+(,121/,1(

Citation: 43 Fed. Reg. 45993 1978 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Apr 3 20:27:42 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
RULES AND REGULATIONS

[4410-011

[AAG/A Order.No. 14-781

PART 16-PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION

Subpart E-Exemption of Records

Systems Under the Privacy Act

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY. The Department of Justice is amending 28 CFR 16.85 to

permit the U.S. Parole Commission to

revise its alternate means of access under-the Privacy Act of 1974 in order

to bring its rules relating to disclosure

under the Privacy Act into conformity

with the prehearing disclosure provisions of the Parole Commission and

Reorganization Act of 1976. The authorization specifically permits the

Commission to apply the same substantive exemptions' to all disclosure

requests by prisoners which will avoid

the possibility of inconsistent disclo- sure decisions relating to the same in-

'orn

DAT

tobe

ADI

Gro

nanc

and

ingt

FOE

CON

Br

SUP

No c

the:

the

552a

vised

D

§ 16.8

(c)

purp

U.S.

proc

formn

obta

ing

the

.sure

prov

ques

will

woul

exen

and Reorganization Act of 1976 (18

U.S.C. § 4208) and rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The

procedure relating to disclosure of documents may be changed generally in

the interest of improving the Commission's system of disclosure or when re- quired by pending or future decisions

and directions of the Department of

Justice.

[FR Doc. 78-28106 Filed 10-4-78; 8:45 am]

[6560-01]

Title 40-Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS

(FRL 972-21

PART 81-AIR QUALITY CONTROL

REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ation. I ACTION: Final ruie.

E: This rule will be effective Oc- r 5, 1978. SUMIA : This rulemaking re- sponds to comments and makes neces-

)RESS: Legal and Legislative -sary amendments to the designations

up, Office of Management and Fl- of attainment status relative to the nace, Department of Justice, 10th tional ambient air quality standards

Constitution Avenue NW., Wash- (NAAQS) for Illinois, Indiana, Michl2n, D.C. 20530. 1 gan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. I FURTHER INFORMATION This rulemaking supplements the naTrACT. tional EPA rulemaking of September 11, 1978 (43 FR 40412), and incorpo- onson E. Clayton, 202-739-4165. rates by reference EPA's position on

IPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: certain general issues raised in coancomments were received regarding ments on the designations found in

proposed regulations. Pursuant to the supplementary information secauthority vested in me by 5 U.S.C. tion of that rulemaking. and 553, 28 CFR 16.85(c), is re- DATE: Effective date-October 5, 1 as set forth below. 1978. 1

.ted: September 22, 1978. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

KEv= D. RooNEy, CONTACT.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Mateer, Air Programs forAdministration. Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 230 South Dearborn

85 Exemption of Parole Commission Street, Chicago, Ill. 60604, 312-353-

system-limited access. 2334.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

Consistent with the legislative 1977 (the 1977 Amendments), Pub. L.

)ose of the Privacy Act of 1974 the 95-95, added section 107(d) to the

Parole Commission will initiate a Clean Air Act (the Act) which directed

edure whereby present and each State to submit to the Adminisoer prisoners and parolees may trator a list of the NAAQS,attainment in copies of material in files relat- status of all areas within the State.

to them that are maintained by The Administrator was required under

U.S. Parole Commission. Disclo- section 107(d)(2) to promulgate the

'of the contents will be affected by State lists, with any necessary modifiiding copies of documents to re- cations. For each standard, areas are

ters through the mails. Disclosure classified as either not meeting the

be made to the same extent as standard (nonattainment areas), meetLd be made under, the substantive ing the standard (attainment areas),

aptions of the Parole Commission or lacking sufficient data to be classifled (unclassifiable areas). The US.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA or the Agency) published these

lists in the FzEraL R wxs=m on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962), and invited the public to submit comments to

the Agency by May 2, 1978.

Certain issues raised in these com- ments were similar to those raised by

others throughout the nation. These

Issues are addressed in the national

EPA promulgation. Additional issues

which are specific to the States in

EPA region V are addressed in this

action. Several of the comments have

caused EPA to modify earlier designations. In some cases, the designation

has been changed by redefining the

boundaries of the area; in others, the

designation itself has been changed

but no new nonattainment areas have

been designated in counties which were previously attainment or unclassiflable.

For good cause, the amendments to

designations made final today are being made effective immediately. As

discussed in the national EPA rulemaking, the only effect of these designatlong is to Identify problem areas for which State planning must be com- pleted by a statutory deadline. These

designations impose no obligatioil on any source. There would therefore be no point in deferring the effective

date. The Issues raised In the comments are discussed below by State.

ILIN OIS

One commenter stated that no opportunity was provided for public participation in the designation process

Implemented by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).

While the Clean Air Act does not re- quire the States to provide opportunity for public participation in the designation process, IEPA held two public

meetings in November 1977 in order to

discuss the criteria to be utilized In-the

designation process. Written com- ments were accepted by IEPA until

the end of that month.

ToTAL SuspENzDED PATxcuLATEs (TSP)

One commenter questioned the criteria used by the State of Illinois in

determining the nonattainment

boundaries, monitor siting, and monitoring data used to support the nonattainment designations for Bremen,

Orland, and Palos Townships in

AQCR 67 (Cook County). The nonattainment designations for these townships are supported by monitored violations. The State of Illinois chose to

designate an area surrounding monitored violations which included the

surrounding townships. EPA review of

the monitoring data and site locations

reaffirms that the TSP primary and

secondary nonattainment status of

Bremen and Orland Townships is supFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

45993
RULES AND REGULATIONS

ported by the data. This review also

demonstrates the need to redesignate

Palos Township from attainment of

the primary standard and nonattainment of the secondary standard to

nonattainment for both the -primary

and secondarystandards.

'One commenter questioned the mon- itoring data used to support the nonattainment designations for Hyde Park,

Hennepin, and Mount Vernon Townships. Upon review of the monitoring

data from these townships, EPA xedffirms the nonattainment designations.

However, in the case of Hennepin

Township, if 1978 monitoring data

continues to indicate improved -air

quality, a redesignation may be justi-

-fled.

One commenter questioned 'the

siting of a monitoring station and air

quality data used to support the nonattainment designation for Capital

Township, Sangamon County. The

designation of Capital Township -was based on air quality data fron third

cuarter 1975 through- second quarter

1977. Upon review of monitored data

and information regarding site location, EPA reaffirms the noniattainment designation.

One commenter recommended that

the geographic areas for the TSP ionattainment, designations be made

smaller than entire townships within

major metropolitan areas such as the

city of Chicago. The commenter xec- omimended the utilization of specific

street boundaries for smaller areas of

nonlattainment. The commenter did

not provide sufficient support for revising the nonattainment boundaries as suggested. Therefore, EPA reaffirms -the nonattainment designations

within the city of Chicago.

,One commenter noted that seven townships in south Chicago are listed as exceeding the primary TSP standards when there are many monitoring

sites located in south Chicago which

meet the primary. TSP standards.

Upon review of the 1977 monitoring

data from the monitoring sites -men- tioned by. the commenter, EPA reaffirms 'the nonattainment designations.

SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2)

One commenter indicated that a copy of a preliminary air quality modeling study was not available for

review and that comment on the non- attainment designation for the Peoria

major metropolitafi area was thereby

hindered. The commenter also questioned the modeling xesults used to

support this designation, specifically

the emissions inventory used in the,

modeling. The above-mentioned draft

report was made available to the commenter by the State EPA in May.

Before that time *ommenter was afforded information available for com- menting on the designation status of

Peoria. EPA approved the State's rec- ommended designation after review of

the emission inventory used in the

modeling which supported the designation. Therefore, the nonattainment

designation for the Peoria metropolitan area is supported by the evidence.

Upon the finalization of a detailed

modeling study for the Peoria area

and obtaining additional monitoring

results, the State may request a redesignation to attainment status, if justified.

One commenter questioned the un- classifiable designation for Capital

Township, Sangamon County, in view

of the fact- that sulfur dioxide has

been monitored for four years without, a violation of the NAAQS. The unclassifiable designation for Capital Township is. justified in that dispersion

'modeling shows the potential for violations of the NAAQS in several townships within Sangamon County, while

the State of Illinois determined that

there was not enough evidence, to support a nonattainment • designation.

Therefore, EPA reaffirms the current

unclassifiable designation.

The State of Illinois commented

that Leepertown Township, Bureau

County, should be designated attainment for- primary and secondary SOs

NAAQS'and Shelby Township, Bureau

County, should be designated unclassifiable due to error in the location of a

monitoring site. EPA supports the

State of Illinois, designation changes.

Therefore, Leepertown Township is

designated - attainment and . Selby

Township is designated unclassifiable.

CARBoN MONOXIDE (CO)

One commenter questioned the un- classifiable designation for Capital

Township, Sangamon County, in view

of the fact that carbon monoxide has

been monitored for 4 years without a violation of the NAAQS. The unclassifiable designation for Capital Township is justified since transporation

data indicated the potential for violation of the NAAQS within portions of

-the township, while the State of 1111-

nois determined that there Was mot

enough evidence to support a nonattainment designation. Therefore, EPA

reaffirms the. current, unclassifiable

designation2.

'One commenter questioned the designation of the nonattainment area boundaries within the Chicago major

metropolitan area. The commenter

recommended specific alternative

boundaries, but provided no support

for the redesigriation. Repeated violations of the NAAQS at several locations within the .designated nonattainment area support the current nonattainment designation. Traffic data and

dispersion studies support the current

nonattainment designations for ex- presssway areas located within the

Chicago major metropolitan. area.

Therefore, EPA must retain the cur- rent-nonattainment designations.

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2 )

One commenter questioned the

siting of the'continuous air monitoring

program (CAMP) monitoring station

located in downtown Chicago and rec- ommended specific alternative street

boundaries for the nonattainment

area. Upon review, EPA determined

that the CAMP monitoring station is

correctly sited. Further, the com- menter did not provide sufficient technical data to support a redesignaton,

There were two monitoring sites located within the Chicago central business

district which recorded violations of

the NAAQS In 1977. Therefore, EPA

confirms the current designation

boundaries.

P=HOTOCHE7ICAL OXIDANTS (OZONE)

One commenter luestloned the location of a monitoring site and air quality data used to support a nrnattainment designation for Capital Town.

ship. Review of the monitoring site location and air quality data' confirmed numerous violations of the NAAQS in

1977 despite a conservative site location. Therefore, EPA reaffirms the

current designation.

INbIANA

The Agency received a total of 24

comments on designations in the State

of Indiana. Also, the State of Indiana

on June 12, 1978, petitioned the

Agency under section 107(d)(5) of the

Clean Air Act to revise the designations for several counties, in some cases revising Its previous recommen- dations. Normally, the Agency's approval or disapproval of such a petition would be proposed as rulemaking

and subsequently promulgated; however, since Indiana's petition was submitted in time to be reviewed along

with all of the other comments on designations and since there is no prejudice to sources in areas where the designation Is revised, the State's recom- mendations in the petition were re- viewed and are discussed below in con- junction with all other comments on the same areas.

TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (TSP)

One commenter recommended that

Vigo County be designated as an attainment area for suspended particulates. One commenter recommended

revision of the geographic size of the

TSP nonattainment area in Vigo

County to include only the Industrialized portions of the county, Similarly

the State of Indiana recommended

that the primary TSP nonattainment area be restricted to Harrison Sugar

Creek, Fayette, Otter Creek, Lost

FEDERAL REGISTER, 'OL 43, "NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

45994
Creek, and Honey Creek Townships.

Since violations of the TSP NAAQS

have been monitored in Vigo County,

revision of the designation is not supported. However, the portion of the

county recommended for nonattainment designation by the State of Indi- ana includes all areas of monitored

violations as well as all significant

point sources of particulate matter.

EPA therefore concurs in the Indiana

recommendations and has revised the

geographic .boundary of the TSP non- attainment area in Vigo County accordingly.

Two commenters, as - well as the

State of Indiana, recommended that

the primary TSP nonattainment designation in St. Joseph County be re- duced to secondary nonattainment

and that the geographic boundary of

the nonattainment area be changed to

the industrialized portion of the

county, including all areas of monitored violations. After reviewing the

available technical data, USEPA con- curs with these recommendations. The

designation for St. Joseph County has

been revised to secondary nonattainment for particulate matter for those areas of St. Joseph County east of

Pine Road and north of Kern Road.

One commenter stated that fugitive

dust may be a significant contributor

to secondary particulate nonattainment in and around Kokomo, in

Howard County and requested that

USEPA reevaluate the area to determine the significance of the contribution of fugitive dust. An examination

of the analysis of the high volume filters registering excursions of the secondary standard indicate that nonfugitive dust such as fly ash and carbo-

-jnaceous material make up a significant portion of the particulate matter.

Therefore, a revision of the designation for the secondary standard is flot

supported.

The State of Indiana recommended

revising the boundaries of the secondary TSP nonattainment area in

Howard County to Center and Howard

Townships only. USEPA concurs and

has redefined the boundaries of the

nonattainment area accordingly.

Two commenters disputed the designation of Vanderburgh County as a secondary nonattainment area for

TSP citing the transport of fugitive

dust from outside the county as the

primary source of nonattainment. A

third commenter supported the nonattainment designation. The State of Indiana recommended revising the geographic boundary of the nonattainment area to Pidgeon Township only.

An analysis of high volume filters

from monitors in the Evansville area which measured violations of the sec- ondary particulate standard indicated

that while fugitive dust was present, a significant portion of the particulate

RULES AND REGULATIONS

matter was man made in origin. Therefore, a change in the designation Is not

supported. Since Pidgeon Township contains the city of Evansville's sig- nificant industrial point sources of

particulate matter, EPA concurs with

the State's recommendation and has

redefined the boundaries of the nonattainment area accordingly. One commenter objected to the designation of Floyd County as unclassifiable for TSP and recommended a

classification of attainment. Upon review, EPA finds that there Is not

enough data to support either an attainment or nonattainment classification. Therefore, the TSP designation

for Floyd County will remain unclassifiable.

