# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 58 Fed. Reg. 67334 1993

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Oct 17 19:53:36 2012

-- 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.

### 67334 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

NMEIB on July 8, 1988). and July 16, 1990 (asrevised and adopted by the NMEID on March 9, 1990), AirQuality Control Regulation 707-Permits, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and its Supplemental document, is approved as meeting the requirements ofpart C, Clean Air Act for preventing significant deterioration ofair quality.

(b) The requirements ofsection 160 through 165 ofthe Clean AirAct are not met.for Federally designated Indian lands. Therefore, the provisions of §52.21 (b) through (w) are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part ofthe applicable implementation plan, and are applicable to sources located on land under the control of Indian governing bodies.

(c)The plan submitted by the Governor in paragraph (a) ofthis section for Prevention of Significant Deterioration is not applicable to Bernalillo County. Therefore, the following plan described below is applicable to sources located within the boundaries ofBernalillo County (including the City ofAlbuquerque). This plan, submitted by the Governor of New Mexico on April 14, 1989, August 7, 1989, May 1, 1990, and May 17, 1993, and respectively adopted on March 8, 1989, July 12, 1989, April 11, 1990, and February 10, 1993, by the Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, containing Regulation 29- Prevention of Significant Deterioration and itsApril 11, 1990, Supplemental document, is approved as meeting the requirements ofpart C ofthe Clean Air Act for the prevention ofsignificant deterioration ofair quality.

4. Section 52.1636 is revised to read

as follows:
§52.1636 Visibilityprotection.

(a) The requirements ofsection 169A oftheClean AirAct are notmet forthe State ofNew Mexico, outside the boundaries ofBernalillo County, because the plan does not include' approvable procedures meeting the requirements of40 CFR 51.305 and 51.307 forprotection ofvisibility in mandatory Class IFederal areas.

(b) Regulations for visibility monitoring and new source review. The provisions of §§52.21, 52.27, and 52.28

are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan forthe State of New Mexico, outside the boundaries of Bernalillo County.

(c)Long-term strategy. The provisions of§52.29 are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan forthe State ofNew Mexico, outside the boundaries ofBernalillo County. 

### IFR Doc. 93-31038 Filed 12-20-93; 8:45 am]

BILLING COOE 6560-G0-P 40 CFR Part 81
[FRL-4686-4 Designation of AreasforAir Quality Planning Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) ofthe Clean AirAct (Act), EPA is taking final action to redesignate areas (or portions thereofn as nonattainment for the PM-10 (particleswith an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA is taking action to redesignate these areas

as nonattainment due to violations of the NAAQS for these pollutants. The Act requires that the States containing such nonattainment areas develop plans
to expeditiously bring the areas into attainment with the NAAQS forboth pollutants. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 20, 1994. ADDRESSES: Information supporting today's action can be found in Public Docket No. A-92-22. The docket is located atthe U.S. EPA Air Docket, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall, LE-131, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:30
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays, except for legal holidays. A reasonable feemay be charged forcopying. In addition, the public may inspect information pertaining to a particular area at the respective EPA Regional Office which

serves the State where theaffected area is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Wallace (PM-10). S0 2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15), Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-0906. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contacts and addresses ofthe Regional Offices are: Regional offices States

William S. Baker, Chief, Air

Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278, (212) 264- 2517. Marcia Spink, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, (215) 597-9075. New York.

District of Columbia,Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Regional offices States
Stephen H. Rothblatt, Chief, Illinoir

Air and Radiation Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353- 2211. Gerald Fontenot, Chief, Air New Mexico.

Programs Branch, EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 655- 7205. Douglas M. Skie, Chief, Air Colorado,

Programs Branch, EPA Montana. Region VIII, 999 18th -Street, Denver Place-- suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405, (303) 293-1750. David L Calkins, Chief, Air California, AriPrograms Branch, EPA zona. Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1219. George Abel, Chief, Air Pro- Idaho, Orgrams Branch, EPA Re- egon,and gion X, 1200 Sixth Ave- Washington. nue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206)442-1275.

I. General

The EPA is authorized to redesignate

areas (orportions thereof) as nonattainment for PM-10 and SO2 pursuant to section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act,' on the basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations that the Administrator deems appropriate.

Following the process outlined in section 107(d)(3), inJanuary and February of 1991, EPA notified the Governors ofthe affected States that EPA believed certain areas should be redesignated as nonattainment for PM10 and SO 2.The EPA identified those

areas in a Federal Register notice published onApril 22, 1991 (56 FR 16274). Under section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, the Governors ofeach ofthe affected States were required to submit
to EPA the designations thathe or she considered appropriate for each area in question no later than 120 days after notification. However, for reasons of administrative efficiency, the EPA requested the States to submit the designations by March 15, 1991, (the date the lists ofdesignations for all

ozone and carbon monoxide areas were due from the Governor ofeach State pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) ofthe Act). Under section 107(d)(3)(C) ofthe

IReferences hereinare to theClean Air Act, as amended (1990 Amendments). The Clean Air Act is codified, asamended. In theU.S. Code at42 U.S.C. 7401, etseq. 67334 Federal Rtlister / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67334 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 t Rules and Regulations 67335

Act, EPA promulgates theredesignation submitted bythe State, making such modifications as EPA may deem necessary. TheEPA proceeded to propose redesignation tononattainment for many PM-10 and S02 areas where such action was notinconsistent with therecommendations ofthe affected State (see 57 FR43846, September 22, 1992). The EPA istaking final action as proposed, except forthechanges described belowwhich were made in response to publiccomments.

