# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofJustice. 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 tobring its rules relating to disclosure under the PrivacyAct 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) andrule32 oftheFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The procedure relating to disclosure ofdocuments may be changed generally in the interest of improving the Commission's system ofdisclosure or when re- quired by pending or future decisions and directions of the Department of Justice.

[FRDoc. 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 (FRL972-21
PART 81-AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

### ation. I 

### ACTION: Finalruie. E: This rule will be effective Oc- r5, 1978. 

### SUMIA : This rulemaking re- 

### sponds to comments and makes neces- )RESS: Legal and Legislative -sary amendments to the designations up, Office ofManagement and Fl- ofattainmentstatus relative tothenace, 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- onsonE.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 vestedin meby 5U.S.C. tionofthatrulemaking.

and 553, 28 CFR 16.85(c), is re- DATE: Effective date-October 5, 1asset forthbelow. 1978. 1 .ted: September 22, 1978. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION KEv= D.RooNEy, CONTACT. AssistantAttorney 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. )oseofthe PrivacyAct of 1974 the 95-95, added section 107(d) to the Parole Commission will initiate a CleanAirAct(theAct)which directed edure whereby present and each State to submit to the Adminisoer prisoners and parolees may tratora listofthe NAAQS,attainment in copies ofmaterial infiles relat- status of all areas within the State. to them that are maintained by The Administrator wasrequired under U.S. Parole Commission. Disclo- section 107(d)(2) to promulgate the 'ofthe contentswillbeaffectedby State lists,with any necessary modifiiding copies of documents to re- cations. For each standard, areas are ters through themails.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 ofthe 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 theAgency byMay2, 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 nonew 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 forwhich Stateplanningmustbecom- 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 commentsare discussedbelowby State. ILINOIS One commenter stated that no opportunity wasprovided 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 opportunityforpublicparticipation inthe designation process, IEPA held two public meetings inNovember 1977 in order to discuss the criteriatobeutilizedIn-the designation process. Written com- ments were accepted by IEPA until theendofthatmonth. 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 usedto support thenonattainment designations for Bremen, Orland, and Palos Townships in AQCR 67 (Cook County). The nonattainment designations for these townships are supportedby monitored violations. The State of Illinois chose to designate an area surrounding monitored violations which included the surrounding townships. EPAreview of themonitoring data and site locations reaffirms that the TSP primary and secondary nonattainment status of 

### Bremen and OrlandTownships 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.

'Onecommenter questioned themon- itoring dataused tosupport the nonattainment designations for Hyde Park, Hennepin, and Mount Vernon Townships. Upon review of the monitoring data from these townships, EPAxedffirms 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 TSPionattainment, 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-thenonattainment designations within the city ofChicago.

,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 'thenonattainment designations. SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) One commenter indicated that a copy of apreliminary air qualitymodeling 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,ifjustified.

One commenter questioned the un- classifiable designation for Capital Township, Sangamon County, in view of the fact-that sulfur dioxide has beenmonitored forfour years without, a violation of theNAAQS. Theunclassifiable designation for Capital Township is. justified in that dispersion 'modeling shows the potential for violations ofthe 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 ofa 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 -thetownship, 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 .designatednonattainment area supportthe 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 ofthe'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 didnotprovide sufficient technical data to support a redesignaton, There were two monitoring sites located within theChicago central business district which recorded violations of the NAAQS In 1977. Therefore, EPA confirms the current designation boundaries.

P=HOTOCHE7ICALOXIDANTS (OZONE) One commenter luestloned thelocation ofa monitoring site and air quality data used to support a nrnattainment designation for Capital Town. ship.Review ofthe 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 ofthe other comments on designations and since there is no prejudiceto sources inareas 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 

### 45994Creek, 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 ofIndi- 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 .boundaryof the TSPnon- attainment area in Vigo County accordingly.

Two commenters, as- well as the State of Indiana, recommended that the primary TSPnonattainment designation in St. Joseph County be re- duced to secondary nonattainment and that the geographic boundary of the nonattainment area bechanged to the industrialized portion of the county, including all areas of monitored violations. After reviewing the available technical data, USEPA con- curs with theserecommendations. The designation forSt. Joseph County has been revised to secondary nonattainment for particulate matter for those areas of St. Joseph County east of PineRoad andnorth ofKernRoad.

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 theparticulate 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 Centerand 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. TheState ofIndiana 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 thatwhile fugitive dustwas present, a significant portion of the particulate 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS
matter wasmanmade inorigin.Therefore, achange inthedesignation Isnot 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 theboundaries ofthenonattainmentarea 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 forFloyd Countywillremain unclassifiable.

The State of Indiana recommiended thatthe 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);DearbornCounty(to Lawrenceburg, Center, Manchester, and Hogan Townships only); Lake County(to the area boundedby aline running east along U.S. 30 between the Illinois State line and 1-65, north on 1-65tothe intersection of1-94, east along 1-94 toLake-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 forDubois 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 LaPorte County-(as area within a 10- mile radius of the city of La Porte sampling site) be changed to primary nonattainment inCenter, Scipco, Kan. kakee, New Durham, and Pleasant Townships, and the area north and west ofInterstate 94. USEPA concurs in these recommendations andhas revisedthe designationsaccordingly. SULFUR DioxnaZ (SO,) Ten commenters requested revisions to the size of thesulfur 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 followingreasons: Relatively few monitors within the area registered viola

### 45995 tions o[ the SOx national ambient air quality'standards (NAAQS) and most ofthe heavy industry in the areawas not responsible for the violations which were monitored. Commenters generally believedthat sources unfairly placed within the nonattainment area would suffer potentially serious adverse impacts due to restrictions on economic growth andunnecessarilyretrictive emissionlimitations.

The northern portion of Lake County, Ind., is heavily industrialized with asignificantnumber oflargeSO, 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 neednotbeadverse toemission sources notcausing orcontributing to violations ofthe standard asexplained inmore detail Inthe nationalEPA rulemaking.

The State of Indiana comment recommended-redescriptlon ofthe southernboundary ofthe LakeCountynonattainment area (currently US. 30between the Illinois State line and the Porter County line) to U.S. 30 east from the Illinois State line to theintersection ofU.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 forSO. is revised asnotedabove.

