparing Emissions 

Projections,’’ EPA–45/4–91–019. 

Emissions for the point, area and 

nonroad sectors were projected using 

growth and control files developed by 

the Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization. This method was used to 

ensure that the inventories used for 

redesignation are consistent with 

modeling performed in the future. These 

emission estimates are presented in 

Tables 4 and 5 below. 

TABLE 4.—COMPARISON OF 2004–2015 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR VIGO COUNTY (TPSD) 

Sector 

VOC NOX

2004 2010 2015 

Net change 

2004–2015 2004 2010 2015 

Net change 

2004–2015 

Point ................................................. 4.84 7.24 8.42 3.58 28.67 12.91 12.93 ¥15.74 

Area .................................................. 6.48 6.94 7.32 0.84 0.99 1.05 1.08 0.09 

Nonroad ........................................... 2.76 1.93 1.60 ¥1.16 3.39 2.01 1.53 ¥1.86 

Onroad ............................................. 6.22 3.84 2.58 ¥3.64 9.42 5.76 3.34 ¥6.08 

Total .......................................... 20.30 19.95 19.92 ¥0.38 42.47 21.73 18.88 ¥23.59 

TABLE 5.—COMPARISON OF 2004–2015 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR SURROUNDING COUNTIES (TPSD) 

Sector 

VOC NOX

2004 2010 2015 

Net change 

2004–2015 2004 2010 2015 

Net change 

2004–2015 

Point ................................................. 3.22 3.50 3.98 0.76 62.90 36.80 36.97 ¥25.93 

Area .................................................. 6.76 7.16 7.57 0.81 0.54 0.58 0.59 0.05 

Nonroad ........................................... 4.11 2.98 2.54 ¥1.57 6.93 3.60 2.98 ¥3.95 

Onroad ............................................. 6.12 7.40 4.48 ¥1.64 11.56 4.31 3.09 ¥8.47 

Total .......................................... 20.21 21.04 18.57 ¥1.64 81.93 45.29 43.63 ¥38.30 

The emission projections show that in 

Vigo County emissions are not expected 

to exceed the level of the 2004 

attainment year inventory during the 10- 

year maintenance period. Vigo County 

VOC and NOX emissions are projected 

to decrease by 0.38 tpd and 23.59 tpd, 

respectively. Surrounding County VOC 

and NOX emissions are projected to 

decrease by 1.64 tpd and 38.30 tpd, 

respectively. 

IDEM notes that, although ozone 

modeling is not required to support 

ozone redesignation requests, a 

significant amount of ozone modeling 

data exist that support the connection 

between emissions reductions and air 

quality improvement, including 

modeling data that support a 

demonstration of maintenance for Vigo 

County. IDEM notes that the available 

70758 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2Relative Reduction Factors are fractional 

changes in peak ozone concentrations projected to 

occur as the result of assumed changes in precursor 

emissions resulting from the implementation of 

emission control strategies. Relative Reduction 

Factors are derived through ozone modeling and are 

applied to monitored peak ozone concentrations to 

project post-control peak ozone levels. 

modeling data demonstrate that Vigo is 

significantly impacted by ozone and 

ozone precursor transport and that NOX

emission reductions are significantly 

beneficial for reducing 8-hour ozone 

concentrations in Vigo County. IDEM 

draws the conclusions discussed below 

from the various ozone modeling 

analyses that have addressed the 

Midwest. 

EPA modeling analyses for the Heavy 

Duty Engine rule. EPA conducted ozone 

modeling for Tier II vehicle and lowsulfur fuels to support the final 

rulemaking for the Heavy Duty Engine 

(HDE) and Vehicle Standards and 

Highway Diesel Fuel Rule. This 

modeling, in part, addressed ozone 

levels in Vigo County and the West 

Central Indiana Counties. A base year of 

1996 was modeled, and the impacts of 

fuel changes and the NOX SIP call were 

addressed for high ozone episodes in 

1995. The modeling supports the 

conclusion that the fuel improvements 

and the NOX SIP call result in 

significant ozone improvements (lower 

projected ozone concentrations) in Vigo 

County and in the West Central Indiana 

Counties. Using the modeling results to 

determine Relative Reduction Factors 

(RRFs)2 and, considering the 2001–2003 

ozone design value at the Terre Haute 

ozone monitor (76 ppb) and at the 

Sandcut monitor (87) ppb, IDEM 

projected the 2007 ozone design value 

to be 66.1 ppb and 80.4 ppb, at Terre 

Haute and Sandcut, respectively. 

Therefore, the NOX SIP call and the fuel 

modifications considered in the ozone 

modeling were found to significantly 

improve the ozone levels in Vigo 

County. 

Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) modeling analysis 

for the 8-hour ozone standard 

assessment. LADCO has performed 

ozone modeling to evaluate the effect of 

the NOX SIP call and Tier II/Low Sulfur 

Fuel Rule on 2007 ozone levels in the 

Lake Michigan area, which includes 

Vigo County and the West Central 

Indiana Counties. Like the EPA 

modeling discussed above, this 

modeling indicates that the 2001–2003 

ozone design values for the Vigo County 

monitoring sites would be reduced to 

below-standard levels in 2007 as the 

result of implementing the NOX SIP call 

and the Tier II/Low Sulfur Fuel Rule. 

EPA modeling analysis for the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA 

conducted modeling in support of the 

CAIR rulemaking. The modeling was 

based on 1999–2003 design values. 

Future year modeling was conducted for 

Vigo County and future year design 

values for 2010 and 2015 were 

evaluated for attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Results of the CAIR 

modeling show that Vigo County should 

continue to attain the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in 2010. With additional CAIR 

reductions in 2015, design values 

continue to decrease. 

As part of its maintenance plan, the 

State elected to include a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ for the areas. A ‘‘safety margin’’

is the difference between the attainment 

level of emissions (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from 

all sources) in the maintenance plan 

which continues to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

For example, Vigo County attained the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002–

2004 time period. Indiana uses 2004 as 

the attainment level of emissions for the 

area. The emissions from point, area, 

nonroad, and mobile sources in 2004 

equaled 20.30 tpd of VOC for Vigo 

County. Projected VOC emissions out to 

the year 2015 equaled 19.92 tpd of VOC. 

The SIP demonstrates that Vigo County 

will continue to maintain the standard 

with emissions at this level. The safety 

margin for VOC is calculated to be the 

difference between these amounts or, in 

this case, 0.38 tpd of VOC for 2015. By 

this same method, 23.59 tpd (i.e., 42.47 

tpd less 18.88 tpd) is the safety margin 

for NOX for 2015. The emissions are 

projected to maintain the area’s air 

quality consistent with the NAAQS. The 

safety margin, or a portion thereof, can 

be allocated to any of the source 

categories, as long as the total 

attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network. Indiana 

currently operates two ozone monitors 

in Vigo County. IDEM has committed to 

continue operating and maintaining an 

approved ozone monitor network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

e. Verification of Continued 

Attainment. Continued attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS in Vigo County 

depends, in part, on the State’s efforts 

toward tracking indicators of continued 

attainment during the maintenance 

period. The State’s plan for verifying 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in Vigo County consists of 

plans to continue ambient ozone 

monitoring in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. In 

addition, IDEM will periodically revise 

and review the VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories for Vigo County to ensure 

that emissions growth is not threatening 

the continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard. Emissions inventories 

will be revised for 2005, 2008, and 2011, 

as necessary to comply with the 

emissions inventory reporting 

requirements of the CAA. The updated 

emissions inventories will be compared 

to the 2004 emissions inventories to 

assess emission trends and assure 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

f. Contingency Plan. The contingency 

plan provisions are designed to 

promptly correct or prevent a violation 

of the NAAQS that might occur after 

redesignation of an area to attainment. 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure that the State will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that might occur after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Indiana has adopted a 

contingency plan for Vigo County to 

address a possible future ozone air 

quality problem. The contingency plan 

adopted by Indiana has two levels of 

responses, depending on whether a 

violation of the 8-hour ozone standard 

is only threatened (Warning Level) or 

has occurred or is imminent (Action 

Level). 

A Warning Level response will occur 

when an annual (1-year) fourth-high 

monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone 

concentration of 88 ppb or higher is 

monitored in a single ozone season at 

any monitor within the ozone 

maintenance area. A Warning Level 

response will consist of Indiana 

performing a study to determine 

whether the high ozone concentration 

indicates a trend toward high ozone 

levels or whether emissions are 

increasing. If a trend toward higher 

ozone concentrations exists and is likely 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 70759 

to continue, the emissions control 

measures necessary to reverse the trend 

will be determined taking into 

consideration ease and timing of 

implementation, as well as economic 

and social considerations. The study, 

including applicable recommended next 

steps, will be completed within 12 

months from the close of the ozone 

season with the recorded high ozone 

concentration. If emission controls are 

needed to reverse the adverse ozone 

trend, the procedures for emission 

control selection under the Action Level 

response will be followed. 

An Action Level response will occur 

when a two-year average annual fourthhigh monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone 

concentration of 85 ppb occurs at any 

monitor in the ozone maintenance area. 