Section 107(d)(1)(A) ofthe Act sets outdefinitions ofnonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable. A nonattainment area is defined as any
areathat does notmeet, or that significantly contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet,the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the relevant pollutant2(see section 107(d)(1)(A)(i)). Thus, indetermining theappropriate boundaries for the nonattainment areas addressed in today's final rule,EPA hasconsidered notonly areas where violations ofthe relevant NAAQS have been monitored and/or modeled, butalso nearby areas which significantly contribute to such violations.
I. Today's Action
A. PM-10

On July 1, 1987, EPA revised the NAAQS for-particulate matter (52 FR 24634), replacing total suspended particulates as the indicator for particulate matter with a new indicator called PM-lu that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. At the same time,EPA set forth regulations for implementingthe revised particulate matter standards and announced EPA's State implementation plan (SIP) development policy elaborating PM-10 control strategies necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance ofthe PM-10 NAAQS (see 52 FR24672). The EPAadopted a PM10 SIP development policydividing all

areas ofthe country into threecategories based upon their probability ofviolating the new NAAQS: (1)Areas with a strong likelihood ofviolating the new PM-10 NAAQS, and requiring substantial SIP adjustment, were placed in Group I;(2)

areas which may have been attaining the PM-10 NAAQS, andwhose existing SIP'smost likely needed less

2The EPA hasconstrued the definition of nonattainment area torequire some material or significantcontribution to a violation in anearby

area.The Agency believes that it Isreasonable to concludethat something greater than amolecular impact is required. adjustment, were placed in Group II; (3)

areas with astrong likelihood of attaining the PM-lu NAAQS and, therefore, needing adjustments only to theirpreconstruction review program andmonitoring network, were placed in Group 111 52 FR 24672, 24679-24682).

Pursuant to sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) ofthe Act, areas previously identified as Group 1(55 FR 45799, October 31, 1990) and other areas which had monitored violations ofthe PM-10 NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989 were, by operation oflaw upon enactment of the 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments (Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399), designated nonattainment and classified

as moderate for PM-10. Formal codification in 40 CFRpart 81 ofthose

areas was announced in a Federal Register notice dated November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) (see also57 FR 56762, November 30, 1992). All otherareas of the country were designated unclassifiable forPM-10 by operation of lawupon enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) ofthe Act).

In January and February of 1991, EPA notifiedthe Governors ofthose States which recorded violations ofthe PM-10 standard afterJanuary 1, 1989 that EPA believed that those areas should be redesignated as nonattainment forPM10. In aFederal Register notice published on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16274), EPA identified those PM-1

areas for which EPA had notified the Governors ofaffected States that the area's PM-10 designation should be revised tononattainment. After notification, the Governor ofeach affected State was required to submit to EPA the redesignation he or she considered appropriate foreach area. The EPA proceeded topropose redesignation to nonattainment 13 areas forPM-lu in the September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice.

-

Today, EPA is taking final action to redesignate asnonattainment forPM-10 10 ofthe areas previously proposed for redesignation in the September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice. The EPA is deferring action ontwo ofthe remaining

areas and isno longer taking action to redesignate Bernalillo, New Mexico, to nonattainment forPM-10. The two

areas that EPA is deferring action on are the following: (1)Kootenai County, Idaho (part); and (2) Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla/Tri Counties, Washington, excluding the initial PM10 nonattainment area ofthe city of Walla Walla, Washington. The EPA received comments onthese areas during the 60-day public comment period provided in the September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice and, as a result ofthesecomments, hasdecided to defer action on theareas at thistime. A

more detailed explanation for why EPA isdeferring action on these areas is provided inthe "Response to Comments" section below.

The 10 areas that EPA is taking final action on intoday's notice are the following: (1) Payson, Arizona; (2) Bullhead City,Arizona; (3)Sacramento County, California; (4) San Bernadino County, California; (5)the Steamboat Springs Area Airshed, Colorado; (6) Shoshone County, Idaho (part); (7) Thompson Falls, Montana; (8) New YorkCounty, New York; 3 (9)Oakridge, Oregon; and (10)the city ofWeirton, West Virginia. These 10 areas are classified as moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas by operation oflaw at the time oftheir nonattainment redesignation (see section 188(a) ofthe Act). Note also that the complete descriptions ofthe nonattainment boundaries for these 10 areas are set out inthe regulatory language at the end of today's notice.

The EPA received comments concerning the redesignation ofsome of these areasduring the publiccomment period provided inthe September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice and has provided adetailed response to these comments in the "Response to comments" section below.

B. SO2

Following the Clean Air Act Amendments of1977, EPA published a list ofareas identified by the States as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for SO2.The 1990 Amendments provided for designations ofareas based on their status immediately before enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments. Forexample, any
area previously designated as not attaining the primary or secondary S02 NAAQS as ofthe date ofenactment of the 1990 Amendments was designated nonattainment for SO2 by operation of law upon enactment, pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C)[i) ofthe Act.In addition, any area designated as attainment or unclassifiable (or "cannot beclassified") immediately before the enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments was also designated as such upon the enactment ofthe Amendments pursuant to sections 107(d)(1)(C) (ii) and (iii) of the Act. For the current status ofSO2
areas, readers should refer tothe codification tablescurrently set forth in 40 CFR part 81 (1991) and to any

-After EPA proposed its PM-10 nonattainment redesignation for New YorkCounty, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed apetition requesting that EPA promptly proceedto final action. Today's finalaction disposesofthat request.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67335 1993No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

subsequent modifications to those SO2 tables thathave been published inthe Federal Register (see also 56 FR 56706, November 6, 1991).

As described above, EPA is authorized to initiate the redesignation ofadditional areas (orportions thereof)

as nonattainment for SO2, pursuant to section 107(d)(3) oftheAct, on the basis ofair quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality- related considerations the Administrator may deem appropriate. The EPA believes that monitoring and/or modeling information may be used in determining the attainment status ofan

area and in establishing SO2 nonattainment boundaries thatare consistent with section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.4 As indicated previously, a nonattainment area is any areawhich does not meet the relevant NAAQS or which significantly contributes to a violation ofthe relevant NAAQS in a nearby area.

InJanuary and February of 1991, EPA notified the Governors ofthe affected States that EPA believed that certain

areas should be redesignated as nonattainment for SO2 due to violations ofthe primary and secondary standards. In aFederal Registernotice published

on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16274), EPA identified those SO 2areas for which EPA had notified the Governors of affected States that an area's SO2 designation should be revised to nonattainment. After notification, the Governor ofeach affected State was required to submit toEPA the redesignation he or sheconsidered appropriate foreach area. Inthe September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice, the EPA proceeded to propose redesignation of seven areas to nonattainment for SO2.