-



### 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 onthewest, by 1-80-90 on the south, andby theLaPorte-Porter Countylineonthe east)beredesignat- ed asunclassiflable. On June 12, 1978, the State of Indiana petitioned EPA under 107(d)(5) ofthe Clean Air Act, to revise the Porter County designa- tionfromattainment inparttoattainment for the entire county. In all casescommenters notedthattheoriginaldesignationwasbased oncomputer dispersion modeling utilizing the urban version of the RAM model, rather thanonmonitoredviolations of theSO, airquality standards.All conmenters indicated that the rural version oftheRAM model wouldbemore appropriate for use in Porter County.

Upon evaluation, EPA concurred in that assessment andthe Indiana Division of Air Pollution Control remodeled Porter County utilizingthe 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 predictedviolations ofthe-primaryorsec- ondary NAAQS for SO,, EPA noted certain technical deficiencies -in' the modeling.Themodeling-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 ofPorter County demonstrates attainment of the SO NAAQS, however, that portion of Porter County designated asnonattainment in the March 3 promulgation will be redesignated as unclassifiable. The remainder of Porter County willremain attainment.

One commenter recommended that the portion of LaPorte 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 1-94beredesignated as unclassifiable. OnJune 12,1978, the State of Indiana formally petitioned under 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air-Act fora redesignation ofLaPorte County from nonattainment in, partto attainment for the entire county. There have been measured violations of the SO. NAAQS in the nonattainment portion ofLa Porte County and additionally, the rural RAM analysis of northern Porter County conducted by the Indiana-DAPC predicted nonattainment. For the above reasons revision ofthe designation isnot supported atthe resent time.

one commenter recommended Teclassifying'Vayne County from primary nonattainment ofthe SO standard to .unclassifiablestating 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 theJune 12, 1978, 107(d)(5) petition. Since electrostatic 'precipitators are control devices used primarily for particulate- control, their breakdown wouldbe expected tohave a negligible effect on SOS. Moreover, ofthe three monitored excursions ofthe 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 ofthe 24-hourprimary SO 2 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 ofthe 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 SO 2 standard. One commenter.recommended redesignation ofVigo County from primary SO2 nonattainment to attainment. The commenter submitted a dispersion modelingreport as evidence ofattainment. The State of Indiana submitted the same report with a recom- miendation that Vigo County be changed-from -primarynonattainment toI-uncassifiable. This recommendationwasformalized inthe 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 ruralRAM. The Agency re- viewed themodeling report and deter- -minedthatit does notmeet the Agency's modeling standards. Cdmputer dispersion studies using acceptable modeling procedures have predicted primary SO_, standard violations. -Therefore,revision ofthe designation isnot supported atthis time.

One commenter recomhended that -thedesignation of Gibson County be revised from unclassifiable for SO., to attainment. The State ofIndiana 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 ofSO 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 ofunan- 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 tononattainment for the secondarystandard.

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'notberevised.

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 airquality standard for oxidants will be revised. Air quality values in excess of the photochemical oxidant standard have been monitored in Vanderburgh County forthe 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 forphotochemical 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 wouldnotbe consistent withthe phys. ical nature 'ofoxidant formation and transport. Additionally, a large portion ofthe South Bendurbanized area is Elkhart County. The omission of Elkhart County from the list of coun- tiesnot attaining theoxidant 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 nonattainmentforphotochemical 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 basedon the fact thatportions of Porter County are part of the Chicago-northwest Indiana urbanized area. To declaresolely theurbanized area as nonattainment would be inconsistent with thephysical nature of ozone formation and transport. Therefore, non- attainment designation of Porter Countywillremain ineffect.

One commenter stated that Marion County'should be designated uncIassifiable for oxidants until a number of questions concerning contrilstrategies have been answered. The designation ofMarion 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 forphotochemical 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 shouldbe 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 arebeingmade today. TOTALSUSPENDED PARTICULATES (TSP)
ERANCH COUNTY Originally, this area had been erro- neously designated "nonattainment" forsecondary particulate standards instead of "unclassifiable". MDNR submitted monitoring: data which indicates that the particulate staidards have been attained in the area. EPA hasreviewed thisnew data andhas deterniined that redesignation to "atRULES AND REGULATIONS taiunent" for particulite standards is appropriate forBranch 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 areaproposed by theState.
IDLAND COUNTY A subcounty designation by MDNR isbeing accepted by EPAforthe same reasonsetforthintheIngham County comment.

L W. Pribila, on behalf of Dow Chemical U.S.A., objected to designation ofany part ofMidland Countyas nonattainment for sulfur dioxide standards primarily because current air monitoring data Indicates all SO standards are being achieved. Such achievement Is attributed to utilizationof a supplemental orIntermittent control system (SCS) by Dow Chemical, the principal source ofSO. 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 boththe 24-hour and 3-hour standards were recorded at the Dow Coming lot site onSaginaw Road and,In 8months ofmonitoring, twoviolations ofthe24- hour standard In addition to an excur- Sion of the 3-hour standard were re- corded at the Dow Biochem building site onAustinStreet.

In 1976, the Michigan air quality report showed an excursion of the 24- hour standard at both the Dow Corning andAbbottRoad 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- ringintheMidland area.

OnMay 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. emissionlimitations Inthe applicableMichigan 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 occurbecause ofmeteorological conditions.Dow's choice of permanent controls was a reliance on a nuclear powerplant to be constructed by the Consumers Power Co. ByJuly 1, 197l5, theICS atDow wasoperational (statement ofMr. L.Pribila at.EPA sec 113 Enforcement Conference, Feb. 4. 1977, p. 13 transcript) and, as indicated above, fairly successful in preventing violations ofthestandards.

The Clean Air Act requires use of continous emission reduction technology to attain and maintain national standards.' A dispersion technique may notbe usedtoreduce the amount ofconstant emission controls required to attain and maintain standards, unless the dispersion technique was implemented prior to, December 31, 1970.2 Accordingly, in view ofthe air quality violationsIn 1974 and 1975 and the admission by the principal source 

### ofSO inthe area (DowChemicalCo.) that an intermittent control system was being utilized to prevent current violations of air quality standards, EPA concluded that the county of Midlandwasrequiredtobe 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 islocated.
11M.GOTA

TOTALsusPmmN PAZICULALXZ (TSP) MesabiIronRange-Itasca andSt. Louis Counties Several commenters objected to designation of the 100-mile strip constituting the Mesabi Iron Range (portions ofItasca and St.Louis Counties) as a notattainment area for secondary particulate standards because the monitored airquality datarelied onin making the designation represented conditions in a very limited portion of thisvast area.