The State of Indiana recommiended

that the following full county designa- tions of TSP primary nonattainment

be changed to subcounty designations: Clark County (to Silver Creek,

Charlestown, Utica, and Jeffersonville

Townships only); Dearborn County (to

Lawrenceburg, Center, Manchester,

and Hogan Townships only); Lake

County (to the area bounded by a line

running east along U.S. 30 between

the Illinois State line and 1-65, north

on 1-65 to the intersection of 1-94, east

along 1-94 to Lake-Porter County line,

north along the county line to Lake

Michigan, and west along the lake

shore to the Illinois State line);

Marion County (to the entire county with the exception of Washington Township east of Fall Creek, and

Franklin Township south and east of

Five Points Road and Thompson Road); and Wayne County (to Webster, -Boston, Center, and Wayne

Townships only). The State also recommended that

the description of the primary TSP

nonattainment designation for Dubois

County (an area within a 10-mile

radius of the center of Jasper) be

changed to Bainbridge, Marion, and

Patoka townships; and that the secondary TSP nonattainment area for

La Porte County-(as area within a 10-

mile radius of the city of La Porte

sampling site) be changed to primary nonattainment in Center, Scipco, Kan.

kakee, New Durham, and Pleasant

Townships, and the area north and

west of Interstate 94. USEPA concurs

in these recommendations and has revised the designations accordingly.

SULFUR DioxnaZ (SO,)

Ten commenters requested revisions

to the size of the sulfur dioxide (SO2)

primary nonattainment area In Lake

County. With the exception of the

State of Indiana, each commenter recommended that the city where the

commenter was located be excluded

from the nonattainment area, for the

following reasons: Relatively few monitors within the area registered viola45995

tions o[ the SOx national ambient air

quality' standards (NAAQS) and most

of the heavy industry in the area was

not responsible for the violations

which were monitored. Commenters

generally believed that sources unfairly placed within the nonattainment

area would suffer potentially serious

adverse impacts due to restrictions on

economic growth and unnecessarily retrictive emission limitations.

The northern portion of Lake

County, Ind., is heavily industrialized

with a significant number of large SO,

emission sources and relatively few

continuous SO. monitors in operation. Despite the scarcity of the monitors,

violations of the standard have been

monitored. For this reason, the area

must remain in nonattainment area

for SO. Also, the impact of the desig- nation need not be adverse to emission

sources not causing or contributing to

violations of the standard as explained

in more detail In the national EPA rulemaking.

The State of Indiana comment recommended-redescriptlon of the southern boundary of the Lake County nonattainment area (currently US. 30 between the Illinois State line and the

Porter County line) to U.S. 30 east

from the Illinois State line to the intersection of U.S. 30 and 1-65, north

along 1-65 to the intersection of 1-65

and 1-94, and east along 1-94 to the

Porter County line. The area recommended by the State of Indiana encompasses all significant emission

sources and is therefore acceptable.

The southern boundary of the Lake

County nonattainment area for SO. is

revised as noted above. -

Two commentors recommended that

the designation for Porter County be

changed from partial nonattainment

for SOx to attainment for the full

county. The State of Indiana recommended that the nonattainment area

(the area bounded by Lake Michigan

on the north, by the Lake-Porter

County line on the west, by 1-80-90 on

the south, and by the La Porte-Porter

County line on the east) be redesignat- ed as unclassiflable. On June 12, 1978,

the State of Indiana petitioned EPA

under 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act,

to revise the Porter County designa- tion from attainment in part to attainment for the entire county. In all

cases commenters noted that the original designation was based on computer dispersion modeling utilizing the

urban version of the RAM model,

rather than on monitored violations of

the SO, air quality standards. All conmenters indicated that the rural version of the RAM model would be more

appropriate for use in Porter County.

Upon evaluation, EPA concurred in

that assessment and the Indiana Division of Air Pollution Control remodeled Porter County utilizing the rural

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
45996

version of RAM. While the results of

the rural RAM model showed no predicted violations of the -primary or sec- ondary NAAQS for SO,, EPA noted

certain technical deficiencies -in' the

modeling. The modeling-performed by

Indiana did not utilize maximum allowable emission rates in 'determining

whether there would be attainment of

the 3-hour-and 24-hour SO2 standards,

and background concentrations of SO2 were not adequately considered. For

the above reasons, -we cannot concur that the State's rural RAM modeling

of Porter County demonstrates attainment of the SO NAAQS, however,

that portion of Porter County designated as nonattainment in the March

3 promulgation will be redesignated as unclassifiable. The remainder of

Porter County will remain attainment.

One commenter recommended that

the portion of La Porte County designated as primary-and secondary non- attainmfent for sulfur dioxide be re- classified as attainment. The'State of

Indiana recommended that Center,

Scipio, Kankakee, New Durham, and

Pleasant, Towiships and the area

north and west of 1-94 be redesignated as unclassifiable. On June 12, 1978, the

State of Indiana formally petitioned

under 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air- Act

for a redesignation of La Porte County

from nonattainment in, part to attainment for the entire county. There

have been measured violations of the

SO. NAAQS in the nonattainment

portion of La Porte County and additionally, the rural RAM analysis of

northern Porter County conducted by the Indiana- DAPC predicted nonattainment. For the above reasons revision of the designation is not supported at the resent time. one commenter recommended Teclassifying 'Vayne County from primary nonattainment of the SO standard

to .unclassifiable stating that during at

least'one excursion, the- company's

electrostatic precipitators were out of

service. The State of Indiana recom- mended changing the boundaries of

the nonattainient area from the full

county, to Webster, Boston, Center,

Franklin, and Wayne Townships -only.

The State's recommendation was formalized in the June 12, 1978, 107(d)(5)

petition. Since electrostatic 'precipitators are control devices used primarily

for particulate- control, their breakdown would be expected to have a negligible effect on SOS. Moreover, of the

three monitored excursions of the SO2

-standard, only one occurred during a period of precipitatbr malfunction.

Therefore the evidence supports the

nonattainment designation for Wayne

County, however, the recommendation

qf the State of Indiana to revise the

geographic boundaries of the primary

nonattainment area is accepted since

all major Sources and their areas of

RULES AND REGULATIONS

major impact are included in the area designated.

Four commenters recommended re- designation of Marion County-from

nonattainment for primary and sec- ondary SO standards 'to unclassifiable. Commenters challenged the validity of the monitored data which demonstrated violations of the 24-hour primary SO2 standard and the accuracy

and validity of dispersion models

which -predicted violations of the . annual and short-term primary SO,

standards. Upon evaluation, EPA finds

that the monitored data is valid and

the dispersion modeling done for

Marion County used an accepted

model (CDM), which predicted annual

-violations of the SO. standard. These

results have .been supplemented by

urban RAM runs which predicted

short-term violations of the SO standard. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports primary SO, nonattainment in Marion County and that

designation will remain unchanged.

Since secondary violations have been

neither monitored nor predicted- by

dispersion modeling, Marion County is

being -reclassified as attainment for

the secondary SO2 standard.

One commenter. recommended redesignation of Vigo County from primary SO2 nonattainment to attainment.

The commenter submitted a dispersion modeling report as evidence of attainment. The State of Indiana submitted the same report with a recom- miendation that Vigo County be

changed-from -primary nonattainment

toI -uncassifiable. This recommendation was formalized in the State's June

12, 1978, petition. The modeling report

disputed the appropriateness of the

urban RAM inodel in Vigo County,

recommending'in its place a.modifled

version of rural RAM. The Agency re- viewed the modeling report and deter-

-mined that it does not meet the Agency's modeling standards. Cdmputer

dispersion studies using acceptable

modeling procedures have predicted

primary SO_, standard violations.

-Therefore, revision of the designation

is not supported at this time.

One commenter recomhended that

-the designation of Gibson County be

revised from unclassifiable for SO., to

attainment. The State of Indiana also

requested- redesignation of Gibson

County from unclassifiable to attainment in its, June 12, 1978, petition.

The commenter submitted a modeling

study of Gibson County, indicating attainment of SO standards. However, a previous USEPA modeling analysis of

~r quality in Gibson County indicated a potential for violations of the SO2

NAAQS. Due to the number of unan- swered questions concerning air qual-

-ity in Gibson County, the designation

for Gibson County should remain un- classifiable.

On June 12, 1978, the State of Indi. ana also petitioned that Jefferson

County be redesignated from unclassi

fiable for SO, to attainment. A disper.

sion modeling study was submitted in

support of the petition. A dispeision

modeling study submitted by the State

to region V, USEPA, Indicated violations of the secondary standard,

Region V is currently preparing an an- aylsis of Jefferson County to resolve

the discrepancies between these two

studies. Until that anaylsis is completed, the SO2 designation for Jefferson

County will remain unclassifiable for

the primary standard, and will be re- vised to nonattainment for the secondary standard.

PHOTOCHEM1CAL OXIDANTS (OzONE)

One commenter stated that the designation of Floyd County as nonattainment for the photochemical oxidant standard was based "solely on Its

proximity to probable nonattainment

areas" and therefore is inappropriate.

Since violations of the oxidant stand-'

ard have been monitored In New

Albany (located in Floyd County), this

designation Is clearly supported by the

evidence and wll'not be revised.

Two commenters stated that designating Vanderburgh County as nonattainment for photochemical oxidants was arbitrary, would serve no practical

,purpose, was counter to congressional

intent, and should not be undertaken

until It Is determined whether the na- tional ambient air quality standard for

oxidants will be revised. Air quality

values in excess of the photochemical

oxidant standard have been monitored

in Vanderburgh County for the past 3

years. Even if USEPA revises the

standard as proposed, Vanderburgh

County would still experience violations of the standard. The Clean Air

Act clearly states that the purpose of

the designation process is to identify areas where public health related air,

pollution standards are being violated.

Therefore, the designation of Vanderburgh County will remain as nonattainment for photochemical oxidants.

-One commenter recommended that

the oxidant nonattaimnent area designation for St. Joseph County be limited to the urbanized area. The county

'was classified as nonattainment be- cause the South Bend urbanized area has a population greater than 200,000.-

Subsequent air quality measurements

in South Bend has resulted in the

monitoring of numerous violations of

the NAAQS for oxidants. Limiting the

designation to the urbanized area would not be consistent with the phys.

ical nature 'of oxidant formation and

transport. Additionally, a large portion of the South Bend urbanized area is Elkhart County. The omission of

Elkhart County from the list of coun- ties not attaining the oxidant standard

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
in the March 3; 1978, TIEDERAL REGiSTER (43 FR 8962) was an error which

has been corrected in this action.

Therefore, St. Joseph and Elkhart

Counties are designated as nonattainment for photochemical oxidants.

One commenter stated that designating Porter County as nonattanment for oxidants was a misappliea- tion of USEPA policy. The nonattainmert designation of Porter County was based on the fact that portions of

Porter County are part of the Chicago-northwest Indiana urbanized area. To declare solely the urbanized area as nonattainment would be inconsistent

with the physical nature of ozone formation and transport. Therefore, non- attainment designation of Porter

County will remain in effect.

One commenter stated that Marion

County'should be designated uncIassifiable for oxidants until a number of

questions concerning contril strategies

have been answered. The designation

of Marion County was based on-monitored violations of the air quality

standard. Issues relating to the effectiveness of a control strategy are not

relevant to the designation which is a description of air quality. Therefore

Marion County should remain nonattainment for photochemical oxidant&

CARmo1 MoNoxIDE (CO)

One commenter recommended that

the portion of downtown Indianapolis

designated as nonattainment for the

carbon monoxide standard should be

redesignated unclassifiable since the

monitor in question is "unduly.influenced" by exhaust from buses. This

monitor has been sited according td

national monitoring guidelines and

has been quality assured. The data is

therefore accurate and valid. Furthermore, the influence of the buses: if[

generating high ambient levels of

carbon monoxide should be considered

in development of a control stategy.

Therefore, the designation is supported by the data and is not being re- vised.

MICHIGAN

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted a list to typographical Arrors found in

the March 3, 1978 publication. These

corrections are beingmade today.

TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (TSP)

ERANCH COUNTY

Originally, this area had been erro- neously designated "nonattainment"

for secondary particulate standards instead of "unclassifiable". MDNR submitted monitoring: data which indicates that the particulate staidards

have been attained in the area. EPA

has reviewed this new data and has deterniined that redesignation to "atRULES AND REGULATIONS

taiunent" for particulite standards is

appropriate for Branch County.

SbtR DIOXIDE (SO:)

IlGI:AZX COUNTY

MDNE, suggested that the nonattainment area for SO, be the subcounty area defined In the State draft

designation document. In view of the

State's dispersion modeling and monitoring support, EPA will amend the

designation to include only the subcounty area proposed by the State.

IDLAND COUNTY

A subcounty designation by MDNR

is being accepted by EPA for the same reason set forthin the Ingham County

comment.

L W. Pribila, on behalf of Dow

Chemical U.S.A., objected to designation of any part of Midland County as nonattainment for sulfur dioxide

standards primarily because current

air monitoring data Indicates all SO

standards are being achieved. Such

achievement Is attributed to utilization of a supplemental or Intermittent

control system (SCS) by Dow Chemical, the principal source of SO. In the

Midland County area. The air quality

report prepared by Michigan in 1974

showed 15 monitored violations of the

sulfur dioxide 24-hour primary

(health-related) standard at the

Abbott Road site n Midland, Mich., near the Dow Chemical plant. The same site also recorded violations of

the 3-hour secondary (welfare-related)

standard.

In 1975, no violations were recorded

at the Abbott Road site according to

the air quality report published by

Michigan. However, excursions (nonviolation e.xceedences of standards) of

both the 24-hour and 3-hour standards were recorded at the Dow Coming lot

site on Saginaw Road and, In 8 months

of monitoring, two violations of the 24-

hour standard In addition to an excur- Sion of the 3-hour standard were re- corded at the Dow Biochem building

site on Austin Street.

In 1976, the Michigan air quality

report showed an excursion of the 24-

hour standard at both the Dow Corning and Abbott Road sites, and an ex- cursion of the 3-hour standard at the

Austin Street site. Subsequent air

quality data reported to EPA indicate no violations of SO. standards occur- ring in the Midland area. On May 7, 1974, Dow Chemical and

the Michigan Air Pollution Control

Commission entered into a consent

order (No. 12-73-05) which exempted

Dow from meeting SO. emission limitations In the applicable Michigan rule

provided Dow installed an intermittent control system (ICS), a dispersion

technique which limits emissions

during times when violations of air

45997

quality standards would otherwise occur because of meteorological conditions. Dow's choice of permanent controls was a reliance on a nuclear

powerplant to be constructed by the

Consumers Power Co. By July 1, 197l5,

the ICS at Dow was operational (statement of Mr. L. Pribila at. EPA sec 113

Enforcement Conference, Feb. 4. 1977,

p. 13 transcript) and, as indicated

above, fairly successful in preventing

violations of the standards.

The Clean Air Act requires use of

continous emission reduction technology to attain and maintain national

standards.' A dispersion technique

may not be used to reduce the amount

of constant emission controls required

to attain and maintain standards,

unless the dispersion technique was implemented prior to, December 31,

1970.2 Accordingly, in view of the air

quality violations In 1974 and 1975 and

the admission by the principal source of SO in the area (Dow Chemical Co.)

that an intermittent control system was being utilized to prevent current

violations of air quality standards,

EPA concluded that the county of

Midland was required to be designated

nonattainment for the sulfur dioxide

standard.