Today, EPA is taking final action to redesignate, as nonattainment for SO2, two ofthe areas previously proposed for redesignation in September 22, 1992 Federal Registernotice. The EPA is deferring action on the remaining five "areas.The five areas that EPA Is deferring action on are the following: (1) Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (part); (2) the District ofColumbia (General Service Administration's Central Heating Plant); (3) the District of Columbia (General Service Administration's WestHeating Plant); (4)Madison County, Illinois (part); and (5) St. Clair County, Illinois (part). The

'The EPA believes that those tools whichare reasonably reliablecan be used in determining. under section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of theAct, whetheran area "does not meet" or "contributes toambient air qualityin anearby area that does not meet" the relevant NAAQS (seealso 57 FR 13545, April 16, 19921. EPA received comments on these areas during the 60-day public comment period provided in the September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice, and as a result ofthese comments has decided to defer action on the areas atthis time. A

more detailed explanation for why EPA is deferring action on these areas is provided in the comment section below.

The two areas that EPA is taking final action on in today's notice are the city ofWeirton, West Virginia and Warren County, Pennsylvania (part). The EPA did not receive any adverse comments concerning the redesignation ofthese

areas duringthe public comment period following the September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice. Therefore, EPA is taking final action as planned to redr.signate these areas to nonattainment.

Il. Response to Comments

In the September 22, 1992 proposal, EPA provided a 60-day comment period ending on November 23, 1992 in order
to solicit public comments on all aspects ofthe proposal. For those areas that EPA Is redesignating in today's action, EPA has responded to the public
comments received and, asappropriate, made modifications in light ofsuch
comments. In certain instances, EPA is deferring redesignation ofareas. Where EPA is deferring redesignation of an area, EPA will publish its final determination onthe area in a separate notice and will respond to relevant public comments at that time.

A. PM-IO:Arizona-Portion ofGila County

Comments were received contending that the PM-IO violations recorded in Payson were due to sources in the vicinity ofthe monitoring equipment. Comments were received requesting that industryin the Payson areabe further evaluated to determine ifcompliance with the PM-10 NAAQS can be achieved through the current State permitting programs. One commenter requested that EPA delay the designation ofthe area as nonattainment until sufficient information became available to evaluate the extent ofthe problem in the area. One commenter further contended that areawide violations were notrecorded which would justify a nonattainment designation forthe area. Thisparticular
commenter further contended that the proposed boundaries ofthe nonattainment area are unwarranted and would constitute an extreme and unnecessary hardship upon the area.

The EPA notes that particulate matter sampling hasbeen conducted in Payson since 1974. A monitor measuring total suspended particulates (TSP)s began operation in downtown Payson in 1974. Significant violations ofthe TSP NAAQS were recorded annually until 1977 when the monitoring site was relocated to the Tonto National Forest Ranger Station, 2 miles north ofthe original site. In 1980, the monitor was again relocated to the original site and again recorded significant annual violations ofthe TSPNAAQS through 1986. In 1987, PM-10 monitoring was begun and violations ofboth the 24 hour PM-10 NAAQS and the annual were recorded in 1989 and 1990. These violations thus provided an amplebasis for proceeding with a nonattainment designation for Payson (seesection 107 (d)(1)(A)(i), (d)(3) ofthe Act and40 CFR 50.6).

That commenters contended that

some monitors in the area have not recorded violations, and thatPayson may only have a localized problem, does not change the factthat Payson has violated the PM-10 NAAQS and should therefore be designated nonattainment. Rather, these comments are relevant to the scope and nature ofthePM-10 nonattainment problem. These issues

are precisely what the SIPdevelopment process which follows from nonattainment designation is intended to assess and to address. This is also the

case with the comments suggesting that EPA impose source specific control

measures orrely on the State permitting process instead ofdesignating the area nonattainment. The Act calls for States containing areas designated nonattainment to submit toEPA for approval aplan that will expeditiously bring the area back into attainment. During the SIP development process, comprehensive emissions inventory data willbe collected and monitors and modeling willbe employed to assess the scope andnature ofthe problem and reasonable measures willbe implemented to address the problem (see,e.g., sections 189(a), 172(c), and 110(a)(2) oftheAct). The Act provides forEPA review ofthe SIP to assess its sufficiency and to make it federally enforceable (see, e.g., sections 110(k), 302(q), and 113 ofthe Act).

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) conducted a special monitoring study in 1990 to, among other objectives, identify the sources (bothpoint and area) that

sTotal suspended particulates (TSP)was the original airquality indicator forthe NAAQS for particulate matter. TheTSP was ameasurement of all particulate matter intheambient air, regardless ofsize. In July 1987, EPA revised theNAAQS for particulate matter to includeonly those particles with an aerodynamic diameter lessthan or equal to anominal 10 micrometers (PM-i). 67336 Federal Register / Vol. 58,

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67336 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67337

contribute to thehigh PM-10 concentrations inPayson. The results of that study indicate that thehighest PM10 concentrations occur in the winter months andthat residential wood combustion, an areawide PM-10 air quality problem, isthe most significant contributor to PM-10 concentrations during this time. These results conflict with the commenters claim that the elevated PM-10 concentrations are the result ofparticular pointsources.

Further, inJanuary 1991, EPA provided the State ofArizona with notification that Payson should be redesignated tononattainment and requested the State to submit the appropriate boundary description for the Payson area. The State responded in May of 1991 by designating the nonattainment boundaries EPA proposed for the Payson area inthe September 22, 1992Federal Register notice. TheEPA has not been informed by the State that the nonattainment redesignation forthe area should be changed. In redesignating an area to nonattainment, EPA accords significant deference tothe State'sjudgment unless further information isreceived which indicates that modifications tothe State's submittal are necessary (see, e.g., section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act).

Furthermore, EPA has the authority under section 110(k)(6) ofthe Act to correct theboundaries ofa nonattainment area where, forexample. SIPequivalent information submitted to EPA reveals that the previous boundaries were in error (see 56 FR 37656, notes 6-7 (August8. 1991). and 57 FR 56762-63 (November30, 1992)). For example, EPA would consider exercising its authority under section 110(k)(6) ifthe SIP development process reveals that theboundaries issuedtoday

are clearly inappropriate and other information persuasively supports a change.

Portionof MohaveCounty
In itsproposal to redesignate a portion ofMohave County, Arizona, as nonattainment forPM-10, EPA requested information addressing whetherand to what extent the Mohave Power Plant (MPP)inLaughlin, Nevada, contributes tothe PM-10 nonattainment problem and the appropriateness ofthe proposed nonattainment boundaries for Mohave County inlight ofany such information (57 FR43848). The Nevada Bureau ofAirQuality (NBAQ) and the Southern California Edison Company (SCE), operators and co-owners ofthe Mohave Power Plant, responded to this request.