In designating certaintownships and ranges nonattainment, MinnesotaPollution 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) and7I02(k).

2Sec. 123(a). 42U.S. 7423(a)SeediscusslonIn thepaonal rulemair gpackage of Sept. 11, 1978,43 E. 40M414

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

### 45998

terms ofprotecting thewelfare 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 areview ofthemonitored 24-hourparticulate standard violations, EPA con- curred in thisdetermination.

Two companies, Erie Mining Co. and HannaMining 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 theserecommendations andconcurs 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- menterfailed 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 alteringthe designation.

U.S. Steel also..complained about the location of the monitors closest to their facility. The sites inVirginia 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, thelocation ofthis 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 whichmay 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 wasexpressed. 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 inthe State of Ohio,-most regarding more than one geographic location and pollutant. 'SULFURDIOXIDEDESIGNATIONS 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 SIPprovides for emission re- ductions that areprojected 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 isthat 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 thefirst statutory criterion and musttherefore bedesignated asnonattainment. 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 nonattainmerntdesignation to dirty areas where future attainment is projected willfurther the purposes of the Act. Even If emission reductions under the current SIPwould be sufficient, iffully implemented, to provide for attainment, a nonattainment designation is essen- tial, to satisfy therequirements 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 thepublic 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 asthe 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 toolfor 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 -accompanyH.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) oftheAct, inreport to accompany S. 252, S. Rep. No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 

### 1st Sess. 146. 169 (May 10, 1977).

FEDERAL REGISTEiR7VOL 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 politicaland 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 commentedasfollows:

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

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

3. Clermont and Hamilton Counties should be. designated attainment for the SO. primarystandard. CLEUONT CoUNTYTSP, Based upon-monitoring data, EPA mustreaffirm itsnonattainment designation forPierce Township, Clermont County, for the TSP secondary standard. Also, based upon the location of the monitor showing violations of the -zecondary24-hour TSP standard, EPA must additionally designate Batavia Township -asnonattainment for the TSP secondary standard. A monitor site (SAROAD site 007)-locatedat 297 Main Street, Hamilton, Ohio, registered four exceedances of the secondary TSP standard in 1977. This monitorislocated near theborder ofBataviaandPierceTownships. 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 secondaryTSP standard atsites C andD and Dugan Gap. CLERMONT AN HAMILTON So% EPA must reaffirm the nonattainment designationsfor" the SO, primary standard for Clermont and Hamilton Counties, based on EPA's modeling. However, the boundaries ofthe nonattainment areas have been revised. Reviewing CGE's own monitoring data for site B, Clermont County, shows one excursion ofthe short-term standard and violations of the primary SO. standard atboth 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 monitoringandmodeling doneby OhioEPA.

2.Subcounty designations shouldbemade forSO,.

3. The data base Ini EPA's SO, modeling analysis was In error. USS Is remodeling Lorain County and sofarIt indicatesattainment.

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. EPAmustreaffirm thenonattainment designation for SO,In Lorain County buthas reduced thesize of thenonattainment area. The nonattainment area as listed n the Ohio SO, attainment status table below now Includes Lorain County north ofRoute 80 and thecity ofElyria.

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. OnceUSS submits Its modeling results to EPA, a further analysis of the areW's designation can be undertaken, and the designation changed ifsupported atthat time.

One commenter, Dayton Power and Light (DPL), made the following obJections to thenonattainment designations promulgated in the March 3. 1978FEDEnALREGIs;:

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 theRAM mode' in the State ofOhio.

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 ofTSPdesignations In Ohio.

Thenonattainment SOz designations for Montgomery County Is supported by themodeling analysisperformed by EPA in the development of the federally promulgated SO,, regulations for Ohio. EPA didnotsingle out the State of Ohio for the use of special models such asthe RAM modelbutused modeling results whenever theywere 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 madeby EPA because the State failed to submit its own rec- ommendation is an error. The nota

### 45999 tion should havebeen one asterisk denoting an EPA change of the State recommendation. Thisis corrected In this publication. The omission of 34 counties from the TSP attainment status listwas an error and iscorrectedInthispublication. 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 shouldnot have been designated nonattainment for the primary TSP standard because data Indicates the excursions were caused by rural fugitive dust and the datafrom onsite monitors shouldnot havebeenconsidered. GMbelieves the proper designation is nonattainment ofthe secondaryTSP 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 itsplant,DelcoProducts Division, isattainment.

3. Richland Countyshouldnothave been designated nonattainment for primary TSP standar. GM believes 

### subcounty designations should be made and that theproper designation forthe areasurroundingit plant,the Fisher Body-Mansffeld plant, is attainment.

4. Erie County shouldbedesignated attainment for the primary TSP standard. DEFIANcE Cou-,r

Based upon monitoring data, EPA must reaffirm its designation ofDefiance County as primary TSP-nonattainment area. However, based upon further data submitted by Ohio EPA, thenonattainmentareafor theprimaryTSPstandardhasbeen redefined as Richland Township not within the city ofDefiance and the city of Defiance has been redesignated asnonattainment for the secondary TSP standard only. There isno support to show that violations Indicated by on- 'site monitors are dueto nonindustrial

fugitive dust. Furthermore, onsite monitoring data Is utilized by EPA if the data Is quality assured,such as in thiscase. MONTGOmmEy COUNTY Basedupon monitoringdata andfurther information submitted by the Dayton Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, EPA has redefined the boundaries of the nonattainment areas fortheTSPprimaryand secondary standard. The General Motors, Delco Products Division in Kettering isnowin anattainmentarea.

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, thedata submitted is not quality assured and therefore cannot be used in making thedesignation. Moreover, four offive 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 makesubcounty 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 TSPsecondary 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 shouldbe attainment.