Neither the comment by Dow nor any of the air quality data analyzed

prior to implementation of the Dow

ICS indicate that S0 standards are being achieved In Midland County

solely by constant emission controls.

In fact, there Is no evidence of any

constant SO emiqsion control at the

Dow plant. Because no new information has been presented which would

provide a basis for changing the non- attainment designation, it is retained

for the subqounty area In which Dow

is located.

11M.GOTA

TOTAL susPmmN PAZICULALXZ (TSP)

Mesabi Iron Range-Itasca and St.

Louis Counties

Several commenters objected to designation of the 100-mile strip constituting the Mesabi Iron Range (portions of Itasca and St. Louis Counties) as a notattainment area for secondary

particulate standards because the

monitored air quality data relied on in

making the designation represented

conditions in a very limited portion of

this vast area. In designating certain townships and

ranges nonattainment, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MLPCA) ana- lyzed data 'from a State monitoring

sites and 36 industrial sites. Taking

the most conservative position in

Secs. 110a](2CB) and 302(k). 42 U.S.C.

7410(aX2XB) and 7I02(k). 2Sec. 123(a). 42 U.S. 7423(a)See discusslon In the paonal rulemair g package of

Sept. 11, 1978,43 E. 40M414

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
45998

terms of protecting the welfare of this

area, MPCA determined to- designate

the entire range nonattainment based

on available data recognizing, that

pockets of attainmefit could existwithin the area and that appropriate,

changes would be made when sufficient data became aiailable. Based on a review of the monitored 24-hour particulate standard violations, EPA con- curred in this determination.

Two companies, Erie Mining Co. and

Hanna Mining Co. submitted extensive

modeling data in support of their re- quests for redesignation of certain

townships in the designated area. Based on an analysis of this data,

MPCA has recommended . certain

changes in the designation of the

Mesabi Range. EPA has, reviewed

these recommendations and concurs as more fully discussed in, a background

document for section 107 designations

in Minnesota which is available in the

regional office. I

U.S. Steel also objected to designation of the central portion of the

Mesabi Iron Range as nonattaainment

particularly because they claimed the

•closest monitor could not accurately

represent the air quality surrounding

U.S. Steel facilities. However, the com- menter failed to specify which particular townships should be redesignated

and to submit data in support of any

proposed redesignations. Accordingly,

EPA and MPCA have no basis for altering the designation.

U.S. Steel also..complained about the

location of the monitors closest to

their facility. The sites in Virginia and

Mount Iron were inspected by EPA in

1976 and found to be situated such

that they would not be affected by fugitive sources which could lead to ex- -

aggerated levels.

Typographical errors in thelegal descriptions published on March -3,-1978, are being corrected today. In reassess- ing' available data, EPA determined

that the violation at industrial site 07 was not caused by fugitive dust.

Therefore, the nonattainment boundary has been extended to include

T56N, R18W, the location of this mon- itor.

As part of its analysis -of the air

quality problem along the Mesabi

Range, MPCA has contracted with

Midwest Research Institute for a detailed study which may lead to further

redesignations. $ - . I -

PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS (OzoNE)

ST. LOUIS, SHERBURNE, CARLTON, LAKE,

AND OLMSTEAD COUNTIES

Two comments were received with

objections to designation of the above

counties as nonattainment areas for

photochemical oxidants. Concern with . imposition of the offset policy over a wide area was expressed.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

The nonattainment designations in

these counties were based on monttored violations -therein. If the State

would submit attainment determinations for subcounty areas along with

adequate justification, .EPA would

evaluate such a submission. Until such

time, the nonattainment designations are retained. The ramifications of the

nonattainment designation are discussed more fully in the supplementary information section of the EPA

national promulgation.

OHIO

The Agency received-a total of 20

comments on designatioris in the State

of Ohio, -most regarding more than one geographic location and pollutant.

'SULFUR DIOXIDE DESIGNATIONS

Some comments requested an attainment designation for SO, everywhere

in Ohio, despite the fact that the

standard is now violated in several

areas, because the current EPA-promulgated SIP provides for emission re- ductions that are projected to result in

attainment by the attainment date in

the SIP. However, the Act requires a nonattainment designation for all areas that violate a standard, regardless of whether implementation of the

existing SIP is projected to result in

attainment before the attainment date

in the SIP.

As explained more fully in the EPA

national promulgation, projected

future violations o a standard may

provide the basis for a nonattainment

designation in currently clean areas. However, the reverse is not true: Projected future attainment may not provide the basis for an attainment designation'in currently dirty areas. The reason is that sections 171(2), 172, and

107(d)(1) (A) through (C) establish

two alternative criteria for designating an area as nonattainment. Any area that currently violates the standard is

to be designated as nonattainment,

and any area where in the State's

judgment the primary standard for

SO. or TSP may not be maintained

may also be designated as nonattainment.' Regardless of whether the

standard may' be attained in the

future, an area that currently violates

the standard satisfies the first statutory criterion and must therefore be designated as nonattainment. The attainment designation will qontinue to

apply until the State demonstrates

that the air quality standards are no longer violated.

Applying a nonattainment designation regardless of projected future attainment is required by both the legislative history and the purposes of the

Act. Both the House and Senate bills

considered in 1977 would have applied

nonattainment requirements to all areas with violations, regardless of

projected future attainment,3 When

the nonattainment provisions of theso

bills were amalgamated to form the

bill eventually enacted, the application of nonattainment designation to

all areas that violate the standftrds was retained.

Furthermore applying a nonattainmernt designation to dirty areas where

future attainment is projected will further the purposes of the Act. Even If

emission reductions under the current

SIP would be sufficient, if fully implemented, to provide for attainment, a nonattainment designation is essen- tial, to satisfy the requirements in sec- tions 171-173 of the Act insuring that

the necessary emission reductions are actually achieved, calling for reason- able further progress prior to attainment, and imposing stringent conditions on new construction. And even aside from these regulatory requirements, a, nonattainment designation

should apply to identify for the public

every area with an existing air quality

problem in violation of the standards,

Many comments received questioned

the basis for the SO. designations in

Ohio. The SO, designations are supported by available monitoring as well as the modeling analysis performed by

EPA in the development of the federally promulgated SO, regulations. This

modeling analysis has been extensively documented in several support documents and has been upheld as an approprIate tool for setting source specifIc emission limitations as. the result of

litigation on the regulations. Section

171 of the Clean Air Act defines non- attainment area as an " * * area which is shown by monitored data or which is calculated by air quality modeling (or other methods determined by

the Administrator to be reliable) to

exceed any national ambient air quality standard for such pollutant." Thus

air quality modeling is specifically au- thorized as a basis for determining

whether an area is attaining the

standards. The Agency has determined

that where air quality modeling re- sults are available, such results will be

used to determine the designation,

taking precedence over air quality

monitoring data which Is usually not

sufficiently comprehensive to cover any given area. Therefore, EPA desingnated most of the SO, nonattainment areas in Ohio based upon its

modeling analyses.

Several commenters suggested that

the boundaries of -the SO, nonattanment areas be revised to restrict the

-nonattainment designation to an area smaller than the entire county. EPA

3Proposed sec. 127(e)(2)(A) of the Act, in

report to -accompany H.R. 6161, H.R. Rept. No 95-294, 95th Cong.. 1st Sess. 389 (May 12, 1977); proposed secs. ll0(a)(3)(A) and

113(g)(1) of the Act, in report to accompany S. 252, S. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st

Sess. 146. 169 (May 10, 1977).

FEDERAL REGISTEiR7 VOL 43, NO. 194--THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
r

'has reviewed the designations and re- duced the size of the nonattainment areas where supportable along easily

recognizable political and geographical

lines.

COMMENTxS

One commenter, Cincinnati Gps &

Electric Co. (CGE), objected to the

SO.-and TSP nonattainment- designations for Clermont and Hamilton

Counties. Specifically, CGE commented as follows:

I. Pierce Township, Clermont County, should be designated attainment for the

TSP secondary standard.

2. Miami Township, Hamilton County. should be designated attainment for the

TSP secondary standard.

3. Clermont and Hamilton Counties

should be. designated attainment for the

SO. primary standard.

CLEUONT CoUNTY TSP,

Based upon -monitoring data, EPA

must reaffirm its nonattainment designation for Pierce Township, Clermont

County, for the TSP secondary standard. Also, based upon the location of

the monitor showing violations of the

-zecondary 24-hour TSP standard, EPA

must additionally designate Batavia

Township -as nonattainment for the

TSP secondary standard. A monitor

site (SAROAD site 007) -located at 297

Main Street, Hamilton, Ohio, registered four exceedances of the secondary TSP standard in 1977. This monitor is located near the border of Bataviaand Pierce Townships.

HAMILTON CoUNTY TSP

Based upon monitoring data, EPA

must reaffirm its secondary TSP non-,

attainment designation of Miami

Township, Hamilton County. The

monitoring data submitted by CGE

clearly shows violations of the secondary TSP standard at sites C and D and

Dugan Gap.

CLERMONT AN HAMILTON So%

EPA must reaffirm the nonattainment designations for" the SO, primary

standard for Clermont and Hamilton

Counties, based on EPA's modeling.

However, the boundaries of the nonattainment areas have been revised. Reviewing CGE's own monitoring data

for site B, Clermont County, shows

one excursion of the short-term standard and violations of the primary SO.

standard at both sites C and D, Hamilton County, during 1977.

One commenter,- U.S Steel (USS),

made several comments regarding the

SO, designation for Lorain County. - Specifically, USS comments:

RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. Lorain County should be designated attalnment for SO. based upon the monitoring and modeling done by Ohio EPA.

2. Subcounty designations should be made

forSO,.

3. The data base Ini EPA's SO, modeling analysis was In error. USS Is remodeling Lorain County and so far It indicates attainment.

The SO. nonattainment designation for Lorain County Is based upon the

modeling analysis performed by EPA

in the development of the federally

promulgated SO3 regulations In Ohio.

EPA must reaffirm the nonattainment

designation for SO, In Lorain County

but has reduced the size of the nonattainment area. The nonattainment area as listed n the Ohio SO, attainment status table below now Includes

Lorain County north of Route 80 and

the city of Elyria.

USS cited several significant errors in EPA's data base which USS alleges

caused Inaccurate modeling results.

EPA has agreed to a procedure to re- solve the data questions Including the

remodeling of Lorain County by USS

with an updated data base. However.

until USS completes this modeling.

there Is no evidence to support, an at-.

tainment status. Once USS submits Its

modeling results to EPA, a further

analysis of the areW's designation can be undertaken, and the designation

changed if supported at that time.

One commenter, Dayton Power and

Light (DPL), made the following obJections to the nonattainment designations promulgated in the March 3.

1978 FEDEnAL REGIs;:

1. DPL believes monitoring data Indicates Montgomery County is attainment for SO, rather than nonattainment as it Is designated. DPL objects

to the use of "special.models such as the RAM mode' in the State of Ohio.

2. Subcounty designations for SO,

shoul~be made.

3. DPL Indicates that the use of a double asterisk n the SO, designation

list is In error. 4. 34 counties were omitted from the

list of TSP designations In Ohio.

The nonattainment SOz designations for Montgomery County Is supported

by the modeling analysis performed by EPA in the development of the federally promulgated SO,, regulations for

Ohio. EPA did not single out the State

of Ohio for the use of special models

such as the RAM model but used modeling results whenever they were avail-

-able. Therefore. EPA must reaffirm

the nonattainment designation for

Montgomery County, but has redefined the designation to a subeounty area. The double asterisk notation Indicating that the Montgomery County

designation was made by EPA because

the State failed to submit its own rec- ommendation is an error. The nota45999

tion should have been one asterisk denoting an EPA change of the State

recommendation. This is corrected In

this publication. The omission of 34

counties from the TSP attainment

status list was an error and is corrected In this publication.

COMMERT

One commenter, General Motors

(GM), objected to the nonattainment

designations -for TSP in Defiance,

Montgomery. Rfchland, and Erie

Counties. Specifically, GM raised the

following objections: 1. Defiance County should not have

been designated nonattainment for

the primary TSP standard because

data Indicates the excursions were

caused by rural fugitive dust and the

data from onsite monitors should not

have been considered. GM believes the

proper designation is nonattainment

of the secondary TSP standard.

2. Kettering and Montgomery County should not have been desig- nated nonattainment for the secondary TSP standard. GM believes the

proper designation for the area surrounding its plant, Delco Products Division, is attainment.

3. Richland County should not have

been designated nonattainment for

primary TSP standar. GM believes

subcounty designations should be

made and that the proper designation for the area surroundingit plant, the

Fisher Body-Mansffeld plant, is attainment.

4. Erie County should be designated attainment for the primary TSP

standard.

DEFIANcE Cou-,r

Based upon monitoring data, EPA

must reaffirm its designation of Defiance County as primary TSP- nonattainment area. However, based upon further data submitted by Ohio EPA, the nonattainment area for the primary TSP standard has been redefined as

Richland Township not within the

city of Defiance and the city of Defiance has been redesignated as nonattainment for the secondary TSP

standard only. There is no support to

show that violations Indicated by on-

'site monitors are due to nonindustrial

fugitive dust. Furthermore, onsite

monitoring data Is utilized by EPA if

the data Is quality assured, such as in

this case.

MONTGOmmEy COUNTY

Based upon monitoring data and further information submitted by the

Dayton Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, EPA has redefined the

boundaries of the nonattainment

areas for the TSP primary and secondary standard. The General Motors, Delco Products Division in Kettering is now in an attainment area.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
46000

RICHLAm COUNTY

EPA must reaffirm its nonattainment designation of Richland County

for the primary TSP standard. GM

submitted monitoring data In support

of their contention that the ar a surrounding their Fisher Body-Mansfield

plant is attainment. However, the data

submitted is not quality assured and

therefore cannot be used in making

the designation. Moreover, four of five

Mansfield monitoring sites within .the

period of 1975-1977 showed violations

of the primary annual TSP standard.

The monitoring network in Richland

County is not extensive enough to

make subcounty designations.

ERIE COUNTY

EPA designated Erie County as non- attainment for the TSP primary

standard. This appears to have been a clerical error. 'EPA has redesignated

Erie County hs nonattainment for the

TSP secondary standard.

COMMENT

One commenter, Ohio Edison Co.

(OEC), objected to the nonattainment

designations 'made for Clark, -Colum-

- biana, and Trumbull Counties for TSP

and for Columbiana, Lorain, Summit-,

and Trumbiull Counties for SO.