The SCE claimed that a study conducted by Desert Research institute (DRI) indicated that MPP has a less than 1percent impact on annual average ambient PM-10 levelsin Mohave Valley and that fugitive dust emissions from construction activities contribute up to 75 percent. Similarly, NBAQ indicated that the study showed that less than 1 percent ofthe PM-10 measured at Bullhead City from September 1988 through 1989 was from MPP stack operations and that 75 percent was from local soil.However, NBAQ also indicated that the calculations cannot distinguish local soil dust from MPP operations from other sources ofsoil dust,but that MPP operations cover only a small fraction ofthe local area and water is applied tominimize fugitive dust.

In today's action, EPA is finalizing the Mohave County PM-10 nonattainment boundaries as proposed. However, as stated previously, EPA would consider exercising its authority under section 110(k)(6) ofthe Act to correct the boundaries ofthis nonattainment area If, forexample, information obtained inthe SIP development processreveals4hat the boundaries issued today are in error.

The EPA also received comments from SCE and NBAQ contending that the violations monitored inMohave County were due to exceptional events and that EPA should notproceed with

a designation for thisarea on thebasis of such data.

On July 26, 1990, ADEQ informed EPA that anexceedance ofthe 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS was recorded in Bullhead City in 1989. The data were from a monitoring siteoperated by DRI forSCE. Sampling is conducted once every 6 days (see,e.g., section 3.1 of40 CFRpart 50,appendix K). Additionally, ADEQ reported that the annual PM-10 NAAQS was violated in 1989. Inits letter to EPA, ADEQ stated that although ithad no input intothe selection ofthe monitoring site,based on its observations, the site appeared to be representative ofthe central Bullhead City area. Further, ADEQ reviewed a summary ofDRI's quality assurance programand found it tobe satisfactory.

The NBAQ claimed that there were elevated wind speedson 2 days when the 24-hour NAAQS exceedances occurred, as well as construction

sources that contributed to elevated values. The SCE contended that the annual PM-10 exceedance in 1989 was
an exceptional event caused by increased construction activities and that strong winds that created dust storms contributed tothe 24-hour NAAQS exceedance in 1991.

Section 2.4 of20 CFRpart 50, appendix K,has been partially superseded by the changes made tothe Act in the 1990 Amendments (see section 193 oftheAct). Section 2.4 defines an exceptional event as an uncontrollable event caused by natural

sources ofparticulate matter or an event that is not expected to recur at agiven location.

The 1990 Amendments added section 188(f) to theAct which authorizes the waiver ofcertain PM-10 requirements based on the nonanthropogenic contribution to the PM-10problem in the area (see draft guidance announced in 57 FR 31477, July 16, 1992). The premise ofsection 188(0 is that areas having a nonanthropogenic contribution
to the PM-10 problem will be designated nonattainment. In fact, this provision would be meaningless ifEPA did not designate areas on thisbasis.6 Thus,recurrence alone, and not the

source ofthe exceedance, remains relevant in determining whether an exceedance qualifies asan "exceptional event" under section 2.4.

The commenters did notprovide supporting information or data showing that the high winds and construction activities did, in fact, have a direct causal nexus to the PM-l0 NAAQS exceedances or, ifso, the magnitude of the contribution from these sources [see Citizens forCleanAirv.EPA, 959 F.2d 839, 846-48 (9thCir. 1992) (upholding EPA's rejection ofpublic comments that

were not accompanied with specific supporting information)]. Further, the
comments simply asserted that these activities were exceptional. The
comments did not address the likelihood of the recurrence ofthese activities. The commenters did not demonstrate that elevated winds alleged
to have contributed to the exceedances

are unlikely to recur. In fact, the SIP development process is intended to prevent exceedances from anthropogenic activities such as construction by providing for planning by the State and local community to help ensure such activities adequately mitigate theircontribution to PM-10 air quality problems. Accordingly, EPA believes that the available air quality data provide an ample basis to proceed with anonattainment designation for the Bullhead City area. Further, the

sSee U.S. v.Nordic Village,-Inc..112 S.ct. 1011, 1015 (1992) (rejecting astatutory interpretationthat "violates thesettled rule that astatute must. if possible, be construed in afashion that every word has someoperative effect") (citation omitted): Boisie Cascade Corp. v. EPA. 942 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir. 1992) ('luinderaccepted canonsof statutory interpretation,we must interpret statutes
asawhole, giving effect to eachword and making every effort not to interpret aprovision in amanner that rendersother provisions ofthesame statute inconsistent, meaningless orsuperfluous") (citation omitted).

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67337 1993No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

State ofArizona has recommended that EPA redesignate this area as nonattainment forPM-1 (see section 107(d)(3)(C) ofthe Act).
California-Sacramento County

The EPA received a comment' contending that the PM-10 concentrations of155 pg/m3 measured at the Stockton Boulevard monitoring site in 1989, and a measured exceedance of153 jig/m3at the Citrus Heights site in 1990, wereboth marginal exceedanres ofthe NAAQS forPM-10, and should not beused as abasis for redesignating Sacramento County to nonattainment.

Pursuant to 40 CFR, part 50, appendix K, an exceedance is defined as avalue which is measured above the level of the 24-hour standard afterrounding to the nearest 10 gg/m3 (i.e.,values ending in 5 orgreater are rounded up). Therefore, the PM-10 concentration of 153 pg/m3 measured at the Citrus Heights site would notbe considered as an exceedance ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. However, the PM-10 concentration of 155 pg/m3 is considered to bean exceedance ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. The exceedance was measured according to
an EPA reference method and therefore should be considered valid.

Further, the contention that the measured exceedance is marginal is without validity. The PM-10 NAAQS specify a level ofair quality, the attainment and maintenance ofwhich, based on air quality criteria reflecting the latest scientific knowledge and allowing for an adequate margin of safety, isrequisite to the protection of the public health (see sections 108 and 109 ofthe Act). The NAAQS is a designated level, not a designated range, ofPM-10 above which the air quality is considered unhealthy.

The commenter also contended that the PM-10 exceedance of 187 pg/m3 measured at theDel Paso Manor monitoring site in 1990 occurred due to extremely cold temperatures which led to an unusual number offireplaces being in operation at the same time.The commenter therefore contends that due to this unusual and isolated chain of events, the measured exceedances should not beconsidered asa basis for redesignation ofthe Sacramento County

area tononattainment.