2. The secondary TSP nonattainment designation for the unincorporated areas ofWeathersfield 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 Countynorth 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 thenonattainment 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 fullyear. Additionally, key sampling days are missing for the Abattoir and Snyder Park sites which 'would -have been likely to predict maximums. Therefore, EPAmust reaffirm the nonattainment designation forthe 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 -withthisdesignatiom. COLUMBIARA CouNTY TSP Based upon monitoring data, EPA must reaffirm the nonattainment designatioii fortheprimary 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 SO 2 Based upon the modeling analysis performed by EPA inthe 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 setsnew emission limitations on sources. Further, EPA must reaffirm the SO. nonattainment designations for Cuyahoga and Stark Counties based uponEPA'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 ofAthens, Coshocton, and Pickaway Counties as nonattainment for theprimary SO standard,

CSOE recommends that all these counties be designated as attainment based uponthefollowing:

1. Modeling performed by CSOE indicates that the secondary TSP standard is not violated in Coshocton County and monitoring data confirms thisfinding.

2. Monitoring data collected by CSOE indicates that the primary SOa standard hasbeen attained in Athens, Coshocton, and Pickaway Counties; the secondary SO 2 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 thefuture.

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,-1978dances 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 ofany 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

Twocommenters, 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 thepotential 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 havebeen used to designate the area; (2) that the RAM modeling isnotreliable; (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 RAMmodeling, the use of RAM modeling should await the outcome-ofthestudies.

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 willbeproposed asrulemaking shortly supported by the remodeling which still shows that the area"isnot 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 ElectricIllumindting 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 inthe Goodrich case,filed a comment on September 1,1978. Because it was filed so late, this comment 

### hasnotbeen fully analyzed; however, itbasicallymakes procedural and SO, modeling points treatedelsewhere inthispackage. RULES AND REGULATIONS ly Impacts sources, It Is reasonable to use It in designating nonattainment areas ofthe State, anaction 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 ofreliable modeling results, the modeling analysis takes precedence over "the much less comprehensive monitoring data available.Fourth, as to themaxi- mum operating assumption employed inRAM 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 Itin designating nonattalnment areas' triggering the State's study ofthose areas.

Finally, because the designation is supported by the RAM modeling and because there is no Immediate prejudice tosources stemming from the designation, It is not reasonable to delay designating Summit County as anon- attainment areauntil thecommenters' 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 attainmentbased 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 Countymust also include thecity ofSpringfield.

Two commenters pointed out that the EPA designation ofDarke County as a TSPprimary standard nonattainment afea was a clerical error and should be secondary standard nonattainment on the same subcounty basis. Upon additional review of the moni

### 46001 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 alsomade.

One commenter indicated Erie County should be nonattainment for the secondary TSP standards rather than theprimary standard. This issue is addressed above inthe 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 Countynonattainment area.

One commenter objected to the Hamilton County nonattainment designation forTSPprimary 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 TSPnonattainment desig- 'nation for Hamilton County as it appeared in the March 3, 1978, Fsnzaa 

### Rxisn

One commenter ' indicated certain areas inLucas Countywere designated incorrectly for TSPbased on air quality data. Specifically, the commenter argues:

1.Ottawa Hills should be designated as attainment fortheprimary andsec- ondaryTSP standards.

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

Upon further review of monitoring data, EPA has redesignated Ottawa Hills and the city of Oregon asattainment for the primary and secondary airqualitystandards.

One commenter objected tothe designation ofMadison County as nonattainment for the secondary standards forTSP. Based upon further Information submitted by the Ohio EPA, EPA willredesignate Madison County asattainment.

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 thatMedina Countyis nonattainment with respect to secondary TSP standard. Therefore, EPA will redesignate Medina Countynonattainment forthe secondary TSPstandard.

One commenter objected to the city ofPiqua inMiami Couritybeing designated asnonattainment for theprimary TSP standard rather than the secFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978

### 46002 Ondary standard. Upon furtherTreview, EPAreaffirms thatthe-cityof'Piquais 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 ofthe TSPnonattainment areas.

One commenter submittedrlarificatlionofthemonattainment area boundaries for the TSP secondary -standard in Preble -County.EPA has corrected the designationinthispublication.

Onecommenter objected to theRoss County n6nattainment.designation for the primary T.sfP standards. Based upon monitoring data, :EPA .reaffirms thenonattalnment designation-for the primaryTSPstandard. 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, undTrumbull Counties. The support 'for the SO.. designations is discussed above. The seven-counties mnentioned remain monattainment based on-EPA'smodeling analysis und -any available monitoring data. As

-a xesult of the public comments, EPA has redefined the SO, nonattainment areas ona subcountyba~is. ' 

### COMMENTS ON CARBONIMONOXIDE (CO)

Onecommenter indicatedthat 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 -andJanuary 1977in Toledo at the 2927Monroe Streetmonitoring site. 

### WIscoNSIN

MADISON John E. Knight of,Boardman,-Suhr, Curry, -andField, on behalf of -Oscar Mayeri& C6, Inc.objected'to designation ofa subcity area-of Madison,Wis. as nonattainment for -Primary sulfur dioxide standards because: £1) The ,EPA-didnot follow the Wisconsin Department "of Natural Resources' (DNR) determination that the area was unclassifiabie: (2) -airquality data relied on by7EPA 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 andopportunity 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 ,objectionspresented provide ,anadequate basis-foraltering the subject--'designation because ,(1) 'EPA Inay change State designations; (2) EPAhas determined the air quality data usedis adequate forclassification ofthe "area -asnonattainment; (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 hassuffered any harm by the designation. For more complete discussion of this response seebackground document for Wisconsin Part 107 designations avail- -ablein theregionV office.

-Other issues raised by -commenters -i -response to the Madison designation included a concern thatadditional control needs,if any~be determined In an expeditious fashion. Any necessary newregulations are required tobesub- -mitted by January 1, 1979. Another commenter alleged thatthe SO, monitoring instruments were old and worn out sothat they-produced'invaliddata. The instruments used~meet the mini- -mim -Tequirementsof 40 CFR 51.17a, and the -Statefound 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 ,adequateto provide abassfor overriding-the-State'sdesignation ofunclassiTiable and 'designating the subcity -of Madison as nonattainment for SO. under 107(d) of the CleanAirAct (42 U.S.C. 74074d)). Accordingly, thedesignation made on March 3, 1978, is re- tained. GREEN BAY

A general'comment related to use-of more thanone year ofairquality,data inmakingthe designations.Because of 'meteorological variations from year to -year, EPA -guidance to the states rec- ,ommended analysis oftwoyears' data to determine attainment of standards.