Specifically, OEC commented as follows:

1. The secondary TSP nonattainment designation for qlark County,

Springfield, west of Limestone Street

should be attainment.

2. The secondary TSP nonattainment designation for the unincorporated areas of Weathersfield Township,

Trumbull County should be attainment.

3. The primary TSP nonattainment

designation for East Palestine, Columbiana County should be nonattainment for the secondary TSP standard

only.

4. The primary SO nonattainment

designations for East Palestine in Columbiana County; Lorain County'

north of the Norfolk and Western

Railroad tracks; Summit County north

of Route 18; and the unincorporated areas of Weathersfield Township in

Trumbull County should be attainment.

CLARK COUNTY TSP

Based upon monitoring data, EPA

must reaffirm the nonattainment designation for the TSP secondary standard in Clark County. However, the

nonattainment area has been redefined and the city of Springfield has

been added to the nonattainment area. OEC submitted monitoring data to

support their contention that the area west of Limestone Street is attainment. However, the data submitted was unsupported. No information was

RULES AND REGULATIONSsubmitted as to the quality assurance procedures utilized and the data did

not cover a full year. Additionally, key

sampling days are missing for the Abattoir and Snyder Park sites which

'would -have been likely to predict

maximums. Therefore, EPA must reaffirm the nonattainment designation

for the secondary TSP standard.

TRuMBULL COUNTY TSP

Based upon monitoring data, EPA.

must reaffirm the nonittainment designation for Weathersfield Township,

Trumbull County for the secondary

TSP standard. OEC submitted monitoring data to support their contention that the unincorporated area of

Weathersfield Township, Trumbull

County is attainment. However, this

monitoring data supports the nonattainment designation for the secondary TSP standard. Ohio EPA concurs

-with this designatiom.

COLUMBIARA CouNTY TSP

Based upon monitoring data, EPA

must reaffirm the nonattainment designatioii for the primary TSP standard

for East Palestine, Columbiana

County. The air quality monitor located in East Palestine shows a violation

of the annual primary TSP. standard

in 1976. Therefore, the proper designation for East Palestine, Columbiana

County is nonattainment for the, primary TSP standard.

COLUMBIANA, LORAIN, SuMMIrr, Am

TRmluLL COUNTIES SO2

Based upon the modeling analysis

performed by EPA in the development

of the federally promulgated SO. regulations in Ohio, EPA must reaffirm

the nonattainment designations f6r

the primary SO. standard for Columbiana, Lorain, Summit, and Trumbull

Counties. However, these nonattainment areas have been redefined on a subcounty basis.

One commenter, Republic Steel,

made two separate comments during

the public comment period. The first

objected to the procedures followed by - EPA in the promulgation of the nonattainment designations and the fact

that no economic assessment was made. The second objected to the

basis for the SO. designations, specifically objecting-to EPA's overruling of

Ohio EPA's recommendations which were based on monitoring data. Republic Steel therefore recommended

that Cuyahoga, -Stark, and Trumbull

Counties be redesignated based upon

monitoring data.

As to Republic Steel's comment that

EPA failed to perform an environmental or economic- assessment of these

designations, there is no economic or

environmental Impact associated with

the promulgation of the list of nonattainment areas. Therefore, there Is no need at this time to conduct such an assessment. Environmental and economic impact will only result after the

State revises Its State Implementation

plan (SIP) to provide for attainment

of the standards by December 31,

1982, and sets new emission limitations

on sources. Further, EPA must reaffirm the SO. nonattainment designations for Cuyahoga and Stark Counties based upon EPA's modeling analysis. The nonattainment area In Trumbull County was based on monitored

violations in the Youngstown-Camp-.

bell area. EPA has redefined the non- attainment areas on a subcounty basis.

COMMENT

One commenter, the Columbus and

Southern Ohio Electric Co. (CSOE),

objected to the designation of Coshocton County as nonattainment for the

secondary TSP standard and to the

designation of Athens, Coshocton, and

Pickaway Counties as nonattainment

for the primary SO standard,

CSOE recommends that all these

counties be designated as attainment

based upon the following:

1. Modeling performed by CSOE indicates that the secondary TSP standard is not violated in Coshocton

County and monitoring data confirms

this finding.

2. Monitoring data collected by

CSOE indicates that the primary SOa

standard has been attained in Athens,

Coshocton, and Pickaway Counties;

the secondary SO2 standard has been

attained in Coshocton and PickaWay

Counties; and , the secondary SO,

standard is exceeded in Athens

County but modeling performed after

the recent installation of a new 500-

foot stack at the Poston Generating

Station indicates that no violation of

the secondary standard is expected to

occur in the future.

Based upon additional monitoring

data submitted by the Ohio EPA on April 12, 1978, EPA will reclassify Coshocton County as attainment for the

TSP standard. However, based upon

EPA's *SO. modeling analysis, EPA

must reaffirm the nonattainment designation of Athens, Coshocton, and

Pickaway Counties for the primary

SO2 standard but has redefined the

nonattainment areas as including only

York Township in Athens County,

Franklin Township in Coshocton

County and Harrison Township in

Pickaway County. CSOE contended

that modeling performed since the new 500-foot stack at the Poston Generating Station In Athens County has

been operational indicates no violation

of .the secondary SO2 standard in the near future, even though previous

monitoring results indicated exceeFEDERAL REGISTER; VOL. 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5,-1978
dances of the secondary standard. No

support was submitted to justify finding that this new stack Is consistent

with section 123 of the Clean Air Act

which prohibits the use of any dispersion enhancement techniques to

achieve attainment except in those cases where it can be demonstrated

that downwash would occur. Therefore,, the previous designation must

remain.

CoMkENT

Two commenters, the Goodyear Tire

& Rubber Co. and the B. F. Goodrich

Co., filed comments after the close of

the comment period in response to the

Agency's request for comments from

companies challenging the designations under section _307 of the Clean

Air Act.' The Agency made the re- quest in order to clarify'the issues and

assess the potential for administrative

resolution prior to continuing litiga-.

tion. Both commenters challenge the

Agency's use of its RAM modeling to

support the primary M02 nonattainment designation for Summit County,

Ohio. Specifically, the commenters

contend as follows: (1) That since the

Agency is remodeling Summit County,

the old modeling results should not

have been used to designate the area;

(2) that the RAM modeling is not reliable; (3) that monitoring data alone

should be used to support an attainment designation; (4) that the RAM

modeling does not reflect actual air"

quality because it uses the maximum

operating assumption; (5) that since

commenters are participating in studies which evaluate RAM modeling, the use of RAM modeling should await

the outcome-of the studies.

In Summit County, the Agency's

modeling demonstrated that the area was not attaining the primary S02

standards. While the Agency has recently remodeled the area in order to

correct data base, errors, the errors in

the data base were not such that a

change in attainment status was ex- -pected. A new regulation for Summit

County will be proposed as rulemaking

shortly supported by the remodeling

which still shows that the area" is not

achieving standards and is therefore

properly designated nonattainment.

Second, the RAM model has been

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit as a reasonable

tool to use in setting source specific

emission limitations. See Cleveland

Electric Illumindting Co. v. -EPA, 572

F. 2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1978). Since RAM

modeling is a reasonable tool for setting emission limitations which direct-

'Shell Oil Co., intervenor in the Goodrich

case, filed a comment on September 1, 1978.

Because it was filed so late, this comment

has not been fully analyzed; however, it basically makes procedural and SO, modeling points treated elsewhere in this package.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

ly Impacts sources, It Is reasonable to use It in designating nonattainment areas of the State, an action which has no immediate effect on sources, but

merely triggers the State's evaluation

of the areas for its nonattainment

SIP. Third, given the availability of reliable modeling results, the modeling

analysis takes precedence over "the

much less comprehensive monitoring

data available. Fourth, as to the maxi- mum operating assumption employed

in RAM modeling, the assumption has

also been specifically upheld by the

sixth circuit as a reasonable input to

the RAM modeling used to set emission limitations. It is an easily ascertainable figure which reflects the

source's actual operation capability.

Since It is reasonable to use the assumption-jn setting source specific

emission limitations, It is also reason- able to employ It in designating nonattalnment areas' triggering the State's

study of those areas.

Finally, because the designation is

supported by the RAM modeling and

because there is no Immediate prejudice to sources stemming from the designation, It is not reasonable to delay

designating Summit County as a non- attainment area until the commenters'

studies have been completed. The

Agency has evaluated the studies to

date and will publish Its preliminary

comments in the technical support

document accompanying the Summit

County regulation which will be proposed as rulemaking shortly. Upon

completion of the studies, further

analysis of the designation may be

made.

ADD T oNAL Commzrs oN ToTAL

SusPENinED PARriCuLAT&s (TSP)

One commenter requested the TSP

nonattainment designation for Coshocton County be revised to attainment based on air quality data submitted. Based on further information submitted by Ohio EPA. as discussed In

EPA's response to the Columbus &

Southern Ohio Electric Co. comments

above, Coshocton County will be redesignated as attainment. "One commenter stated that the

boundary description for the Clark

County nonattainment designation for

the TSP secondary standard was in.

correct. EPA has made these corrections. Additionally, upon further

review of air monitoring data, EPA

has determined that the nonattainment area for the secondary TSP

standard in Clark County must also include the city of Springfield.

Two commenters pointed out that

the EPA designation of Darke County as a TSP primary standard nonattainment afea was a clerical error and

should be secondary standard nonattainment on the same subcounty basis.

Upon additional review of the moni46001

toring data, EPA has redesignated

Darke County as nonattainment for

the TSP secondary standard. Minor

wording changes for the purpose of

clarification and spelling corrections were also made.

One commenter indicated Erie

County should be nonattainment for

the secondary TSP standards rather

than the primary standard. This issue

is addressed above in the discussion of

the General Motors public comment.

Erie County will be redesignated as nonattainment for the secondary TSP

standard.

One commenter requested redefinition of the subcounty boundaries for

the Greene County nonattainment

designation for the secondary TSP

standard.-Upon further review, EPA

has redefined 'the boundaries of

Greene County nonattainment area.

One commenter objected to the

Hamilton County nonattainment designation for TSP primary standard for

areas other than Carthage, Corryville. City Center, Fairmount,.Lockland, and

St. Bernard. Upon further review of

air quality data, EPA must reaffirm

the primary TSP nonattainment desig-

'nation for Hamilton County as it appeared in the March 3, 1978, Fsnzaa

Rxisn

One commenter ' indicated certain

areas in Lucas County were designated

incorrectly for TSP based on air quality data. Specifically, the commenter

argues:

1. Ottawa Hills should be designated as attainment for the primary and sec- ondary TSP standards.

2. The city of Oregon should be designated as attainment for the secondary TSP standard.

Upon further review of monitoring

data, EPA has redesignated Ottawa

Hills and the city of Oregon as attainment for the primary and secondary

air quality standards.

One commenter objected to the designation of Madison County as nonattainment for the secondary standards

for TSP. Based upon further Information submitted by the Ohio EPA, EPA

will redesignate Madison County as attainment.

One commenter objected to the designation of Medina County as nonattainment for the TSP primary standards. Based upon air quality data submitted, the commenter believed the

county-should be nonattainment for

secondary standard. The air quality

data submitted supports the position

that Medina County is nonattainment

with respect to secondary TSP standard. Therefore, EPA will redesignate

Medina County nonattainment for the

secondary TSP standard.

One commenter objected to the city

of Piqua in Miami Courity being designated as nonattainment for the primary TSP standard rather than the secFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
46002

Ondary standard. Upon further Treview,

EPAreaffirms that the -city of 'Piqua is

nonattainment for the iprimary TSP

standard:

One commenter requested a redefinition of: the TSP primary -nd secondary nonattainment area boundaries

for Montgomery County. tUpon further review, EPA has redefined the

boundaries of the TSP nonattainment

areas.

One commenter submitted rlarificatlion of the monattainment area boundaries for the TSP secondary -standard

in Preble -County. EPA has corrected

the designation in this publication.

One commenter objected to theRoss

County n6nattainment.designation for

the primary T.sfP standards. Based

upon monitoring data, :EPA .reaffirms

the nonattalnment designation-for the

primary TSP standard.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON -SULUR

fDlio=E.(SO2)

'Five commenters objected to the manner in which the-SO designations were made in Ohio for Greene, Lucas,

Mahoning, Montgomery, - Stark,

Summit, und Trumbull Counties. The

support 'for the SO.. designations is

discussed above. The seven- counties

mnentioned remain monattainment

based on -EPA's modeling analysis und

-any available monitoring data. As - a xesult of the public comments, EPA

has redefined the SO, nonattainment

areas on a subcountyba~is. '

COMMENTS ON CARBONIMONOXIDE (CO)

One commenter indicated that Lucas

County should be designated attainment for ' CO based won monitoring

data. EPA reaffirms -that 'the Lucas

County area -was properly designated

,as nonattainment with respect to CO,

based on, monitored violations -occur- ring between October 1975 -and January 1977in Toledo at the 2927 Monroe

Street monitoring site.

WIscoNSIN

MADISON

John E. Knight of, Boardman, -Suhr,

Curry, -and Field, on behalf of -Oscar

Mayer i& C6, Inc. objected'to designation of a subcity area -of Madison, Wis. as nonattainment for -Primary sulfur

dioxide standards because: £1) The

,EPA -did not follow the Wisconsin Department "of Natural Resources'

(DNR) determination that the area was unclassifiabie: (2) -air quality data

relied on by 7EPA in making the-designation was incomplete and unreliable;

(3) the designation occurred more than 180 days, after enactment of the

1977 Clean Air Act Amehdments so. the area should be unclassified; and

(4)-notice and opportunity to -comment were not available to the public prior

RULES AND REGULATIONS

'to final rulemaking contrary to EPA

Tequirements. 1 - J, -• , The Administrator. has determined

that -none of the ,objections presented

provide ,an adequate basis -for altering

the subject--'designation because ,(1)

'EPA Inay change State designations;

(2) EPA has determined the air quality data used is adequate for classification of the "area -as nonattainment; (3)

tiie-short-delay in promulgation does

-not :preclude nofiattainment/attain-

-ment ,designations;' (4) the public has

been adequately involved -subsequent

to-the rulemaking and no one has suffered any harm by the designation.

For more complete discussion of this

response see background document for

Wisconsin Part 107 designations avail-

-able in the region V office. -Other issues raised by -commenters

-i -response to the Madison designation included a concern that additional

control needs, if any~be determined In an expeditious fashion. Any necessary new regulations are required to be sub-

-mitted by January 1, 1979. Another

commenter alleged that the SO, monitoring instruments were old and worn out so that they -produced'invalid data.