The commenter, In this instance, has conceded that, residential wood combustion contributed tothe measured exceedances ofthe NAAQS for PM-10. The commenter also concedes that the exceedances were due tothe operation ofa large number ofresidential wood stoves in a highly populated area which poses a significant public healthrisk. The purpose ofthe SIPprocess is basically to identify and control such

sources ofPM-10 that contribute to violations ofthe health based standards. Further, the commenter did not offer supporting evidence showing that the unique events identified, such as cold weather and high residential wood combustion are unlikely to recur (see Citizens for Clean Airat 846-48). Therefore, the comments serve to validate EPA's decision to redesignate the area and initiate the SIP development process.

The commenter further contends that PM-10 concentration levels which exceeded the PM-10 NAAQS in the Sacramento County area during the past 3 years occurred in a specific portion of Sacramento County and were not county-wide exceedances. The
commenter therefore contends that if redesignation ofthe area is necessary, only the portion ofSacramento County where the exceedances were measured should beredesignated.

The EPA provided the State of California with notification that Sacramento County should be redesignated to nonattainment in January of1991 (see section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act). In that notification, EPA requested the State to submit the appropriate boundary description for the Sacramento County area. In a response dated March 15, 1991 the State affirmed all federally-identified PM-10 nonattainment areas and addressed the boundary issue as follows:

[W]e understand that it is EPA's policyto
use county boundaries as the default, though procedures set forth in EPA's guidance documents may alsobe applied. Given the nature ofthe emission sources contributing to California's PM-10 problems, we tend to thinkthat large nonattainment boundaries

are appropriate for planning purposes.We would like anopportunity to confirm that for each particular area, though, and will' provide supplemental comments shortly.

The State also requested EPA to use the State's recommendations asthe basis for its rulemaking. The EPA receive no further comments from the State, and therefore proceeded to propose Sacramento County as the, nonattainment boundaries forthe area. In the September 22, 1992 notice proposing to redesignate Sacramento County as nonattainment, EPA described its policy for establishing PM-10 nonattainment area boundaries:

Generally, the PM-10 nonattainment area boundaries are presumed to be,as appropriate, the county, township, or other municipal subdivision in which the ambient particulate matter monitorrecording the PM10 violation(s) is located.The EPA has presumed that such boundaries would include both the area violating the PM-10 NAAQS and anyarea significantly contributing to the violations. However, a boundary other than the county perimeter or municipal boundary may be more appropriate. Affected States may submit information indicating that, consistentwith section 107(d)(I)(A)(i), a boundary should be alternatively defined (57 FR 43848).

The EPA indicated that the "PM-10 SIP Development Guideline" (EPA-450/ 2-86-001) (Guideline)contained guidance on the information that should be submitted to support such alternative boundaries.

The Guideline recommends employing the following techniques singly or in combination to alternatively define area boundaries: (1)Qualitative analysis ofthe area of representativeness ofthe monitoring station, together with consideration of terrain, meteorological, and sources of emissions; (2) spatial interpolation ofair monitoring; and (3) air quality simulation by dispersion modeling (Guideline, pages 2-9 through 2-10).

The EPA received no comments from the State concerning the boundaries for the area in response to the September 22, 1992 proposal. Thus, the State's only relevant guidance to EPA suggests that the State supports the general designation ofthis area as nonattainment and, given the nature of California's PM-10 problems, large boundaries for planning purposes (see section 107(d)(3)(C)).

Further, three exceedances ofthe PM10 NAAQS have been observed in Sacramento County at two different monitoring sites.

Sacramento Health Center, Stockton Boulevard

Site number 06-067-04001 in Sacramento: an exceedance was measured on November 18, 1989 (155 gg/m3) and December 18, 1989 (158 gg/ m3). This monitoring site is located in the city ofSacramento.

Sacramento Del Paso Manor

Site number 06-067-0006 in Sacramento: exceedances were measured on December 25, 1990 (187 pg/m3).This monitoring site is located in the county, east ofthe city of Sacramento.

In addition, monitoring data from 1989, 1990, and 1991 indicate that Sacramento County has experienced elevated levels ofPM-10. In several

cases (described below), these levels represented greater than orequal to 80 percent ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. These observed concentrations do not represent exceedances ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. Nevertheless, these data were 67338 Federal Register / Vol. 58,

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67338 1993No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 1 Rules and Regulations 67339

collected from five different monitoring sites inthe Countyand provide additional evidence ofthe scope of elevated PM-10 concentrations in the County.
Elevated PM-10 Concentrations in Sacramento County
1989

Site 06-067-0001: 139pg/m3 Site 06-067-0002:125 PWM3 Site 06-067-0006: 142 PrM3 Site 06--067-0283: 120pgm3 1990

Site 06-067-0001: 153 pg/ms Site 06-067-0006:135 pg/ms Site 06-067-0006:124 pg/m3 Site 06-067-0010: 140 pg/m3 Site 06-067-0010:134 ig/m3 Site 06-067-0010:120 Wig/m3 1991

Site 06-067-0006:127 Pg/m3
Site 06-067-0010:134 pg/mS

The commenter that requested EPA to provide boundaries that are only a portion ofthe county did not specifically suggest alternative boundaries and did not conduct the analysis recommended by EPA's policy. However, the commenter did suggest that "an extensive review ofambient air monitoring data, emission inventory data, and meteorological data could be performed" to determine a boundary for the area. Such "extensive" data collection and analysis is what the SIP development process will involve.

Previously, EPA has indicated that it would consider using its authority under section 110(k)(6) ofthe Act to correct the boundaries ofa nonattainment area where, for example, SIP equivalent information submitted to EPA reveals that the previous boundaries were in error (see, e.g., 56 FR 37656, notes 6-7 (August 8, 1991), and 57 FR 56762-63 (November 30, 1992)). Thus, this authority provides another mechanism forthe consideration of further information on this issue.

Finally, PM-10 air quality problems

are generally areawide. The commenter concerned about the scope ofthe boundaries indicated that residential wood combustion contributed to at least

one ofthe air quality exceedances monitored and also indicated that PM10 levels inthe area are affected by
motor vehicle emissions. These are precisely the types ofsources that give riseto broader areawide PM-10 air quality problems.