Comments received in response to thenonattainment for particulate des- -ignationincluded suggestions that the -monitoring network -was unreliable, that construction or-adrought condition-contributed -to high TSP concen- trations -andthat the designated area s'oulc be expanded to include amajor particulate source. An -EPAevaluation 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 -oflocation-orduration. IOne commenter objected to the un. classifiable designation of the areafok SO standards inasmuch as violations of the SO. standards were recorded. Subsequent tothe-recordedviolations, a major-source of SO, emissions sub. stantially -reduced same. The unclassi. fiable designatlon simply permits the State to 'continueIts monitoring foran additional period of time to determine whether the emission reductions permitted attainment ofthestandards,

Objection to the nonattainment designation of the area for oxidants was made because the causes ofviolations -are unknown. -Thecauses will be addressedin therevled control strategy,

The EPA has determined that the original designations based on State recommendations were properly made and, therefore, thenonattainment designations or particulate and oxidants and theunclassIfIcable designation for SO. made on March 3, 1978, are re, tained. IEENAH

Objection todesignation ofa subclty portion for nonattainment of secondaryparticulate standards is based on contentions that the violations were caused by fugitive dust rather than 'point sources.Also, thelocation ofthe 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- " aryparticulate standardsbased on the State recommendation was -properly made and that the designation made 'March 3, 1978, should be retained. 3BIRON Consolidated Papers, inc., objected to theunclassflable designation ofthis areaforprimaryandsecondary.standards ofSO2. After the violations were recorded inllarch of 1976, Consolldat- -edPaper 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 ofthe Clean Air Actprecludes ZPA from designating -anarea -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 thisdetermination ismade, however, EPA must

FEDERA. 'REGISTER, VOL 43, 

### NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5,-1978'

### RULES AND REGULATIONS retain the unclassifiable designation made onMarch 3, 1978. 

### XMAIIIWOC The subeity area should have been designated nonattainment for secondaryparticulate 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 wererecorded violations ofthe secondary standard. EPA is revising the des-

- ignation to nonattainment for secondary particulate standards for an area defined by the Wisconsin Bureau of AirManagement.

The same commenter thought a recorded Violation ofthe primary standard at5132 West Lincoln should cause a nonattainment designation for primary standards. TheStatehas advised that a major emitting source has ceased operations inthe areasince the violation was recorded. However, the area remains nonattainment for sec- ondary standards which will insure that an appropriate analysis of the area'sproblems willbemade.

The commenter also complained about the siting of the boundary between primary and secondary particulatenonattainment areas in the MenomineeRiverValley. 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 troublespots.

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 ofthemonitor'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 iscorrect. Accordingly, EPA is retaining the attainment designation until further data has beencollected.

Acommenter objected to the unclassifiable designation for particulate standards because of monitored violations ofthe econdary standard inthis area. Because the monitorwas improperly sited andbecause construction ac- tivities mayhave contributed toa 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 untilfurther dataisavailable. Nom--The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this document is nota significant regulation anddoes mot require preparation ofaregulatory analysis underExecutive Order 12044. (Secs. 107(d), 171(2), 301(a) ofthe CleanAir Act, as amended (42U.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 ofFederal Regulations isamended by revising specific pollutant categories in specific sections ofsubpart C asfollows.

Subpart C$-Sedion 107AttainmentStatus 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 

### 46003A A
AK x

x .4 -RULES AND REGULATIONS

Subpart .- 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 Conty

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. ClairCoty"

CenteenT.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, VOL43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978 

### 46005

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

An ote '.rs. x

Cherr V~h le U. 21

AU74

. 

## ~2

Jeff- county

D~e 7Up. ]It. V. am I
AU other z~

C2&yCoty 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-0RULES AND REGULATIONS

Di oels

-

D.i *t Am Matt0 M eet0010 80 ltO 

# P.tto. 1.. 1.0. 16. o+. oo Pxzi.oy 5-,0a.4. t.0inAt 4 Standards 0tidnds t " Ards

AQCIII5

PeoriaCounty-

.. 1110 Tvp.
Peort, *"X Kickapoo 'T". x P.1.* dT. 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 ..ockCounty x Penderoon County 9 KnoxCounty I Mconough County ,x llobn 10ny 07 x
Warr..Gototty
- lloodford County 00.000 x
AQCR66

6-.~palg ounty Clark County x Coles County Cunha rlsd Countyx Dewittcounty X" Douglas County x

.10r Count7 • Ford County oI Cuoqnoot ty LilingconCounmty x Met-n Couty x

.1tr.1 County x PieceCounty ShelbyCou.ty , + Vermillion County x+

1ln..
- $0Z (Contiued)

Does Not oes Not 00no0 * 0 0tte0 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.rthT- x All other Cook Co0ty

Vill couty

cb.noshon Top. J.1te Top. x Lockpo t Top. x TropTp. T x All other Will County Ow.. x Du0.g. County Gr-dy Conty

X.. Coknty oI Kaake# County x Kendall County x LakeCo*unty x HCaroy Couty x
QCIOPI

J0 0ar

.C ounty
AQ11P 69
Ce 11 Cooty x Ponr Isy nd C ounty x H.t.ide County x

AQ. 70

dio. County Wood)Liver Tp. Alton Top. x Illinois
- (S Cmfnu )

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 'dh

n d StAndJ.ds
All oth. .adison

704d County

- I 'Clinto- County m~on' Cu.nty x 11 .ph county x It ClairCounty x Washington county ]L AQR71

BSt.1. County

Solb7 Top.
- . Al other Bureau tvps. 1
L.S.11* County I IA.Couty mrshll ounty x Putne. County X S rko o Coo y '

AQR72

M S... Cout y

Cr-.tPet X x Metropolis Pet x x 9ISO'rmoooPot 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 -0S'(Cootia.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL43, 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 A 140

lr4iana Ecoetles
Clark Sm,,ty
Th areaI l cef in x C£wlt:T., Jefferson-

lle.SIher Creek S Utica Tlsips
lhe reoain r of Clarb

Deaeborn CO~ty Theare& 1include in Center. bowM. Losrerce- trz; I t.neester Townslps TIe rectinder of Dearborn