The instruments used~meet the mini-

-mim -Tequirements of 40 CFR 51.17a,

and the -State found that the instru-

'ments .ere working 'properly at the

tme'the two excursions were -monitored.

The EPA has determined that the'

-monitored" lr quality violations are ,adequate to provide abass for overriding -the -State's designation of unclassiTiable and 'designating the subcity -of

Madison as nonattainment for SO.

under 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42

U.S.C. 74074d)). Accordingly, the designation made on March 3, 1978, is re- tained.

GREEN BAY

A general'comment related to use-of more than one year of air quality, data

inmaking the designations. Because of

'meteorological variations from year to

-year, EPA -guidance to the states rec- ,ommended analysis of two years' data

to determine attainment of standards. Comments received in response to

the nonattainment for particulate des-

-ignation included suggestions that the

-monitoring network -was unreliable,

that construction or -a drought condition-contributed -to high TSP concen- trations -and that the designated area s'oulc be expanded to include a major

particulate source. An -EPA evaluation

of the four Green Bay monitoring

sites revealed that the sites were ac- ceptable, cbnformed to siting guidelines and provided -valid air quality

data. The -causes of nonattaimment of

standards -will be appropriately addressed in the revised -control strategy

by the 'State agency, regardless -of location -or duration.

I One commenter objected to the un. classifiable designation of the area fok

SO standards inasmuch as violations

of the SO. standards were recorded.

Subsequent to the -recorded violations,

a major -source of SO, emissions sub.

stantially -reduced same. The unclassi.

fiable designatlon simply permits the

State to 'continue Its monitoring for an

additional period of time to determine

whether the emission reductions permitted attainment of the standards,

Objection to the nonattainment designation of the area for oxidants was made because the causes of violations

-are unknown. -The causes will be addressed in the revled control strategy,

The EPA has determined that the

original designations based on State

recommendations were properly made

and, therefore, the nonattainment designations or particulate and oxidants

and the unclassIfIcable designation for

SO. made on March 3, 1978, are re,

tained.

IEENAH

Objection to designation of a subclty

portion for nonattainment of secondary particulate standards is based on contentions that the violations were caused by fugitive dust rather than

'point sources. Also, the location of the

monitor recording the 1977 violations

is questioned.

As discussed -above, the causes Of

nonattainment 'whether they be fugitive or stationary Will be addressed 'in

development of the revised control

strategy.

RPA has -determined that the original designation of a subclty portion of

Neenah as nonattainment for second-

" ary particulate standards based on the

State recommendation was -properly

made and that the designation made

'March 3, 1978, should be retained.

3BIRON

Consolidated Papers, inc., objected

to the unclassflable designation of this

area for primary and secondary.standards of SO2. After the violations were recorded inllarch of 1976, Consolldat-

-ed Paper raised Its stack height from

170' to 233' and increased the stack

exit velocity. Because of these

changes, Consolidated contends that

the area should be designated attain-

,ment.

Section 123 of the Clean Air Act precludes ZPA from designating -an area -as attainment unless no violations of

the standards occur because proper

control techniques have been used on major point sources which otherwise

contribute to a violation. It may be

that the stack height increase at Consolidated meets good engineering practice and is an -acceptable means of

meeting the standard. Until this determination is made, however, EPA must

FEDERA. 'REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, -1978'
RULES AND REGULATIONS

retain the unclassifiable designation

made on March 3, 1978.

XMAIIIWOC

The subeity area should have been

designated nonattainment for secondary particulate standards based on the

State's recommendation. This is a technical correction to the March 3,

1978, designations.

MILWAUKEE

One commenter objected to designation of the Mitchell Field area as attainment for particulates since there

were recorded violations of the secondary standard. EPA is revising the des- - ignation to nonattainment for secondary particulate standards for an area defined by the Wisconsin Bureau of

Air Management.

The same commenter thought a recorded Violation of the primary standard at 5132 West Lincoln should cause

a nonattainment designation for primary standards. The State has advised

that a major emitting source has

ceased operations in the area since the

violation was recorded. However, the

area remains nonattainment for sec- ondary standards which will insure

that an appropriate analysis of the

area's problems will be made.

The commenter also complained

about the siting of the boundary between primary and secondary particulate nonattainment areas in the Menominee River Valley. Because these designations require further analysis of

the problem areas, the exact boundaries are not significant. Present

boundaries together with designation

of the Mitchell Field area as nonattainment will insure analysis adequate

to detect any trouble spots.

WAUWATOSA

One commenter objected to the attainment designation for particulate

standards in this area because a monttor had recorded violations of the sec- ondary standard. Because of the monitor's proximity to a now-completed

construction project, the State concluded that the vlolation was a one- time occurrence and thus, the area

should be designated attainment. Continued monitoring in this area should

reveal whether this analysis is correct.

Accordingly, EPA is retaining the attainment designation until further

data has been collected.

A commenter objected to the unclassifiable designation for particulate

standards because of monitored violations of the econdary standard in this area. Because the monitor was improperly sited and because construction ac- tivities may have contributed to a temporary violation, the State determined

that more air quality data was needed

before a designation could be made.

EPA concurred in this analysis and re- tains the unclassifiable designation

until further data is available.

Nom--The Environmental Protection

Agency has determined that this document

is not a significant regulation and does mot

require preparation of a regulatory analysis under Executive Order 12044.

(Secs. 107(d), 171(2), 301(a) of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7407Cd), 7501(2),

7601(a)).)

Dated: September 26, 1978.

DOUGLAS M. Cosixs,

Administrator.

Part 81 of chapter 1, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended by revising specific pollutant categories in specific sections of subpart C as follows.

Subpart C$-Sedion 107 Attainment Status

Designations

Section State Pollutant

Category

81314 llinas_ TSP

81.314 _.do SO.

81.315 Indl.na___________ 81.315 .do.--do SO.

81.315 -_.do , Ox

81.323 Mech=n______ TSP

81.323 -do .SO

81.323 ... do . .Ox 81.323 - .... .. _ CO

81.324 MinnetaTSP

81.336 Ohio TSP

81.338 -. do____ _ SO.

81.338 .. do .... _ Ox

81.M6 ...--doCO

81.350 wo__ _ _ TSP

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 94-THUR5DAT, OC EO R 5. 15M78

46003
A

A

AK

x

x

.4

-RULES AND REGULATIONS

Sub part .- Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

llii - IS" (etio...a

1 1p teliAo a - Most IA ifl

I .44a r Stn

AACA .65

Kno County C.--uZ Mty )

All other tvps.

PorL Couty

X, p.. UP,. Ltes to.. 'Iedina 1.610.l

Jthiod*

All mTh hr .- . "

To.-el 'Coun7 Cincinnati 1 . Foodoloo

Peki

Fulton County Crlood

Warren

Loodford

Coles County

abl-igtonT.

A11 other tops.

deirou ACo-y

-.. A

x

x

x

x

x

lLueol. -. SP TCouTited)

I11wis - TI? (Conti...d)

w, Knt DOs go. z.-*o -'ttet

DoslIta.d Are. C*a I044 4l.ifitd han PIr.. rt -€odatv ti...~a

St-dTd Standards Vlad&,da

AQCA 69

Rack Island Count

btlckhatk Tup. X, Coal Vally x

South MolIl"4 I x South Zotk Island X I Usek Ward X x All other tp..

Whiteside County

Col e AT'p. All ol ert o.

Croll Conty

AqR70

All othe,

MAdl-o Con ty

Alt- T.p. , X x Chotea. x x Col~iosVtlel A A

Codfrey X A CVat. CIT X

Wood B.r x x Ai other tvps.

ST. Clair Coty" Centeen T .P. x I

Co-Toov"l i x St. Clair x x Stirs. x X Stookey x x SUB.. Loaf x x

FEDERALREGISTER,'VOL.-43, NO. 194--1ThURSDXY-, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46004--
RULES AND REGULATIONS

I liol. - sfco-a

XP a- oo ltfr0

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46005

D.- D. Mt 3L- -c 2 k t

An ote '.rs. x

Cherr V~h le U. 21

AU 74 . ~2 Jeff- county

D~e 7Up. ]It. V. am I

AU other z~

C2&y Coty 2

E-l~l 2

F.elf frbx2 F .. k2l

C.U~r21

21

21 J~a- x

=r.. x

21

1s.,=. 2

Tem21

lulmals - W tommu-0
RULES AND REGULATIONS

oels Di -

P.tto. D.i *t 1.. AmMatt0 1.0.M 16. eet0010 o+ 80 . ltOoo Pxzi.oy 5-,0a.4. t.0in At 4 Standards 0tidnds " t Ards

AQCIII5

Peoria County-

.. 1110 Tvp.

Peort, *"X Kickapoo 'T". x P.1.* d T. I Itlokopo Top. x

All other tps.

T.a8. 110ontyCincinnati ""p. I

x104000. lTp. x

Cr oo.lad Top. x Pamin To. x All other tups. .

Fulton County x 11 ..ock County x Penderoon County 9 Knox County I M conough County ,x llobn 10ny 07 x

Warr.. Gototty -

lloodford County

00.000 x

AQCR66

6-.~pal g ounty Clark Coles County County x

Cunha rlsd Countyx

Dewitt county X"

Douglas County x .10r Count7 • Ford County oI

Cuoqnoot ty Liling con Counmty x Met-n Couty x

.1tr.1 County x Piece County

Shelby Cou.ty , + Vermillion County x+

1ln.. - $0Z (Contiued)

Does Not oes Not 00no0 * 00tte0

Designated Area, Hart Feet lssfi, . d 'a

Pr.de'ry Seconds S.ods stasndard. Stadards Standards

Cook Count y Bremen XTP.

CAl1. T P, X

Th oo Top. I 0.rth T- x

All other Cook Co0ty

Vill couty

cb.noshon Top.

J.1te Top. x

Lockpo t Top. x Trop Tp. T x

All other Will County

Ow.. x

Du0.g. Gr-dy County Con ty

X.. Coknty oI Kaake# County x

Kendall Lake Co*unty County xx

HCaroy Couty x

QCIOPI

J0 0ar . C ounty

AQ11P 69

Ce 11 Cooty x

Ponr H.t.ide Isy C nd ounty x County x

AQ. 70

dio. County

Wood )Liver Tp.

Alton Top. x

Illinois - (S C mfnu )

t'- ...... 1948. *fat o .o n o . Bltt, 1o,1ioooed Area 16, 1ee 6.ee ,Ilas111.e th0e

Po1m Secondo, 1or ltl0O.1

S'A . sd, S n 'dh d St AndJ.ds

All oth. .adison

704d County - I 'Clinto- County

m~on' Cu.nty x 11 .ph county x It Clair County x

Washington county ]L

AQR71

BSt.1. County

Solb7 Top. - .

Al other Bureau tvps. 1

L.S.11* County I IA. Couty m rshll ounty x Putne. County S o rko C o o y ' X

AQR72

M S... Cout y

Cr-.t Pet X x Metropolis Pet x x 9ISO'rmooo Pot x z All other Hessen Cy Pt I

Alexander County x J.ohnOn County Y

Pop. 1ounty c Pulaski Cout7 X

Uolon County x

loon. Coty x 0.1.lb County x Ogl. County x Stepb.n"- x Winnebago county X

1110018 -0 S'(Cootia.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46006
46007 RULESAND REGULATIONS

IIIitht - W, l¢onco-esf

§81.315 Indiana.' Indiana - r$P

iteot 1.0 stife 140 A 

lr4iana Ecoetles

Clark Sm,,ty

Th area I l cef in x

C£wlt:T., Jefferson- lle. SIher Creek S

Utica Tlsips

lhe reoain r of Clarb

Deaeborn CO~ty

The are& 1include in

Center. bowM. Losrerce- trz; I t.neester Townslps

TIe rectinder of Dearborn

Cooety

-.tis Ct..ty

The area Irxlded In Ea1into. rorien& Patoka To-ships

Tt toner of Cw-CiS'

County

Floyd cw,.ty

01 4 County

Tbe aea IncSCIC tithil, Center L lE-nod Tcsics

Mhe oeoitrr of Ikvard

take nty

4roth by Lake Michigant. en the weest by the IrTdsca- Illoils State line. -:

the south by U.S. 30 foo

the State , re. to the

rcdmst" A-. loot I. -UIC.

Sollcdl 1.I& to t.W* lintteu4,1: of 1-54 t1*0 1011144: 3.54 to M1 tLI: Ifcter* =-.y lice A. c' Mo eeCal te rartar, CC400Y,1" Sle

Ike m=I4149 of UWe

Lay. ccTij

Ito art. 1odo~e4 1

U.1p, sx-AteT I t.

lits eeoit~.C c

lMriCC Ceco'?y

701hf cat of royl

fr"Ifthi, -"kli1=3~T of 1b)ohip, AL. I cast cf rie rcl41s 14. C

Th ro41f fKilc

Tee arts certh of Ifar PS-. A est of Floe 11.

Ite mraenr~ of St.

1=91.!S CCeety

llfltc4t~ CTMty

loiso C. Sbt :-C ft tt

Flow) 4 1 To,-Sift

Up Cctt.ACc.T

t'412= eF- Ceotilee £

Yly4ts.,50 t. fttk.

CL'tt Clas ty 6 4

Ut ii ~4 a sitoler 

I4Nlo arts y Cwit.if Fiotmt. Center CooO.

CTUt rCuiek4 a, k~e CotdTcsn~c

itt 0405104sf al0'.4

"=~tyt n t'

X- ux dIr-tto m:51401% 1 au cs~r -c.o

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Indiana - S02

Does Not Does oc mnot E ttc

Debsntated Ace. Meot Knt :1...0t1ed nPOIciuy Seoondony IUt l l

Standards Standards StdadsI

Dearborn County

Gibson County Jefferson County

Lake County

An Area bounded on the x

north by Lake Michigan.

on the eIt by the Indfana-Illio ls State

lInc, on the south by

I.S.3 from the State

line to the intersection of 1-65 then fololowng

1-65 to the Intersection

of 1-94 then followlng 1-94 to the Lake-Porter

County line. & on the east by the Lake-Porter County line.

The remner of Lake' County x

LaPort CountyAn area bound n the north x a

by Loke ichigan & the

Lndnaino-Hlthigan State line. on the west by the

LaPorte-Porter County line,

& on the South & east by

1-94

The remainder of LaPorte

County 0

Marion County x

Porter County

An area bound on the north x by Lake Mlihigan, on the

eest by the Lake-Porter

County line. on the south by 1-80 6 90 A on the east

by the LaPorte-Porter

County line

ZPA destooaton reptece.S.tate de.tonoolon

Indiana - S02 (continued)

Do. Lot 00e. Not -neo0e Oetet

Designated Area 2'..9 0elt . Uassificd on= Peheuny Secon.ar ttoml Steadards Sodrds ;Stamlad

The ro-aiger of Porter CO, x

Vigo County x

Warrit County x.