Colorado-Portion of Routt County

The State ofColorado submitted
comments indicating that on May 28, 1991, the Routt County Commissioners adopted aPM-10 nonattainment boundary for a portion of Routt County which included the city of Steamboat Springs, as well ascertain surrounding

areas inRoutt County.The adoption incorporated amap indicating the boundary ofthe area in question. Subsequently, on June 20, 1991, this boundary was adoptedby the Colorado AirQuality ControlCommission. The State requested that EPA issuea final boundary consistent with that adopted by the State. Intoday's final action, EPA has adopted a final boundary forthe affected portion ofRoutt Countythat is consistent with the State's recommendation andis taking final action to redesignate the area. Idaho-Kootenai County

The EPA received many comments on its proposed nonattainment redesignation forthisarea. The EPA is still assessing these comments and is not making a final decision at this time. The EPA expects tomake a final decision forthis area within the next few months and will issue a notice in the Federal Register announcing its final decision at that time.
Idaho-Part ofShoshone County

The 1990 Amendments authorize a State, on its own initiative, to submit to EPA arevised designation for an area in that State (see section 107(d)(3)(D)). The city ofPinehurst, a portion ofShoshone County, was designated nonattainment forPM-10 by operation ofla* upon enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments (see section 107(d)(4)(B), 40 CFR §81.313 (1992)). After the 1990 Amendments, EPA received information from Idaho requesting that EPA expand the nonattainment boundary for thisarea to include additional townships along the Silver Valley (see 56 FR37658 (August 8, 1991)). In the September 22, 1992 proposal fortoday's action, EPA proposed expanding the boundary consistent with the State's request (57 FR 43849).

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted information indicating that it is inpart rescinding its request to expand the PM-10 nonattainment area boundary forPinehurst. The IDEQ requested that EPA expand the boundary to include an area justslightly larger than the city of Pinehurst. The IDEQ indicated that during the SIP development process forthe city of Pinehurst it obtained information that allowed it to further refine the PM-10 nonattainment boundary forthis area.

Because the State haswithdrawn a portion of its previous request, it is no longer pending before EPA. Therefore, in today's action EPA is approving for redesignation to nonattainment the morecircumscribed boundary requested by the State which includes an area slightlylarger than the city ofPinehurst. The EPA also notes that the State has indicated toEPA that the moderate PM10 SIP developed forthe city of Pinehurst covers the slightly expanded boundary. The EPA will assess this during its review ofthe moderate area SIP for the city of Pinehurst. The moderate area plan forPinehurst is ultimately approved by EPA, andit

covers the expanded areas outside the city, then it would be unnecessary for the State to submit a separate moderate

area plan addressing thearea encompassed in the slightly expanded boundary.

NewMexico-Bernalillo County

In the proposal for today's action, EPA indicated that the city of Albuquerque provided information demonstrating that since a 1989 exceedance ofthe annual PM-10 NAAQS, the same site (#35-001-1013 or "the Alameda site") had monitored a downward trend in the annual values (57 FR43848). The EPA further indicated that the downward trend was likely attributable at least in part to steps that the City had taken to reduce PM-10 emissions.For example, an area
near the monitor that was suspected of contributing to the PM-10 problem had been paved in order to reduce dust generated from various activities inthe

area. Nevertheless, EPA proceeded with proposing-the designation because certain measures taken to reduce PM-10 had not been submitted to EPAas a SIP revision and, therefore, EPA had no way ofensuring that the measures would be permanent and federally enforceable.

Since the proposal, the State ofNew Mexico has submitted these measures to EPA as SIP revisions. One revision involved a topsoil disturbance program that, among other things, prohibits the disturbance or removal ofcertain amounts of soil without a valid permit. The EPA approved this submittal in a direct final rulemaking notice published

on February 23, 1993 (58 FR 10970). A second submittal contains a winter woodburning curtailment program for thecity ofAlbuquerque. Section 107(d)(3)(A) ofthe Act provides that, among other things, "planning and control considerations' drerelevh..t in determining whether theAdministrator should proceed with a redesignation. The EPA believes the control measures adopted by the State are addressing the PM-10 air quality problem that prompted EPA's proposed redesignation Federal Register I Vol. 58,

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67339 199367340 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

forthis area.7Further, an assessment of
recent data indicatesthat the downward trend ofthe annual NAAQS at the Alameda site appears to be continuing. Accordingly, at this time,EPA is not redesignating Bernalillo County as nonattainment for PM-10. The area will retain its unclassifiable designation.

Today's action in no way precludes EPA from redesignating thisarea as nonattainment at alater date should information reveal aPM-10 air quality problem with eitherthe 24-hour or annual NAAQS. In fact, in the September 22, 1992 proposal, EPA specifically indicated that it was aware ofpotential violations ofthe 24-hour NAAQS in Albuquerque and was assessing the situation. The EPA is continuing to review this issue. Washington-Part ofBenton; Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties

The EPA received many comments on its proposed nonattainment redesignation for this area. The EPA is still assessing these comments and is notmaking a final decision regarding the redesignation ofthisaction at this time. The EPA expects tomake a final decision concerning this area within the
next few months and will issue a notice in the Federal Register announcing its final decision at that time.

B.SulfurDioxide:District of Columbia-TwoAreas in Washington, DC

TheEPA received a comment from a commenter who contended that the area within a 1kilometer range ofthe General Services Administration's (GSA) central heating plant and the area within 1.5 kilometers ofGSA's west heatingplant should notbe redesignated to nonattainment until EPA and the District ofColumbia have completed the process ofnegotiating a compliance plan with GSA. The aforementioned compliance plan is required underthe terms ofthe enforceable compliance agreement entered into by EPA, the District of Columbia, and GSA. It is the District's intention toincorporate the terms ofthe final compliance plan and compliance agreement, along with a technical analysis, demonstrating thatthe emissions from GSA's twoheating plants no longer causeviolations ofthe NAAQS for S02 into a formal SIP revision tobe submitted to EPA.

As previously stated in the September 22, 1992 Federal Registernotice (57 FR 23846), EPA proceeded with the

' Note also that "planning andcontrol considerations" have Informed EPA's decisionto deferaction on the S0 2 areas discussed below. redesignation ofthe two areas surrounding the GSA heating plants because the District ofColumbia had not submitted the aforementioned SIP revision to EPA. Since the date ofthe redesignation proposal, EPA has worked very closely with the District of Columbia and GSA to resolve this issue. The District has committed to submit a SIP revision for theareas by October 31, 1993. This SIP revision consists of requirements to reduce emissions atthe

sources in question and provide an attainment demonstration forthe area.