Cooety -.tis Ct..ty Thearea Irxlded In Ea1into. rorien& Patoka To-ships Tt toner of Cw-CiS' County Floydcw,.ty

01 4 County

Tbeaea IncSCIC tithil, Center LlE-nod Tcsics Mhe oeoitrr of Ikvard

take nty

4roth byLake Michigant. en the weest bytheIrTdsca- Illoils State line. -: the south by U.S.30foo 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.

litseeoit~.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 ofIfar PS-. Aestof Floe 11. Ite mraenr~of St. 1=91.!S CCeety

llfltc4t~ CTMty

loiso C. Sbt :-C ft tt

Flow) 41 To,-Sift

Up Cctt.ACc.T

t'412= eF-

Ceotilee £
Yly4ts.,50 t. fttk. CL'ttClas 6 ty 4
Ut ii 

## ~4 sitoler a
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% 1au cs~r -c.o

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43,NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978RULES 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 GibsonCounty Jefferson County LakeCounty

An Area bounded on the x north by Lake Michigan. on the eIt by the Indfana-Illio ls State lInc,on the southby I.S.3 from the State line to theintersection of 1-65 then fololowng 1-65 to the Intersection of 1-94 then followlng 1-94 to theLake-Porter Countyline. &on the east by theLake-Porter County line.
The remner of Lake' County x LaPort CountyAn area boundn 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 boundon the north x by LakeMlihigan, on the eest by the Lake-Porter County line. on the south by 1-806 90 A on theeast by the LaPorte-Porter County line

ZPAdestooaton reptece.S.tate de.tonoolon

Indiana - S02 (continued)

Do. Lot 00e. Not -neo0e Oetet DesignatedArea 2'..9 0elt . Uassificd on= Peheuny Secon.ar ttoml Steadards Sodrds ;Stamlad

Thero-aigerof PorterCO, x VigoCounty x Warrit County x. Wayn County

Thearea included within x BOston. Center. Franklin. Wayne &Webster Tonshps The rerinder of Wayne County • All portions ofall 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 BetterThan e1tonat Standards

AllenCounty -x Clark County- x0 Elkhart County FloydCounty x Lae County Marion County Porter County x" St.JosephCounty

- Vanerborgh County x All portion$ of all other A Indiana counties

x EPAdesignations replace S ote designations

§81.323 Michigan. TSP

D- We. a 0es 000 mno On tatter Desn~e. Naar :1
... rot ltid thai POlTo7 Secondary Iationl. Staod Standards Oondards

AOcA 8 2 Oilaob 0 Portion) x Except suber.a. defteed by rangeand toonship
1. Berie. Coaty

01800.uAs, Se"ttons 7. 8. 17-20 29, 30 X11"..TAS $neons 12-14 & 21-27 AQCR122

E ..pt sbar.s doflt.d. 1. sayCounty ME.T14N. Sections 16-16 A21-23 2. Cene... Couny

nte.. CIeD. of Ste'ant An. and 9. Sat-. St. thenE. electSrevart A,. to ort RIahwayto Frankt An. to Ou

nltuo An. 'to 0 -Sasio.ta St. to Snvra A,. b. Startingat Inter sectoin of Cepenter m4. andDu.ont St. thenE. o- Corpnlt~e Ed. 0o Center R4. then S. to 01-21;hen W. to1-475to Brsno Rd. he. W. to 1-75 them N. to CorumnoRd 01-56) thenE, to llant cLty 10.00'. Re than B. to Pooadena Au, -bt C. -nDlo So. to Carpenter Rd.

-EPAdostoosoloo epi...e Stae. deoICatfon

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

### 46008RULES AND REGULATIONS

liiobIooo

- (rootbotod)

Doee );ot ttos Not , oot 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 s 7146, 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 A28-3 b. n14 12=.

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

eet - 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. le .er.to y

o.-e

1.10e: 7 or 0. ¢ Sotsoest.1

. 16
. 22. 27 4 21 b. Alt 1oI.1.do Coolidge Pd. 20 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 RiddleBe1t 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* fre x e'.toot. - olot 01: 1:00 zt .00

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 siloofez Id. to 7-1mi U. to Czoseau Ax. to J-7 3.4. to Soolho 1500000 to ltd 1u. to 1o.1. 4U. 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.odwto

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 Ara "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= 3t 11
a2-12 01t1? 121N. S~te~ 7. Is £ It 12.'

a, 17

IS tir A. Rwotott Co'oo:7 =W2. TU.ES.94otl=o 1S2

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

### 46009RULES AND REGULATIONS

n..o"d6.oo - S02

Do.. Ioo o Nt t otnno tetter -enignte&Arm.

- et to. Clasified Po" sFr.o o S.ood.y 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 (Mchiganportlon AQ?0125,

etofindSandrd

1. T shib.. o0007.611. .l ,o ZWs. xr~o 2416.Seetioto 7-11? 16- e23, ..d 6-r AQI 126 xz

-tFlA &.1gatitone pl.- Sito 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 Nl1StNR.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 W1eltd. 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 ".oo city bo t ry to Neotl,

..Ster,elty b .. dtry bn to yf -eserluit southern cit=y bmadar folitodogs ?ot lyvt0
Rd. t0Detroit 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.

%)..ANot. Noce Not. -at N. tt DI19o tedAe& 110., toat loSttilied rho 2,1-1 ecy ondoary noot St d. Stond..ds Stodcd,

Ab.C62.31., 

## ~
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 IronR.99.

dottlfied by co-toy end ttsip &.4 St.a1-1 count;

T560.N1611 757N. R.17-191.1 T57S. 0Z0Section 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, OCTOBER5, 1978 

### 46010RULES 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 rot o. 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.oiroftohC 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; -odbooded by oh

Sot. Roote 72 sooth to It,-

.- tot. 70. 100.00.. 70 wes0tto Old MU1Fa~. 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)

LIJCIAO Are 1k41alie *h C34ro..t

tLioopol &lobZ8 ?Th

oobi f 26s a lrts Cs of
?lt- ast

TLb1 t. of

uvie..a. &l f.1u.
tacth& Vast 5!

. v2tha S.of . Citueso f y

&othe01.1.of 01.01.4 eaist o ". 2 th Soot.A luooudi A...