Wayn County

The area included within x

BOston. Center. Franklin. Wayne & Webster Tonshps

The rerinder of Wayne County •

All portions of all other

Indiana Counties x

x* EPA designations replace cate desigr ttion$

Indiana - 0,

Dgo Not Knee Conot 1e Cll.stfle1

Deslg..t4 A.e. ?eLty Standards oc Better Than e1tonat Standards

Allen County -x

Clark County - x0

Elkhart County

Floyd County x

Lae County

Marion County

Porter County x"

St. Joseph County -

Vanerborgh County x

All portion$ of all other A

Indiana counties

x EPA designations replace S ote designations

§ 81.323 Michigan. TSP

D- We. 0es 000 mno On tatter a 

Desn~e. Naar rot :1 ... ltid thai

POlTo7 Secondary Iationl.

Staod Standards Oondards

AOcA 8 2 Oilaob 0 Portion) x Except suber.a. defteed

by range and toonship

1. Berie. Coaty 01800. uAs,

Se"ttons 7. 8. 17-20 29, 30

X11".. TAS

$neons 12-14 & 21-27

AQCR 122 E ..pt sbar.s doflt.d.

1. say County

ME. T14N.

Sections 16-16

A 21-23 2. Cene... Coun y

nte.. CIeD. of Ste'ant An. and 9.

Sat-. St. then E.

elect Srevart A,. to

ort RIahway to

Frank t An. to

Ou nltuo An. 'to 0

-Sasio.ta St. to

Snvra A,.

b. Starting at Inter

sectoin of Cepenter

m4. and Du.ont St. then E. o- Corpnlt~e

Ed. 0o Center R4.

then S. to 01-21 ;hen W. to 1-475 to Brsno

Rd. he. W. to 1-75

them N. to Corumno Rd

01-56) then E, to llant cLty 10.00'. Re

than B. to Pooadena Au, -bt C. -nDlo So. to Carpenter Rd.

-EPA dostoosoloo epi...e Stae. deoICatfon

FEDERAL REGISTER, ,VOL -43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46008
RULES AND REGULATIONS

liiobIooo - (rootbotod)

Doee );ot ttos Not , o ot U. 0.4412

Dsig.tred Atto Sot Yoot r..sollaIof.roy Setoodry I 14.001

Sleedardo Stoodoodo ~ rd

3. Z004 C0oT7

5117. 79. Se-tbr.

19. 30.21

X.12. 77. Se'lt±x

22-27 & 34-36

A. Y--. Cotty

5et. IM. Soo -t1 c

23. 14. 23 & 24

5. Rldbood Cooo:7

Se1 7146, s 

121. 26-28 & 33-35

6. Rsoko~to Corty

& 6. 116. TIM Seor.o-s 21. 22 & 27 x

-34 7. S o- C orty -. =71721N0.

Secio' 1. 12-1.2,

22-27 & 34-34

ISE1:. 712S. 5-0 0. -6. ., 16" 19-22 A 28-3

b. n14 12=.

S t.- 7~. $=,- 7

E eet S - a* tflood. 1- 1r.-b 1:0.00

.. 114:. 7 . Setti. 27. . 33. 27 & 34

b. All of CoSty

S o0 of 70 041e. U.

200.5.004 - W (ctoood)

Do. Ott Do. So t Z be toter

D lg-ted. A.-_ .t. 1.: .. lolity S..-dt7

st-odards St..bod Stooltrl.

2. .er.to le y

o.-e 1.10e: 7 0. or ¢

Sotsoest.1 . 16 . 22. 27 4 21

b. Alt 1oI.1.do

Coolidge Pd.

2 0 0041 Rd.

C.oy,..ll Rd.

it. ileod. .&

a 0011. Ud.

512St. 1676c~t

50.00000 2-4,

0-11. 14-16, 21,.

22 & Ut

4. W-y.. 1:0.0 .. A-e 0..1.1

L.ok. St. 1:7.1 to a

Rue, Rd. to Schaefe

F, to kkobbolz Rd.

Golootre a A. w0

Zlroo7_o Si. to

Joy Rd. to 7T1l-

.ropb Rd. to Food

14.. to ro- 10Wy FA it O,.oo7

711 U.4 to uuter0 xd.,to carlysbo St. to Riddle Be1t Rd.

i. ST Soo Rd. toX Uo.. Rd. to 1:000

Uto Sol-taot 5

lelrou t to

1-04 to Sooooo3.l

Rd. to Ookov. -

Solt U. t' Ulm1 -

-Cerlto. td. to 65.

D-ot livor to Lake*

x e'.toot. fre 

- o lot 01: 1:00 .00 zt 

1. As"A 0Injd. .110002 La3. St. 71.1x-brqi I", to? 7X1- 14. to To 1:78 30. to a W±. 33. to y wira Z1. t. 7 Me 1. v

silo ofez Id. to 7-1mi U. to Czoseau Ax. to

J-7 3.4. to Soolho 1500000 to ltd 1u. to 1o.1. 4

U. to Chem7 31U.to vooo4.lol I ooI=dsi to 26±t41S= At. to WsOtt1 M. to C00

lyt..St.to06004.Solt .to2to o .to

U.to 06.01 Zalt U. fi183.7 U. to 1.21.24 14. to 50-S V. to cctS.

U4. to S761.7 1u. to J41. let$=t A,. to 2wis. St. (croo:. 314) rt1.odw to

fov,ir3L- to o.4boo 1. C=?O 1:227oter. x A414. Izos11. Last*- 72.. M104 & To.- tts tot-mpo SwoI-4.

=tIdo..Utias.

Wotoy eeuss"A defitoad

3. 1.11-.* C=ty IS W1. VS2. Stotleo 34 2. 2r24.. Cotot Xrg. 167 x

Kidd&-:0 - IS7 cccatlo-d)

lotNt o.tt sooot S.otr lofSlt Am. 2.s to: t.oi~

2. vuileoo, Cooot

Ar a "o.r yQ11aau

.1=oy Cress.. S..

1. Celt. Cootl. 2rl.

11. ucota-s 6-i.

17.22. 22-21. I737. I

nil7. Sotko . 1 2 & 12., 2. D-t C= 11 3t 

a 2-12

01t1? 121N.

S~te~ 7. Is £ It

12.' a, IS 17 tir

A. Rwotott Co'oo:7

=W2. TU.ES. 94otl=o 1 S2

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46009
RULES AND REGULATIONS

n..o"d6.oo - S02

Do.. Ioo o Nt t otnno tetter

-enignte& Arm. - et to. Clasified Po" sFr.o S.ood.y o UCoIl

$taodord S dad$ d-ds

AQCo 82 O6chig.. poot0 ) X

Exeokt ftbatr.s defined X

1. Wd!..! C07y, NI?. x

T13N . otioi 1-6, t2?. .Tluoecms -3 .T1O. Sectioe. 7-1 1

AQC 123 x

AQCR 124 (Mchigan portlon

AQ?0 125,

etofindSandrd

1. T shib.. o0007.611.

.l , o ZWs. xr~o

2416. Seetioto 7-11? 16-

..d e23,6-r

AQI 126 xz

-tFlA &.1gatitone pl.- Sit o dto1gatlon

meh21110 - 0

lot 

No. 

.

C 

r Z

s. 0ted. Area {Pci=sry Sotoards Than

A=21 62 (16tb6can 6000600) X

AQCN 122

1. 66o.ksgtn. 00000,

'., 2,.., Cr..iot

Nidlood. M~y-.

Coo...... 70001..

and Notot C-ttit

1Q61 124 0a(ihst pr..1o

06260 126

r.1....

1. *r.qett. County 60

*ZPA. dcoolgntiot. replot. Statw dotfo loot

Desiot Area

1626 62 PCld.o. r60600)

162CR 12

z.op.sobatea dekled1. s.10a00 County

14r. T215. SN. "o( 1.

12. 13; 626 &2

126. 21216. S-otioo 9. 16-21

600ep otboto. defied

I. 16.0o0b. 0.kl..d. V

Conoties. Laks St.

CSix-XI. Ni1. Rd. t0

60117 Rd. N. to 15 Nl1St NR. to 7es Rd.

S. to 1 Mil . to

Clot-ot .othe-t 0611f bout.osy to Poy. Ok

.0.the u oity b-Mam

to 13 W1e ltd. to

vergreen Rd. to 10,-

oly H111. .o-thet

lt67 bo.od:ry to 1.0

Fan o-.othem

41ty ,-d. y to

bod-ky to !.6-Or F'

t 6b 8 MU*1 0!.:to 11-

toots ".o o city

bo t ry to Neotl, ..Ster, elty b .. dtry

bn to yf -eserluit

southern cit=y bmadar folitodogs ?ot lyvt0

Rd. t0 Detroit RVet.

1626 126 (0michi goo. Potlot

16260125

16211126

606000 Stooda.!, Ir 00 tttr Th6.

gi-J CO - ~ id

Do.Nt I. .t t. l to... -

iI

xI

§ 81.324 Minnesota.

%)..A Not. Noce Not. -at N. tt

DI19o ted Ae& 110., toat loSttilied rho

2,1-1 ecy ondoary noot

St d. Stond..ds Stodcd,

Ab.C6 2.31., ~ city of ThternAtim.1l

City of ZXt.

City of A60 VLas

City of Z. Grand To.k x

City of C1u0. ot ,

City o! Sie Say" It

YeSabi Iron R.99.

dottlfied by co-toy

end t tsip &.4

St.a1-1 count;

T560.N1611

757N. R.17-191.1 T57S. 0Z0 Section 2

26q. R16-18v 0

2T070. 6314; 0164-61

T60, 17-13W1 _,

Sberbhatr Cooty x

St. CZJuds To, hlp 3

(Steaoo CootY)

City of Spr.Stgleod 31

eA rn t-t Too-n

htp.6 (Nooo CototY)

ioonnodor bf star. x

or11 Md8l.tioio rpl.ot -t. dengot 1100

FEDERALREGISTEIR VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46010
RULES AND REGULATIONS -

§ 81. 6 Ohio. Chia - w

Do.. rot Does ot :--t z. Utter

SPr la-7 Sato-dory U-.Z-1 Stedards St-dardsf suo-dard.

Chi. Coooo

Asbtoola

City of A abola.

A.101l. bootolip port-. of Plloooth Tooosh notb 0± "

1-9D

Th. t-ooA of

Lohoobolo C-ty x

ZBeosnt

Cfs--o. of Yotir r" retry. lo o. rot Zrockolde. Bolofrt.

Shodyold- & 7oohtft

.,2 in. additto to booohips of P .....

roitoTy.od & o k

boSrhoipo of coloorio& fialso hbo S- t*h &

poio=oy ootttli.-

., -'"aoLe=

Boo"t.o Cosoty

,Ciy of bciddlo to

Cites of o..

t*0t0, 0.. 4loaf.

ra i told. .od that loo.oir of toh C y of 000±0 oE within btlrfufld loooohip

of f'ofo.L. St. CMet.. iborty.

Tb. rotinder of

L00100 Coooty 3

chid - IS? (toatitoood)

Dealoto Ao DO.. Rot Dats 2100 0&=a is Utter

ftioadarfs Stood steodaodo

Clark

The ars . oth cad ea.1o ths 11-e doteooSfod by- loote 41 as00 fIt.. the

east to Zoot. 215. toot to . C.0hk--Oho.,0gs. Cooty Line; -od booded by oh

Sot. Roote 72 sooth to It,- .- tot. 70. 100.00.. 70 wes0t to Old MU1 Fa~. sooth to Faifieold fib. oortboost to Crooo. Rood. a000 to Xtot 6f; sooth to Jacksto Rood. sat 0001051 Rload, south to Cloh-Olooo Coooy iio. ;

Th. toooldoo of Clark Coooy

ch.1?T ccooIi.od)

L IJCIAO Are *h 1k41alie 

C34ro..t

tLioopol & lobZ8

?Th oobi f 26s a lrts Cs of

?lt- ast

TLb 1 t. o f

uvie..a. &l f.1u.

tacth& Vast 5! . v2tha S.of

. Citueso f y

&othe 01.1.of

01.01.4 eaist o

". 2 th Soot.A luooudi A...

*172A domlp.stou royToos 001. Islianto.

thio Chloe ? as (oo

rt i.OM-tJ Us* DosNorWe. L

ftadood

)roo1*0±12s. Clo.

X'IVY., 30.. .144

Iaooa unos.

" ups Caere~,2~

wItof 0. Ulkb Ioad

Xhoy-t £ " Coos to 11-01.t"

Sb.0 smiodIts . cas

or-t of . lit fosM byt 3LO44 t18o = t 0

Shi bus24o o. gtth

J-7-m-cfoo. Jos's

S.4 .,j to

"1S. s. zio 55lu Vi-Ie oo. bifattle. reaot t*.. 100. o.0

:,-a it. 150050

~.0

f0od~.o1

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THUSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46011

o
RULES AND REGULATIONS

chio - 1O (ooti o dyb

Ro ,00 aot ofoi ote

Dest1at* ArooEas Donaoto R ot No. ntor ot : iof Be" =&al .stoo Sooodod S.Oodofo tlodod

et to Teages- South

Road, south to Delsleo Rros'aod, east to Drke-KL0ML Cott lino

(ober. toad bcooos Feoer

toad)

Ths re-nder of Rarke

County

1iitand Township not Withto thICity of Dflance

City pf Deflaoce I

Th. rtemaider of lafftao0

Cooftt?

Cr0. 0 Franklin,

Iocid.. - area -.- otPae 2

by A " Creek on the east.

LiLt&Stoo At... r1.kb--. I

Rood. Thurman Av', sod

Cro.saso As.. 00 theo toth

00 the -eIt by 1-71 & S.R. 315; & on the north by Lane

A,... North High St. . Weber

Roed. Westerville Plke &

Ai.r Road.

Th. area Within 1-270- C o - belt excluding primury oLtotot area

Tb. r"titdor of ranklin Cosoty

0al11. 0. .-.

Cludes thoae aresaWst t of th. line doteoioed by

the folloooit

Ohio - TO (oot~u..)d)

oss SRot Roos R;ot' .atsot 90 9ea:0

esir ated' Ato feet " IIot er2t2

Prinat R'odo .ttt

S -d doStondad. $0.4rd.