A violation of the standard (a 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration of 85 ppb or greater) also 

triggers an Action Level response. In 

this situation, IDEM will determine the 

additional emission control measures 

needed to assure future attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. IDEM will 

focus on emission control measures that 

can be implemented in a short time, and 

selected emission control measures will 

be adopted and implemented within 18 

months from the close of the ozone 

season with ozone monitoring data that 

prompted the Action Level Response. 

Adoption of any additional emission 

control measures will be subject to the 

necessary administrative and legal 

procedures, including publication of 

notices and the opportunity for public 

comment and response. If a new 

emission control measure is adopted by 

the State (independent of the ozone 

contingency needs) or is adopted at a 

Federal level and is scheduled for 

implementation in a time frame that 

will mitigate an ozone air quality 

problem, IDEM will determine whether 

this emission control measure is 

sufficient to address the ozone air 

quality problem. If IDEM determines 

that existing or soon-to-be-implemented 

emissions control measures should be 

adequate to correct the ozone standard 

violation problem, IDEM may determine 

that additional emission control 

measures at the State level may be 

unnecessary. Regardless, IDEM will 

submit to the EPA an analysis to 

demonstrate that proposed emission 

control measures are adequate to 

provide for future attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in a timely manner. 

EPA notes that it is construing this 

provision to require that any nonFederal control measure relied upon in 

lieu of a contingency measure be 

included in the State SIP or be 

submitted to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. 

Contingency measures contained in 

the maintenance plan are those 

emission controls or other measures that 

Indiana may choose to adopt and 

implement to correct possible air quality 

problems. These include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline 

requirements; 

ii. Broader geographic applicability of 

existing emission control measures; 

iii. Tightened RACT requirements on 

existing sources covered by EPA Control 

Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued in 

response to the 1990 CAA amendments; 

iv. Application of RACT to smaller 

existing sources; 

v. Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M); 

vi. One or more Transportation 

Control Measure (TCM) sufficient to 

achieve at least a 0.5 percent reduction 

in actual area wide VOC emissions, to 

be selected from the following: 

A. Trip reduction programs, 

including, but not limited to, employerbased transportation management plans, 

area wide rideshare programs, work 

schedule changes, and telecommuting; 

B. Transit improvements; 

C. Traffic flow improvements; and 

D. Other new or innovative 

transportation measures not yet in 

widespread use that affect State and 

local governments as deemed 

appropriate; 

vii. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations; 

viii. Controls on consumer products 

consistent with those adopted elsewhere 

in the United States; 

ix. VOC or NOX emission offsets for 

new or modified major sources; 

x. VOC or NOX emission offsets for 

new or modified minor sources; 

xi. Increased ratio of emission offset 

required for new sources; and, 

xii. VOC or NOX emission controls on 

new minor sources (with VOC or NOX

emissions less than 100 tons per year). 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan. As required 

by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Indiana 

commits to submit to the EPA an update 

of the ozone maintenance plan eight 

years after redesignation of Vigo County 

to cover an additional 10-year period 

beyond the initial 10-year maintenance 

period. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by Indiana 

for Vigo County meets the requirements 

of section 175A of the CAA. 

B. Adequacy of Indiana’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) 

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and 

What Are the MVEBs for Vigo County? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for applicable areas (for ozone 

nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignations to attainment of 

the ozone standard). These emission 

control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., 

reasonable further progress SIP and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and ozone maintenance plans create 

MVEBs based on onroad mobile source 

emissions for criteria pollutants and/or 

their precursors to address pollution 

from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are 

the portions of the total allowable 

emissions that are allocated to highway 

and transit vehicle use that, together 

with emissions from other sources in 

the area, will provide for attainment or 

maintenance. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB if needed. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the SIP that addresses 

emissions from cars and trucks. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new transportation projects that 

would expand the capacity of roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining 

70760 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted 

MVEBs to be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, the MVEBs are 

used by state and federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA’s substantive criteria 

for determining the adequacy of MVEBs 

are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and (3) EPA’s finding 

of adequacy. The process of determining 

the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs 

was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 

1999 guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance 

on Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ This 

guidance was finalized in the 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 

Revisions for Existing Areas; 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’

published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 

40004). EPA follows this guidance and 

rulemaking in making its adequacy 

determinations. 