*172A domlp.stou royToos 001. Islianto.

thioChloeas ? (oo
rti.OM-tJ Us* DosNorWe.

L ftadood

)roo1*0±12s. Clo. X'IVY., 30...144 Iaooa unos.
" ups Caere~,2~

wItof 0. UlkbIoad Xhoy-t " £ Coos to11-01.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

oRULES AND REGULATIONS

chio - 1O (ooti o dyb

Ro ,00 aot ofoi ote Donaoto No. R ot ntor ot : iof Be" Dest1at* ArooEas =&al .stoo Sooodod S.Oodofo tlodod

et to Teages- South Road, south to Delsleo Rros'a od, east to Drke-KL0MLCott 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 HighSt.
. Weber Roed. Westerville Plke & Ai.r Road. Th. area Within 1-270- C o - beltexcluding primuryoLtotot 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 HteadAd. to Mill1 Rd.. f01 Mi1 Rd. sooth. the ost ,toLor 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 Sptlng Valley and tle road ohicb bectos Sprint Vally-Poit"'0 vill 0d. thro01 resid ia1 0ure to Corntalk 02 Cornstalk 0d. -oobto ire._o-VArren Couty Lime. Th. tre: 1ader of Cre.-. 4 0 .CO.ty

Th. "here. bounded 00 h- x

..stby 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 e m rI Stter A.~ e It Met Tlhld ad, Poto ;R.ood.ry National $eLod. Soodao-s Scosandards
&I. Ash

Area south 4 ass: o U.S. s0 nooth 4 east of S.. 125i 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 lad & theTo' .lp - of CoIerai- Springfield. Sycaore & Syma . '1hermse Of Haiolton Couty

J=~s

Cities of StoraOoO.,Fopyio., x Toronto. Utnatesville, Steohouollo. 101.05Joto:, 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"doof Jefferson Comt7
Lo.

Area bounded by the -est X County lines north of X-90 & -at of S.L 3061. 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 t0t Vasigantod Ar. Meet "Ms. :1
.. 4 : sT PrFknry Setoadair Kui0:at St odtad 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 Cityof Inte. northof S.0. 611 The City7 of lora east of S.R. 58, &SbheffieldTo.- 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&&.thatportion of Coitolilo To.shIp mouth of 0..10 622

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

## 46012RULES 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 7oeadtot P.-Lo
tort C! u.S.L 221.)Ath.t

rttiot oaA02ti-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.- olood4~yF-oe Looi from theDerk-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 theil11. dteroitrA- by L oo eo fr o. the v004000.y-vAio c~ty III: to Pu,2D2. eorth to fte 571k est to 2m201. 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 07S-- & switrerlooi

OeLiato A- r- ."Ledttooed
K .0 mo o.tt 10000 &. tte

bo-1oh41 P'OfJien.. Cte.

Th. re-.iloo efr-to

The cities .7 PAonitboog & D.7:0 esolooiog t Portion of ohe ciry of 0.70. booodadby Ttter..
bla: A,.. eed Sothrll. Rd ThoAt -re In rts-7t~ co. -otha 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 DoytomRd trttoItke- ch-h 74.. sooth to tILl. 74.. tee: to G-1.l Rd..* oth t torosle Rd4. v tex. to Cl~sytoo74.. ot wo C.715 310.51. 74.. toot to lStotyoeoy-7rei Cooty t~.ton.there is th. ooosrtoe .2.102 is described %7the
north _o S.7. 4t free the
Line. re,Llh'Pp Rood. esot to 7510 - = ConoLinod

aeetr10teDoe Me.t5. Ive. eIit. 

### Zi..o

Ilot."d. Cth toVIZ. .~u00m Mek. eot.. Lc 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.. seethto Mmortz1.. -. xto Sooth Met:., . c. ntt to X-75. somth Wo L. M- e:7*Vsolno C-17t Uss.
TbeTe-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

.. Zuo 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 to YortheA2.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.SVOL 43,NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978 

### 46013RULES AND REGULATIONS

SOhio
- IP (€ootiued) Does Rot Does Not sot te Setter D.51ro-ted Arem Meet veet asf;1: Prlmry Sec.-deoy tatioss Steoards Standards Sitdod.s,

Trumbull

The area otoospas-ed Onthe 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.scareumaC Washington
vood WyDodctdo

Ohio S Dufu Dioxide

Do DoD oS t o ette. Doslgosto Ae met MoeetNo 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. Theremainder 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 BayVillage, 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 tot cot De tett r Dosluaoted Area Meet H t 1ifdd hkn • 1"o oy Setoody , ational Steodord. ltSds ,tos aeds
0feted-a Dieeda.* ThA recaioder of C.so

yOg Cot7 Soie

Periks T bhip X
The rescioder-of Urfe Co 7 ty
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 MingoJunction, Tonsahips of Stub ille., SWend Creak. CrOssCreek. Ko00 -*EPAdesignation replaces State desioaeiLon

Ohio
- Sulfur Dioeide (ctotbooed)
Does rot Does ot 0m5Be 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, soothonvesteri 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. RSe

46 soth to 0e76. Rte76 southeast to €tyt boodery; 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

*EPAdeigoatioe replace.s State deulitotion

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

### 46014RULES AND REGULATIONS

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

Potot 

### 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

Citya 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

TbAC-1- of lbrgoC rT ep

.rohi.le .~vZe oT 11-sot Tetooip X, 12. -. Ar.2o

T~h=+iot 00 SSt~ -*VAdesItpation oTeyetea State de.t0*00tion

Ohio

- SOif Diooide ccvotLoCol

v- o o€- I D :eto o 0 utter i) irtt.. od
. -e. rt Yt

(A1*0 Men$ to ?eioo y S. U7tool I soo.1. stolar. i l t

"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:Mn7o±. 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..) to705)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*

.1e 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 l MID

t.3A dnipootio ,o1ae iW oio

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

Rz

fllood I •ie

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; VOL43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOEK 5, 1978 

### 46015RULES 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

v~ Ulnon 2 Varren 2 Washington x Way..e Williams X wood 2

Ohio- Carbon1annxide

Primr7 1erissifiablo Desigala.d Exceeded Attainment

Area 2 d5(d )(1) Id I t Cuyahaga Franklin Hmilton n- Jefferson S SahonnIg 2 N.tzery'