Meredith ;0. osoth fom the Creena-Clark Cotty Line. co00rt0 to 1.0. 370

south to tyas Part Rd..

sotthotat to Clifton 02. tootb-st to Itt.68 sooth

to R 235, noth-ea to

FirgloTd 2d.. soet to

Stve. Valley Rd* Sout.

to lasz 02.. est to Fairfield 0.. oth to

Susogart 02. r'00100 Little .o.r" eelo Rd..

sooth on Littlt Suarcre 02. to Feed 0010 0d.. east

on Feed Wire 02. o ood

02.. sooth ot Htead Ad. to Mill1 Rd.. f01 Mi1 Rd.

sooth. the ost ,to Lor

RLlbotk 0d., Lo" Roll

brook 02. northeast to So.hbly 12.* Schnebly 02.

southest. then mooth to

1.0. 7255. foIlo S.0. 725 oast to the residential

or- of Sp tlng Valley and

tle road ohicb bectos

Sprint Vally-Poit"'0

vill 0d. thro01 resid

ia1 0ure to Corntalk 02

Cornstalk 0d. -oob to

ire._o-VArren Couty Lime.

Th. tre: 1ader of Cre.-. 4 0

.CO.ty

Th. "here. bounded 00 h- x

..st by 1-71 oAthe too

by the Ohio 0iver. ca th West by the Cincinnti

City Limits & o the

wortl by the north & ttst

boutndaies 6f tho'Cities

of Citc ttI. lo€ d. I

Linol. lt.. EWVooalt &

Ohio - TSZ (eootiooad)

b o D00% Kos Not m e r I Stter

A.~ It e Met Tlhld ad,

Poto ;R.ood.ry National

$e Lod. Soodao-s Scosandards

&I. Ash

Area south 4 ass: o U.S. s0 nooth 4 east of S..

125 i so thne to the nrth isobadlog the. Citles of

Forest Park, C"ashfjlh. t.

Realthy. Sorth Collqe H11,

lvy elo . oodlho . 'le 1dal e

Sprgdale. ShI.etoooof & Lov la d & the To' .l p -of

CoIerai- Springfield.

Sycaore & Syma .

'1he rmse Of Haiolton

Couty

J=~s

Cities of StoraOoO.,Fopyio., x

Toronto. Utnatesville, Steohouollo. 101.05 Joto:,

Hao Alexandria. Bri1ian.. RLyland. Tilto ill. Tork-

'-12. & Tovs7hlp of Sai..

K.oo. Cs10..roak. Cross freek. Sotoheo.OUe. Rll.

& lf.0-0eo

Sp00A1lad To.tlip

Th1- led"do of Jefferson Comt7

Lo.

Area bounded by the -est X

County lines north of X-90

& -at of S.L 306 1.

addition to Cities of

Fainesville. Cood River.

Fairport l.1. rainso- tv le To-holip

Ohlo- - TS- (continued)

Does NoC Do r. ot t S t 0t

Vasigantod Ar. Meet "Ms. :1 .. : 4 sT PrFknry Setoadair Kui0:at

St o dtad US..sds! Standard.

TbU amai.odo of Lak. County

Th. Cities of Itortom. X,

Cool Croos & South. Poit & the Tovaship. oC Upper & Perry

Fayette Touhp • •

Th. refLmder of ZrwCounty

Lorin

Th ortio of th City of

Inte. north of S.0. 611

The City7 of lora east of

S.R. 58, &Sbheffield To.- tbip osolodlog prioso 00- otb=oot 0are0as

iemad rle of Loraso County x

Th0 Cities of Toled

Tounsohpo of Wate ille.

V.-Imlo, & Washington

Th. remaind r of 0za 0

County

Tbh. Cities of Campell, I Strothr & Tooogotoun

t that Portion of Poland

Totoship north of U.$.0.

22& &.that portion of

Coitolilo To.shIp mouth

of 0..10 622

FEDERAL REGISTER; VOL43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER: 5, 1978

46012
RULES AND REGULATIONS

D_.. rt 0-e Dot :-t .to . 7.0 _.d4 A-. it." Sest 2-111Ldit

Stea-aol smito.u cdt

Totoohi. of Coitsville

(soolul-o: po tiwA south of

U.S.7.. 4.22) . ;.or-- &

P.Land 7 oeadtot P.-Lo

tort C! u.S.L 221.) A th.t rttiot oa A02ti-to

To-othp eoot of s.L. 46

lb. tsaolodeto ohto

l.Cloy of Pllo.

7bot ares In 175= C-sty

north of the lint dete.-

olood 4~y F-oe Looi from

the Derk-4-1,on Co00y. 1100

n.t so Psoereo tool ,ot;,to En..e Sbo. toni

too4, nt td EteSS. (toSS

oortho~ot ho. o Troy

tool northeast to tmiitoo51tem~ dot7,llne A,

oooth of theil 11. dteroitrA- by L eo oo fr o.

the v004000.y-vAio c~ty

III: to Pu,2D2. eorth to fte

571k est to 2m 201. aortb

.1.1o. eoet to the SIoI-C-Mtk Cotet 31- &

soliothe city .7 ?I,,-.

-Th. rsosole of 011:0

72e Ciojot meltttoo & x

the T-oothps 07 S-- &

switrerlooi

A- OeLiato r- ."Ledttooed

K .0 o.tt mo 10000 &. tte

bo-1oh41 P'Of Jien.. Cte.

Th. re-.iloo ef r-to

The cities .7 PAonitboog

& D.7:0 esolooiog t

Portion of ohe ciry of 0.70. booodad by Ttter..

bla: A,.. eed Sothrll. Rd

ThoAt -re In rts-7t~ co.

-oth a eaot of the falv

tot. FEoo Us.4o) ot

the Eotttoe.Or-74n1 Co ooY ito. .oth to Brie&..ter

Rd1.. soth o 0 olov~2

L. weit to 14:01 York Rd.. tsot pi Pere. La2..

sooth.,.. to Wtbrthook Rd..

st to Olive Rd.. ooth to

ShiloS, sprIoje If....t to

tioi..ed 74.. toot to Soyde

s4 outh to Old Doytom Rd

trtto Itke- ch-h 74..

sooth to tILl. 74.. tee: to

G-1.l Rd.. * oth t

torosle Rd4. v tex. to

Cl~sytoo 74.. ot wo

C.715 310.51. 74.. toot

to lStotyoeoy-7rei Cooty t~.ton.there is

th. ooosrtoe

.2.102 is described %7 the

north _o S.7. 4t free the

Line. re, Llh'Pp Rood. esot to

7510 - = ConoLinod

aeetr10teDoe Me.t5. Ive. e Iit. Zi..o

Ilot ."d. Cth to VIZ. .~u00m Mek. eot.. L c uD-... c... 030th : ol2

x-.. 0.sat to C0007 Lto 0

ort% to At itf M. toot to S~sxUL=& Lt.. r to V-"Lbo Ar.toto

zuo-ibhe". 74.. seeth to Mmor tz1.. -. x to Sooth

Met: ., . c. ntt to X-75. somth Wo L. M- e:7*Vsolno C-17t Uss.

Tbe Te-ller of x tntyoeo7 Coooy

Cio30 002o0. . elfr 1t±04 sorL2.d ofLh

cotjLft U. at 1711-

M.. soas to Xt=7

Las

U. cr.- oL $2..-4s.

t oo1..kl. Cop

lbroef sesloo .

clelse Snu-n

ot.t-o -_ 

M_. * got. Poes XoC 2.. 

&/~s Uono t lroooohl

dedisEptt~et ..o.&tJfr.

zset

UE A.~.oMAo ~ t S

Ut. 7*11LIsfC lloto

Cr ct.. .. a As

g-.12 -- d- "tCot. bo .. Zu o the

_"2 by CS.. Coth. -

0tm V.i.t 0L0

Ares booo.od e sacch b7022 XL ISl :.fe

nt 2 *L 1.av A2..

27 .... 12 1. 4h sleliz

Cteutl1. mo 7.1,0.,.

11.n11-t Yorthe to A2.th

b, S.L. 619. 5.1t 21 & the

sooLIZU5 k conary lit.:

A, ca th. toot 27 be. 511Z' usy". Ut~t. nl

ntohoi~e 1-7.

.me 0.0104.? 1-ft~

C7004

FEDERAL REGIST.S VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46013
RULES AND REGULATIONS

SOhio - IP (€ootiued)

Does Rot Does Not sot te Setter

D.51ro-ted Arem Meet veet asf;1:

Prlmry Sec.-deoy tatioss

S teoards Standards Sitdod.s,

Trumbull

The area otoospas-ed On the x

tortb by U.N. 82. on the

eut by S.R. 121, S.L 304

& S.1. 616, so th, south by

the County line & on the

est by the fMhoi.8 If,.

The Younships of Wrren.

lovnd. tUstherefield.

Liberty & Hubbard; & of

Diets. lovnohip the area

south of the north boundary

of Vi- Tosolhip to S.L 19 & the -- s. of rook-

£0.1d To-shp sonth of

S.R. 82 excludies prlmary

nomettaiuoent "e".

The remainder of Trutmul

Coty x

T.s careumaC Washington

vood

WyDodctdo

Ohio S Dufu Dioxide

Do Do D oSt o ette.

Doslgosto Ae met Moeet No Sfle Ths • Primary Seondary timol Stoard Standar' Standard.

Allen

Townships of Beth & Amerlcsn. City oX Li

The remainder of Allen as

County

Athosc

York Tootship ,-

Th reaider of AthetO

Cooty s

Clermont

Pierce bo nhip x.

The remainder of Cleront

Coos;tys

Columbhiae

Citiec of FEt Paleetine

& E.st Liverpooh & Uotty x0 bovoehip

Th rma.nder of

Celo axa Cotety x*

Coshocren

S eskhin T-Ooship

The remilder of

Coshocton County as

cOychos

The Cities of Bay Village, X* S .etlae, Sorth Olmsted.

Olhted .iLs. Rock Ricer,

F.te1"ew Park. sues. Middleburg Utz., StrooteVille, North SoY.ltoo. R.. d 'le Et.* Sre ko v11,

aod the Tomsehi;p of

Ohio - Sulfur DioXide (t€ntiwed)

0D0 Not Not cot De tett tot r

Dosluaoted Area Meet H t 1ifdd hkn

• 1"o oy Setoody , ational

Steodord. ltSds ,tos aeds

0fete d-a Dieeda.*

ThA recaioder of

C.so yOg Cot7

Soie

Periks T bhip X

The rescioder-of Urfe

Co 7ty

Franklin

The entire ot. within

the boidary of Sts20. W

Media-s & Hamilton loT- ships*

The reainder of Franlin

County X.

Clli

Addioom Toooohdp

The remainder of Clli

County 0

Or. ens.

Seth TootsIp

The rmider of C ...a outy

Hamilton

Ohitster Tourship a .

The remainder of

lamilton County

leifoo..Oo

Cities of Steruetville & Oe

Mingo Junction, Tonsahips

of Stub ille., SWend

Creak. CrOss Creek. Ko00

-*EPA designation replaces State desioaeiLon

Ohio - Sulfur Dioeide (ctotbooed)

Does rot Does ot 0m5 Be i tt.1

Oesignnted Are; Meet Mee t Ieetie on

o -sty Secoody Ltiol

Stzadeod Standards 1t-datd.

sod wells

The emainder of Jeffe-s- Ceoodoy e

Lake

Sntire area tothut of tbe foloioo lies , 5eg.0

(ooth) At to "stern

bouodary of )adison Toship, sooth on vesteri bound ry of Wodi-o7-te ship ile to end of cowty

The rreidor of Lake X.

County

The "tire as teeth of 0e WOtS & the City of Elyria

The reoainder of Lare 1.

Conty

lucas

be oe et of Ste23 & xk

.eet of easten bondarody

of OreSgo Township

The eo.Index of Los 30

County

The sotiorarea outh et o'

of tbe fo_o& lIe.

RSe4 6 soth to 0e76. Rte7

6 southeast to €tyt

boode ry; the City end Toooship of Canfield. and

the "otire ares ithin

the follo-lo bomsdaey Itte268 (lake Park Rd.)

east to Stel7 (bDedy Pd.)

5017 mouth to coouty

*EPA deigoatioe replace.s State deulitotion

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46014
RULES AND REGULATIONS

* Oho - Sorit- Dioxide 0-="-00d)

P otot F or 24 tt..

zerlvere Sog r.te aC..*ed rb

- bonny.n

The.eto=ee of roloi..

Coty Mo

7b., ofzd Cnof Y-.000

City a T.-hip of w.dteetb0

The Com~imder of Ye2im.

The eti re stes sootbtest

of the foflm."=g 11=e:

X.eh oortbt- to to.e. d.

00100 d. tooth to Ott?).

P-2h0 tot to eooty

7e e.tdto of ltos ) COo=ty 00

TbA C-1- of lbrgoC rT ep

.rohi.le .~vZe oT

11-sot Tetooip X,

12. -. Ar.2 o

T~h=+iot 00 SSt~

-*VA desItpation oTeyetea State de.t0*00tion

Ohio - SOif Diooide ccvotLoCol

v- o o€- D I o :eto 0 utter i) irtt.. .od (A1*0 -e. rt Yt Men$ to ?eioo y S. U7tool I soo.1. stolar. i t l 

"001... i? ..hip 0

Thbe -zal--et of pichoe7

The City of 7o.01.

(-nt tile; toCh of 2oofoik sod wOtee. .)

The ceotoder of Sett0.

0±00.. ioot-I.oi. Sooth

0.00. CO-too. Ioepe.

Io... hip. of 1- rot0..

000.Ce.2 P..ey

The oolo f S1 tork e*

Boer area tothoto of 0

the ft.eio21 RC. sto to. to Ote9i. boo9i

tootth to eoo17 LIo- -el

1)Uth ZA. (0o) toot to Root. R.o toorth to Sortos

00. (T-2i). ll-I. reet t 000.000 betary.

2) Vsoleehof ad. (215) Cost to 00.93. t.9o)?

to IM619. Roo6i9 "'t C" -y00 hooslazy.

* Th. -oet of 50*10c

.00A 2.00010rpioco 50000 l-ivtoie

Ohio - S.1c:Mn 7o±. 0oon

t-* a.-- toe S.C oto .C.t.t t Are.to v.. O:rmot .102.1 "-

IMA.. If-e t ) he oo.

itookeL 00.007 Lie.. ~ .rth to 0h4 entry of wti.

sco1)000 Irm00.. 0440000

.100r0) te lop lwots 0144..) to 705)19 000..? M0) to Do1. eti t. th

go Iore?1. Dtj10 ect to

Anse1). itS) 193 o0k to

00=7y

CO-t :.o t f toll

000007 0*

.1 e cIot% of Cfall- z.o

Wi-4 101-8a to 0*10±,-

sas0 to SWISS). Do.)))