Therefore, EPA has decided not to finalize the redesignation to nonattainment at this time, pending review ofthe forthcoming SIP submission. The EPA reserves the right t- finalize the proposed redesignation of the area ifthe SIP revision submitted by the District ofColumbia is ultimately disapproved by EPA.
Illinois-Portion ofMadison and St. Clair Counties

The EPA received several comments addressing its proposed SO2 nonattainment redesignations for portions ofthese two counties. Atthe outset ofthe redesignation process, EPA notified the Governor ofIllinois that, based upon available information, EPA believed that Madison and St. Clair Counties should be redesignated nonattainment for SO2 (56FR 16274, April 22, 1991). In the State's response, it largely agreed with EPA (see,e.g., 57 FR43846). However, during the comment period on EPA's proposed action, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted
comments claiming that recent developments may eliminate the need for redesignation ofthese areas. The IEPA informed EPA that it is working with sources in these areas to develop permanent and enforceable permit revisions which will serve to address the SO2 air quality problem in these

areas. The State has committed to submit these changes toEPA in the form ofaSIP revision by October 31, 1993, and as farin advance ofthat date as possible. Therefore, the State has requested that EPA notproceed with the nonattainment designation forthese

areas at thistime. Others commenting

onbehalfofindustry inthese areas took

a similar position to that ofIEPA.8

The EPA is deferring final action at thistime on the nonattainment

sOne commenter raised additional issues including allegationsabout the procedures and technical basis associated with EPA's proposed redesignation for theaffected portion ofMadison County. Because, as indicated below, EPA is not taking final action on this area atthis time. EPA is deferring response to these comments. redesignation for these areas in light of the recent planning efforts by the State and certain sources in the areas. However, EPA reserves the option of issuing a nonattainment redesignation for these areas at a future date. In particular, ifthe State does not submit the SIPrevision for these areas by the October 31, 1993 commitment date which addresses the SO 2 air quality problem in these areas, EPA intends to

assess whether a nonattainment redesignation forthese areas should be finalized and would likely proceed with such a final redesignation at that time. Pennsylvania-Portion ofAllegheny County

As stated in the September 22, 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 23846), EPA's rationale for proposing redesignation ofthe portion of Allegheny County inclusive ofLincoln, Liberty, Glassport, and Port Vue Boroughs and the city ofClairton to nonattainment is due to monitored violations ofthe 24-hour standard for

SO 2 . The 24-hour standard was violated in 1986 and 1988.

The commenters contend that the principle source of SO2 emissions inthe proposed nonattainment area, U.S. Steel-Clairton Works, has invested a substantial amount of money and effort into makingenhancements to itscoke

oven gas desulfurization facility. Furthermore, it is suggested that the changes have led to documented improvements in air quality in the "Clairton area." The commenters contend that the recent actions on the part ofU.S. Steel are adequate to protect the NAAQS for SO2 in the proposed nonattainment area. The commenters provided information correlating the monitored exceedances with specific sulfur-removal equipment failures and outages. The commenters believe that the recent upgrading ofthe desulfurization facility at the Clairton Works has remedied these previous equipment malfunctions which produced the monitored exceedances of the NAAQS. Therefore, the area should
not be redesignated to nonattainment.

Inresponse to above comments, EPA is encouraged by the progress made by U.S. Steel in reducing its emissions of SO2. Therefore, EPA is not taking final action at this time for the "Clairton area." The EPA will work closely with the State ofPennsylvania and Allegheny County as it codifies these significant improvements to the desulfurization facility into the federally-approved SIP forAllegheny County (through the Pennsylvania SIP). However, EPA retains the right to finalize the proposed redesignation ofthe area !f Allegheny

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67340 1993I Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67341

County does not submit a SIP revision forthe "Clairton area" asexpeditiously
as possible.
IV. Significance ofToday's Action
A. Significance forPM-1O Areas redesignated as nonattainment intoday's action are subject tothe applicable requirements ofpart D, title Iofthe Act and willbe classified as moderate by operation oflaw [see section 188(a) ofthe Act]. Within 18 months ofthe redesignation, the State is required to submit toEPA an implementation plan forthe area containing, among other things,the following requirements: (1)Provisions to assurethat reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology) are implemented within 4 years ofthe redesignation; (2) a permit program meeting the requirements ofsection 173 governing the construction and operation ofnew and modified major stationary sources ofPM-10; (3) quantitative milestones which areto be achieved every 3 yearsuntil the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrates reasonable further progress, as defined in section 171(1), toward timely attainment; and (4) either

a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that theplan will provide for attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end ofthe sixth calendar year afterthe area's designation as nonattainment, or a demonstration that attainment by such date is impracticable [see, e.g., sections 188(c), 189(a), 189(c), and 172(c)ofthe Act]. The EPA has issued detailed guidance onthe statutory requirements applicable to moderate PM-10 nonattainment area (see 57 FR 13498 (April16, 1992), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)).

The State is also required to submit contingency measures, pursuant to section 172(c)(9) ofthe Act, which are totake effect without further action by the State or EPA, upon adetermination byEPA that an area has failed tomake reasonable further progress or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (see 57 FR 13510- 13512, 13543-13544). The EPA is hereby establishing the schedule for submission ofcontingency measures as called for in section 172(b) ofthe Act. The affected States are to submit contingency measures for the areas redesignated nonattainment for PM-10 intoday's action within 18 months of redesignation.

B. Significance for S02

The EPA is, by today's action, redesignating two areas as nonattainment for both the primary and secondary standards for SO2. The affected States must submit implementation plans to EPA within 18 months after promulgation of the nonattainment designations for SO 2, meeting the requirements of part D, title I ofthe Act (see section 191(a) ofthe Act). The implementation plans must provide for attainment of the S0 2 NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable, butno later than 5 years from the date ofthe final nonattainment designation [see section 192(a) ofthe Act]. As with PM-10, EPA has issued detailed guidance on the development of SIP's for SO 2nonattainment areas that are consistent with part D, title I ofthe Act (see 57 FR 13498).