-All portions of all oskoe conties

in State of Ohio X I Cia- Jitreenx Edoxid

Frinory Uofaelal e S.fanfrd aed/o DesEtodedd Atairnt

Star. of Cu.a



### §8135F Wisconsin.Pignoenin
- 2S?

Doe

set 5o.2 Not
- OtIs Rtier Designated Area meet Seat Sn:lolad Man Prnary Secondary tloal Staadeda Standard. lteadaide AQCR 08 Grant Coty X AqWt 7P

RonckCooty

elo.t Sub-oLtyarea dained X as folloro: Sooth: wood- ord Ae. fran 3rd St. andPotlntd east to Pank A.n :. West: Co-er of 3rd St.,Portla d a-d WoodwardSouthon3rd It. toSeod St. $oothat an Send St. to Grand Avenoe. Then southnat anGrand to StateSt. andSouthoan Stateto 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 theLntereectionao Chicao North- "StenRailroad tracks and Ltnagan Creek Pest: Tee ChicagoNorth- "eatarnlnt.rae.tioa tracksan 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 GrandAva tontlnuinj northest an Grand Aue. to Wisconsin A-a. andnorth n Witoon- i. to WashbaunStreet. Reainder of leock County I AG

CR 128 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 fto 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.. Stoo

n etoto .4th Dlkook.pS. to lot.tetion wiebth St. Eaot. South: East frtoo iteer. Ztlto of Zollo~p St. tod Mm.enuot- I.oo~ to

odot to OaksA-. 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 HIM1A-e. Soorthon tHin A-: to St. foot. Northeast E. St. toot to -t bor1cr in Supetior Biy' AMlA 2 forth: Con. Mast tte-h St. &C137th 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? st..*o to CroockerStreet. noth tCtort St. to 0711 hi tcooth - T7? CoooIl..d

Cosltani t..

.. z
. to led:S :0 fottototoZt s7. So.: to : 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 LamC 2y Coo.. Let* Co.. x

r0its o C.t,-ctty oo. defined

.. CCU-%..

nI 5100tt: 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

MICAtof 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". tOCallI 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. VOL43, NO. 194-THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1978" 

### 46017RULES AND REGULATIONS

ltitascosi -5 tea.onted)

DeolVsted Area

Reosinder oS MarathonCo. olDdaCounty lortagq County ilae County eod Coaty

Sb-eliy Ate defied as follows: torthtChicoagand eorn vetest railroad task. Sectt Westernborder S s-rtien 18 northto Chicago an Northwestern railroad t.ska. Soutt Southern border o sectiso 17 and 18. rast.Lastet border of s--ties17 northto ChiosgoandNrthnentern ralroad tracks. Acnaiaer of SoodCounty AQC239

tenooha County S"b-oluy area deficed at felleos terthlS2ndstreeteast te

e9ch Arevorto Lake enhlg .A oo

Trem 52ndStreetto 67th Streeta Southt67th ro=139th Avenueto LA Mi higan. artl Lake Mtchlgh

. taer of Keosta.C. Milvaukee County Mlwaukee

Sub-kityareadefined

s follco$t Vo..htSt.PaulAveoo to carer 16thStreet to Lakea Nchlg e__tt 16t4Streetsouth fr.eSt. Poal Avenoeto pierceStreet. 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 .1oe a.otfld Men PeIsaoy Saeo-d-ty :tlcca S Standardsitacdad 5taeda=s

PiercmStreet to 6thSt.. southon 6thStreetto Seeker Street Southitocher Streeteast

-6th to LakeHichican Est LakeHlchigan

Sub-cltyareas Jefaed so folost AreaI torth:CenterStreeteast ir-m5sth'StreettoLake ilohig.. test:55th Streetsowth tree SorthAvenue

.. tende to 56th Street Southt Okoosa Avenue

= oe

it.6th St. to 6th St.. South o 6th St. to hoos Ave..e.ast ont XorgaaAve. to Lake plichican.

- t.t Lake Richigse Area 2: torts:FrosPennsylvania Are, to 1:th St..cs tows Ave.

e-teTeo' Hoard to Col loSe Ave.on 13thSt. Sooth tFre 13th St.to eensylvansAve. os Col l oge Ave. r-.s FromColle.ge Ave. t--eard Are. o n reonsy vanis Ave, tot.stoder of Ml..aohee Co. x O" k.eCounty . x tatM. Coacy Sk-city aet" defined as '011"'S1 Lerth: DouglasAvenue tooth,fo. MarquetteSt. 7Z SapidsDrive.,noetvest on Rapd triveto S...sest..
- IS? (o-tcinsd)

oss ot oes 11t D$nttcsd Are05 hoot toot
Sat r idn Stadnd.& interoectlon with forest St. cest-tointersection withsoothoredary. test-tooth o tea er oRrange Avenuesod WshInston Avenuerarth 'to reetac Ave. north to Intersction with eorthhouedary outh:tashionton Avenue weaS fro Crane Avenue to IarquetteStreet 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 " cit. '2&* 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 tiaara St. est:5V1terok Avenue north rSecalo Street to al:s Avenue Sorh: S-thwast sloe Main Street fo= latercestlonof raLlrood toac and Main Street tothit reoek Avo.s

t: Southeast froa the 7niersectlo.o of als Ave. to the intersectlon of th, railroadtracks and

eelI treet.

asb-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 .1thnorth bound
- 7 Soothl test o Arcadia A=

eI -eintersectio 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.SSooth en Highland Avenue to tloreland bled.

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

### 46018RULES AND REGULATIONS

- Fs -(..Etn Z-t)

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..
. -hS ralroad trios to, Arad!ao A-*a. ie, of vath a Ca.
5 cR 2103 Co1 i.1 Coty-9

Paific TenoaSI

Sab-toanhi? Or.

e 1

fo orer III ti.. 22 f-t

.. 16 .ast to -tl. 23. W..tt C.H. St. Pu.Billreed anutS from ot... border of aectirt 22 to &a.nter border at an. -tico 22. inthi Sntmr arer natii 22traDt1 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.. Ko

r r.& tear "a.a "tam

oe'd. Sod aea

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. offix. 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 AbwTA,.. 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[FRDoe.78-27931 Filed 10-4-8; 8:45 am]

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

### 46019