Seo41 t of Mlod Ooeely Z.0

ll othor .0.01. s h.

itlofO MIDl 

t.3A dnipootio iW oio ,o1ae 

Mt.. - Dtc.io-e C.iL..ot

Rz

•ie fllood I 

A..1s1,o o

0-7f.41.

01stmst Choto x

Cook. x

Wae x

T.Te t.

0011. 0

tendt.

Z,000. 0

0000.7

Zoolt.

c..oa-.

21011

N.vsto.

0.007

FEDERAL REGISTER; VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOEK 5, 1978

46015
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Ohi. - Shone .antl wdaaono (eoeriiord

Primary tifie St... d a,-ler DeI:nted Exceeded Att et

Lake

Leaiea 2

Seogroe * 2one 2

Hadisoo

Hog n x orror x

Hkin.

Me. .

Morgan 2

ott,,,. uskding =

'Perry x Pickaray 2

Pike 2

Portage' - ,,able

Putna ,x

Richland x

Sandosky x

Stitt. x

Shelb x Stark x

S"it x Trumbull T cauee

Goan Ulnon v~ 2

Varren 2

Washington 

Way..e x

Williams X

wood 2

Ohio - Carbon 1annxide

Primr7 1erissifiablo

Desigala.d Exceeded Attainment Area 2

d5(d )(1) Id I t

Cuyahaga

Franklin

Hmilton n - Jefferson S

SahonnIg 2

N.t zery'

-All portions of all oskoe conties in State of Ohio X

I Cia- Jitreenx Edoxid

F rinory Uofaelal e

S.fanfrd aed/o DesEtodedd Atairnt

Star. of Cu.a

§ 8135F Wisconsin.Pignoenin - 2S?

Doe set 5o.2 - Not Ot Is Rtier Designated Area m eet Seat Sn:lolad Man Prnary Secondary tloal Staadeda Standard. lteadaide

AQCR 08 Grant Coty X

AqWt 7P

Ronck Cooty

elo.t

Sub-oLty area dained X as folloro: Sooth: wood- ord Ae. fran 3rd St.

and Potlntd east to Pank A.n :. West: Co-er of 3rd St., Portla d a-d

Woodward South on 3rd It. toSeod St. $oothat an Send St. to Grand

Avenoe. Then southnat an Grand to State St. and South oan State to tha SSltno.-Wtencion Sorde. South. 1oinols-viacoasi S3der East: Paek Atenue

fra lifio.oi-lfisensin Border.

Sa -ety area defined

as folTovsl Northa Fro

Iianhhnr aod i-ensin Ave. best to the Lntereection ao Chicao North- "Sten Railroad tracks

and Ltnagan Creek Pest: Tee Chicago North-

"eatarnlnt.rae.tioa

tracks an Laniga Geek

South en- traka to the

S1el-a-WIcosai. border

South: XS1Ldoin-ULdconsia

Border E taE D a.orn

Aee. Ire- the 111-UJ

beoder north to Grand Ava

tontlnuinj northest an

Grand Aue. to Wisconsin A-a. and north n Witoon- i. to Washbaun Street.

AG CR Reainder 128 of leock County I

Uarron County X Suffall Conty X

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194--THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46016
,RULES AND REGULATIONS

UL- ino~o - =2? (onoorod)

To Nor D-o Not :- os to othr

tootCootd 1:.. K-o ot .. fleffd Fts

P Inaroy SotoodMo f to Stofdo Su.m'aodg Sto0od

CL--k C-tny x troford fon:7

Sotk-o C toy

Sul-ttty area dodlod

afo.12=- ttorh~toooo

of LaCootte St. and Sev

St. to loth Steet. ;:-t: Co.of of Setoo

St. d Y.02. St. to

lattrq St. South Con.

loth St. and rfaiS St."

Rest to Seond stroot, r..-: Co---ot of loth St. S.. to 1.0. Streot

Stofdot of L.ro-t Coo.~

-- 'tt Cosoty I Pepin Cony

PolK county x

St. ttofotoooty x Tr7autltan Cootey I lvortom tonoty x

A550 129 1.11001 Conty x Bf flid Coon,

D-Looit Cototy I

St- - Winseffod x

!fL--- S-O700Safy and

St. Lno Say ohorIL..

S too netoto .4th

Dlkook.p S. to lot.tetion wiebth St. Eaot.

South: East frtoo iteer.

Ztlto of Zollo~p St.

tod Mm.enuot- I.oo~

to odot to Oaks A-. 00th

Wsonsinlo - T5? (oond)

D0.0 tot Does Not tf So bet.r

toottootod An. tot V.t satfoL_ "hs

5tnay 100.01.0

standards Standard.0 Se-odarde

Sts". ed o 9th stoaet

eaot o 2.9th Store Son Oak. A-o to HIM1 A-e. Soorth on tHin A-: to

St. foot. Northeast

E. St. toot to -t

bor1cr in Supetior Biy'

AMlA 2

forth: Con. Mast tte-h

St. &C1 37th St.. N ooth aloof 37th St. to

Sopetlor Soy. toot C.t? oe Eighth

Street and 37th St.. tost

aloo5 toot tIght St. to

io-tt-otfo v5th Last

sot of o.tlrosd troth.. Sooth: oosrtt of

last st of toltod tracks, tooth to loo

tote: All-t Soy and

Superior tay North fom

Point ,hore Sooth hotod

of 37th k-0 and br.-

PoosLof r of bootle. Coot x

Iro Conty x

took Coo-7 STy.r Conty x

Taylor Carey z

Soohloto Cooty x

0950 237

Bt toConty

Creem Blay

SSley Wiot. x.10 .. folloto

tSoth: Con Say Eoot: Cotno t Y_0 000

St. and Ashlad A-o

north to riat10? to st..*o Croocker Street. noth tCtort St. to 0711

hi tcooth - T7? CoooIl..d

t.. Cosltani .. z . to led:S :0

fottototoZt s7. to So.: : 1.of

ft.0' oS.o~ W. .- "at: alv-S "a. r sact to IOOO An0.

3t. .01Xli. At.. north 4-4r Imi oto in -cne,

Ijy.

C4oo: coly too, ConSA

Ent its Lam C 2y

Coo.. Let* Co.. x

r0its o

C.t,-ctty oo. defined

.. CCU-%..

nI 5100t t: ut. to

St, St. 2. 0t.- St

St., I=~ ollo : qu o :b. St. C2

Lai.t, LoS.I~ 2 .gE..=' rS ooton Co.x

MICAt of Kooot.

1.0.101., of trodot,.Q

W"In x

Siesokto

Cflla. ft. ot lft

St. set to TFak.St.

fo~otocn oot. SL 9..wsNo 3. I5U.A

Trl- Swcdo01.T

P ~z. 5U. to "o st.

Coot lsttot to=% to

zatscaoo It.. tool,.,

north cz tortS,,. Street

to Callz Sret 50

C4ZU, St. to ISIsAn£0.

ot oTr rol. It.

SACkS.sooth o cat

St. to tL-.4 &=olooard. "C3 EnALO 11. to

OjiSlA"10.. 0002 0 Kitleo A". tO CallI St.

1C1th rkfth Gro

1vLoS A'. " sI Oforolo Aft. Cast to &- Sort.: sosfo~r C!Io lt. __j

-o: 11th Aw.. north t L-.- 25154. contL-n

0.902)0-ut aoctr Soot.

Wf/t to Sotooosten '.th IrnSol Atono

Soos'l conr Chi. St. =..a COUth At.. sest -S wt 1th A... to

St. S~~oh

.I=&z Io.- to LAM.

&t.fnd *f tboo co.

Zzt z

A!--. Conty

71"-* conxy .

Point Cooty

J-"o coonty x Loe&f0d ConSy x I 'Sondo Con?7

= opat.tft -

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978"

46017
RULES AND REGULATIONS

ltitascosi -5 tea.onted)

DeolVsted Area

Reosinder oS Marathon Co.

olDda County

lortagq County ilae County

eod Coaty

Sb-eliy Ate defied

as follows:

tortht Chicoag and eorn

vetest railroad task.

Sectt Western border S

s-rtien 18 north to

Chicago an Northwestern

railroad t.ska.

Soutt Southern border o

sectiso 17 and 18.

rast. Lastet border of

s--ties 17 north to

Chiosgo and Nrthnentern

ralroad tracks.

Acnaiaer of Sood County

AQC 239

tenooha County

S"b-oluy area deficed at felleos

terthl S2nd street east

te e9ch Arevor to Lake

enhlg .A oo

Trem 52nd Street to 67th

Streeta

Southt 67th ro=139th

Avenue to LA Mi higan.

artl Lake Mtchlgh .

taer of Keosta.C. Milvaukee County

Mlwaukee Sub-kity area defined

s follco$t

Vo..ht St. Paul Aveoo

to carer 16th Street

to Lakea Nchlg e__tt 16t4 Street south

fr.e St. Poal Avenoe to

pierce Street. cast ee

tot

Se.-dr7 Msard,

a.not Sot 5Oaiu. e

Matiosal

StsadJ

x

x

x

x $/~ad

X

)oesis - ISP (tot.rd)

Doees ct s tot :..ot o Uetter

ta.uttoted A'e. Dses a.otfld .1oe Men

PeIsaoy Saeo-d-ty :tlcca S Standards itacdad 5taeda=s

PiercmStreet to 6th St.. south on 6th Street to

Seeker Street

Southi tocher Street east

-6th to Lake Hichican

Est Lake Hlchigan

Sub-cltyareas Jefaed

so folost Ar eaI

torth: Center Street east

ir-m5sth 'Street to Lake

ilohig..

test: 55th Street sowth tree Sorth Avenue .. tende

to 56th Street Southt Okoosa Avenue

= it.6th oe St. to

6th St.. South o 6th St. to hoos Ave.. e.ast ont

Xorgaa Ave. to Lake plichican. -

t.t Lake Richigse

Area 2: torts: Fros Pennsylvania

Are, to 1:th St..cs tows

Ave.

e-te Teo' Hoard to Col

loSe Ave. on 13th St.

Sooth tFre 13th St. to

eensylvans Ave. os Col

l Ave.oge r-.s From Colle.ge Ave.

t--eard Are. o reonsy n 

vanis Ave,

tot.stoder of Ml..aohee Co. x

O" k.e County . x

tatM. Coacy

Sk-city aet" defined as ' 011"'S 1

Lerth: Douglas Avenue

tooth,fo. Marquette St. 7Z Sapids Drive., noetvest on Rapd trive to

S...sest.. - IS? (o-tcinsd)

oss ot oes 11t

D$nttcsd Are05 hoot toot

Sat idn r Stadnd.&

interoectlon with forest

St. cest-to intersection with soot horedary.

test- tooth tea o er

oRrange Avenue sod

WshInston Avenue rarth

'to reetac Ave. north

to Intersction with

eorth houedary

outh: tashionton Avenue

weaS fro Crane Avenue

to Iarquette Street

Lost: XaTqutte Street

north ft- a shtston

Aeen toolao Ave.

gonal.der.-f Uoots County

letter

hSee

fattonal

Issoandod

Oicsco - T15 (otioe)

Does Vat Se Dt teil . ottse be~ltsteA~er V~s Itso " '2&*cit. 

ptoacy !eoedry sttascal

Staedd.d td-dS sdatd

tsleorth County

2,aho Cosevs osaltd-e of Waluorth Co. M3ohnagton Counry

vaheals. Couty taukosh.

sau-oty ao.- defined

as ow~s x

r.orth. tast on taes Ave.

ee Vihlterook Ave. to

t iaara St.

est: 5V1terok Avenue

north rSecalo Street

to al:s Avenue

Sorh: S-thwast sloe

Main Street fo= latercestlon of raLlrood toac

and Main Street to thit reoek Avo.s

t: Southeast froa the

7niersectlo.o of als

Ave. to the intersectlon

of th, railroad tracks

and eelI treet.

as b-aty ave. defined

te folio-os: x torth: trt aI-& Mrcar

St. tro crer of M .-

Seet St. and Htlghlaad

Are. to eo~th St.

Wes. Sorth St. tth

ros Vnlo Z t. to intersetion .1th north bound - 7 Soothl test o Arcadia

A= eI -e intersectio

of railroad track and

,Arcadiac Ave. to tot As north en Eat Ave. to

Dehley St.. stre. os.

River to totos St. tles'.

Wa torth St. I

Avst.S Sooth en Highland Avenue to tloreland bled.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46018
RULES AND REGULATIONS

- Fs Z-t) -(..Etn 

Dc.l atd Aria DM.. Kean atitrd

?tfrrey Seim~~7to~ Stas-da S.dards Stodis t

,est o Y-eo1 Bl.,.

.kh . .. toto

Ws31o An. o i3t,

anof railroadte)

aod F.ad. s.. ralroad trios . to, -hS

Arad!ao A-*a.

ie, of vath a Ca.

5 cR 2103 Co1 i.1 Coty-9

Paific TenoaSI

Sab-toanhi? Or.

e fo orer 1 III

ti.. 22 f-t .. 16

.ast to -tl. W..tt C.H. St. Pu. 23.Billreed anutS from ot...

border of aectirt 22 to

&a.nter border at an.

-tico 22.

inthi Sntmr arer

natii 22t raDt 1 C. St. 71.? lail. ..d toI

aertion 22.

fast: Eas-eborer. .f

ii.22.

- Weod as 1 11-:

Sotine 22. 23.26 -~d

2? of T.12 N.-L-9 E.

-- Aecdi of WclAk Co. 5

fak-Dity ares def fond

.r folio..

!-- Ae. nod Pad'.. A-e

aert to tAho,.od Dlii.

'tortShent: Crair of

Lekaoo rid. nod Dal Mo? Drie antS to, "~h

Mtedcto. -tootas nb.5 ~

C.-iS.C Do- WC : r -caC ftisv.. r r.& Ko "a.a tear 

"tam oe'd. Sod ae a

itainn aborilLoa atSi

r1eo cha%" Sr.. Iii rta St. sac*

"I'MUs S, t to Las

M-rcav St. to ,"at NIT.kf4 to A-.. ali

CoatloIa. nasa~ tea &MCI

Utr. of fix. rueator.

.A~t to SiaoS.-ear Crank.

t orah i#ras torTau

eta- Aft.. 9b.0 mfth

ao 9yoSt. C.

M)IIg,-.1..st. teiiieor

it t0 CA St. Ibo itth go AbwT A,.. C

tt orb CO1a g.

'"Wars A"... thee nrth

9. SohV. f - Ar..

aLand of~ r.. Co."y I

C-. nsy z tira C=17 x

M-.art=D C.Cary x

Z 4rlor Coonty x SAsh toaty If

I [FR Doe. 78-27931 Filed 10-4-8; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

46019