VI. Miscellaneous

A. RegulatoryFlexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities 15 U.S.C. 605(b)]. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

Redesignation ofan area to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status ofa geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. Tothe extent thatan affected State must adopt new regulations, based on an area's nonattainment status, EPA willreview the effect that those actions have on small entities atthe time the State submits thoseregulations. Icertify that the redesignation action announced today will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

Petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed as provided by section 307(b)(1) ofthe Act within February 22, 1994. Filing an administrative petition for reconsideration ofthe rule for purposes ofjudicial review nor extend the time within which a petition forjudicial -review ofthe rule may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule (see section 307(b)(1)). This action may notbe challenged in any subsequent proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
VII. Executive Order 12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofsection 6 ofExecutive Order 12866.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: December 13, 1993. Carol M.Birowner, Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 81 is amended

as follows:

PART 81-[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 81.303 is amended in the table for "Arizona-PM-10" by adding

a second entry for "Gila County" andby adding an entry for "Mohave County" to read as follows:
§81.303 Arizona.

It t *t *t *


### Arizona-PM-1 0

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

GbCounty (pan): Payson: T1ON, Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, and 34-36 of R9E; January 20, 1994 Nonattalnment. January 20. 1994 Moderate.

T11N, Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27 and 34-36 of R9E; T10- 11N. R1OE; TION, Sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33 of R11E; TIIN. Sections4-9, 16-21, and28-33 of R11E.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67341 199367342 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations



### Arizona-PM--1 0-Continued
Designation Classification Designatedarea Date Type Date Type

Mohave County (Part): Bullhead City- T21N. R20-21W, excluding Lake Mead National January20, 1994 Nonattainment. January20, 1994 Moderate.

Recreation Area; T20N, R20-22W; T19N, R21-22W excluding Fort Mohave Indian Reservation.

3. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for "California-PM-10 Nonattainment Areas" by adding entries for "Sacramento County" and "San Bernadino County" to read as follows:
§81.305 California.

CALIFORNIA-PM-10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS Designation Classification Designated area Date Type Date Type

Sacramento County

........................................................................ . .. January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate. San Bernadino, Inyo, and Kern Counties Searles Valley planning area November 15. Nonattainment. November 15, Moderate.

Hydrologic Unit '18090205. 1990. 1990. San Bernadino County (part): excluding that portion located inthe January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate.

Searles Valley Planning area, and excluding that area inthe South Coast Air Basin.

4. Section 81.306 is amended in the table for "Colorado-PM-10 Nonattainment Areas" by adding an entry for

"Routt County" to read as follows: j81.306 Colorado.

*t * b *t *

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67342 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67343



### COLORADO-PM-I0 NONATTAINMENT AREAS
Designation Classification Designated area Date Type Date Type

Routt County (Part): The Steamboat Springs Area Airshed as adopted by the Routt January 30,1994. Nonattainment. January 30,1994 Moderate.

County Commissioners onMay 28. 1991 andthe ColoradoAir Quality Control Commission on June 20, 1991.

6. Section 81.313 is amended in the table for "Idaho-PM-10 Nonattainment Areas" by adding an entry for "Shoshone County" to read as follows:

181.313 klaho.

IDAHO-PM-1 0 NONATTAINMENT AREAS
Designation Ciassf n Dewgnated ae Date Type Date Type



### Shoshone County (Part): That portion ofShoshone Countyexcluding the Initial PM-10: in- January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate.

cluding the South half of Southeast quarter of Section 31 of. Range 2 east. Township 49; South quarter of Section 32 of Range 2 east Township 49 north Section 5 of Range 2 east. Township 48 northeast half of Section 6 of Range 2 east Township 48 northwest quarterof Section 8 of Range 2 east, Township 48 North; and excluding that portion of Shoshone County designated nonattainment for PM-10 on November 15, 1990. City ofPlnehurst

................................. November 15, Nonaltainment. November 15, Moderate. 1990. 1990.

7. Section 81.327 is amended in the table for "Montana--PM-10 Nonattainment Areas" by adding an entry for "Sanders County" to read as follows:

f8.327 Montana.

MONTANA--PM-I0 NONATrAINMENT AREAS

Designation Oassifiation Designated area Date Type Date Type

Sanders County (Part): Thompson Falls and vicinity: including the following Sections: January 20, 1994 Nonattanment January 20, 1994 Moderate.

R29W, T21N, Sections: 5,6, 7,8,9, 10, 15, and 16.

* * * * *

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67343 199367344 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

8. Section 81.333 is amended by adding a table for "New York-PM-10" and by adding an entry "New York County" to read as follows:
§81.333 New York.

NEW YORK-PM-10

Designation Classification Designated area Date Type Date Type

New York County

..................................................................................... January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate.

9. Section 81.338 is amended by amending the table for "Oregon-PM-10 Nonattainment Areas" by adding an entry for "Lane County" to read as follows:
§81.338 Oregon.

OREGON-PM-10 NONATrAINMENT AREAS
Designation Classification Designated area Date Type Date Type

Lane County (part) Oakridge: The Urban Growth boundary area

......... January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate.

10. Section 81.339 is amended in the table for "Pennsylvania-S02" by revising the entry for "Warren County" to read as follows:
§81.339 Pennsylvania.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67344 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67345

PENNSYLVANIA--SO 2

Designated area Does not meet Does not meet Cannot be classi- Better than primary standards secondary fled national standards standards

VI. Northwest Pennsylvania Intrastate AQOCR

(A) Warren County:

Conewango Twp

.............................. x Mead Twp

....................................................................................... ............................. xx Clarendon Boro.......................

..................... Warren Boro

................................................................................... x PleasantTwp

............................ x............... x GladeTwp

......................................................................................... x............ x

11. Section 81.349 is amended in the table for "West Virginia-PM-10 Nonattainment Areas" by adding an entry for part of "Brooke County" and "Hancock County," to read as follows:
§81.349 West Virginia.

WEST VIRGINIA PM--10 NONATrAINMENT AREAS
Designation Classification Designated area Date Type Date Type

Hancock and Brooke Counties (Part) The city of Weirton

...................... January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate.

12. Section 81.349 is amended in the table for "West Virginia-SO2" by adding an entry for "Hancock County"
to read as follows:

§81.349 WestVlrgInla.

WEST VIRGINIA--SO 2

Does not meet Does not meet Cannot be classi- Better than Designated area primary standards secondary fled national. standards standards

Hancock County (Part) The city of Weirton, including Butler andClay: Magisterial Districts

........................................................................... x x Remainderof State

.......................................................................... .. ........................... .. ......................... ............. ........... x

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67345 1993