Vigo County’s 10-year maintenance 

plan submission contains new VOC and 

NOX MVEBs for 2015. The availability 

of the SIP submission with these 2015 

MVEBs was announced for public 

comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web page 

on July 12, 2005, at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/ 

currsips.htm. The EPA public comment 

period on adequacy of the 2015 MVEBs 

for Vigo County closed on August 11, 

2005. No requests for this submittal or 

adverse comments on this submittal 

were received during the Adequacy 

comment period. In an October 25, 

2005, letter, EPA informed IDEM that 

we had found the 2015 MVEBs to be 

adequate for use in transportation 

conformity analyses. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for use 

to determine transportation conformity 

in Vigo County because EPA has 

determined that the areas can maintain 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the relevant 10-year period with 

mobile source emissions at the levels of 

the MVEBs. IDEM has determined the 

2015 MVEBs for Vigo County to be 2.84 

tpd for VOC and 3.67 tpd for NOX. It 

should be noted that these MVEBs 

exceed the onroad mobile source VOC 

and NOX emissions projected by IDEM 

for 2015, as summarized in Table 3 

above (‘‘onroad’’ source sector). IDEM 

decided to include safety margins 

(described further below) of 0.26 tpd of 

VOC and 0.33 tpd for NOX in the 

MVEBs to provide for mobile source 

growth. Indiana has demonstrated that 

Vigo County can maintain the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with mobile source 

emissions of 2.84 tpd of VOC and 3.67 

tpd of NOX in 2015, including the 

allocated safety margins, since 

emissions will still remain under 

attainment year emission levels. 

2. What Is the Vigo County Safety 

Margin? 

As noted in Table 4, Vigo County 

VOC and NOX emissions are projected 

to have safety margins of 0.38 tpd for 

VOC and 23.59 tpd for NOX in 2015 (the 

difference between the attainment year, 

2004, emissions and the 2015 emissions 

for all sources in Vigo County). Even if 

emissions reached the full level of the 

safety margin, the County would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

The MVEBs requested by IDEM 

contain safety margins for mobile 

sources significantly smaller than the 

allowable safety margins reflected in the 

total emissions for Vigo County. The 

State is not requesting allocation of the 

entire available safety margins reflected 

in the demonstration of maintenance. 

Therefore, even though the State is 

requesting MVEBs that exceed the 

onroad mobile source emissions for 

2015 contained in the demonstration of 

maintenance, the increase in onroad 

mobile source emissions that can be 

considered for transportation 

conformity purposes is well within the 

safety margins of the ozone maintenance 

demonstration. Further, once allocated 

to mobile sources, these safety margins 

will not be available for use by other 

sources. 

VII. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that Vigo County has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of Vigo County from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating 

Indiana’s redesignation request, EPA is 

proposing to determine that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Any final 

approval of this redesignation request 

would change the official designation 

for Vigo County from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan SIP revision for Vigo 

County. The proposed approval of the 

maintenance plan is based on Indiana’s 

demonstration that the plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA, as described more fully above. 

Additionally, EPA is finding adequate 

and proposing to approve the 2015 

MVEBs submitted by Indiana in 

conjunction with the redesignation 

requests. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this proposed action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely approves state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Redesignation of an area to attainment 

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

Air Act does not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. 

Redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on sources. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 70761 

Executive Order 13175 Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

This proposed action also does not 

have federalism implications because it 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

Redesignation is an action that merely 

affects the status of a geographical area, 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources, or allows a state to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. 

Executive Order 13045 Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an 

action that affects the status of a 

geographical area but does not impose 

any new requirements on sources. Thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 05–23221 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8001–4] 

Michigan: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Michigan has applied to the 

EPA for final authorization of the 

changes to its hazardous waste 

management program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization 

and is proposing to authorize the state’s 

changes through this proposed final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 23, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Ms. Judy Feigler, Michigan Regulatory 

Specialist, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides 

and Toxics Division (DM–7J), 77 W. 

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

phone number: (312) 886–4179. We 

must receive your comments by 

December 23, 2005. You can view and 

copy Michigan’s application from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. at the following addresses: 

Waste Management Division, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Constitution Hall—Atrium North, 

Lansing, Michigan (mailing address P.O. 

Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909), 

contact Ronda Blayer (517) 353–9548; 

and EPA Region 5, contact Judy Feigler 

at the following address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Feigler, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, 

U.S. EPA, DM–7J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886–4179. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why Are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the federal 

program. As the federal program 

changes, states must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. Changes to state programs may 

be necessary when federal or state 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, states must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

We conclude that Michigan’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant 

Michigan final authorization to operate 

its hazardous waste management 

program with the changes described in 

the authorization application. Michigan 

has responsibility for permitting 

treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities (TSDFs) within its borders 

(except in Indian country) and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

described in its revised program 

application, subject to the limitations of 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New 

federal requirements and prohibitions 

imposed by federal regulations that EPA 

promulgates under the authority of 

HSWA take effect in authorized states 

before they are authorized for the 

requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Michigan, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s 

Authorization Decision? 

This decision means that a facility in 

Michigan subject to RCRA will now 

have to comply with the authorized 

state requirements (listed in section F of