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

NMEIB on July 8, 1988). and July 16,

1990 (as revised and adopted by the

NMEID on March 9, 1990), Air Quality

Control Regulation 707-Permits,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) and its Supplemental document,

is approved as meeting the requirements

of part C, Clean Air Act for preventing

significant deterioration of air quality.

(b) The requirements of section 160

through 165 of the Clean Air Act 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 of the 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) of this 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 of Bernalillo County

(including the City of Albuquerque).

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 its April 11, 1990, Supplemental

document, is approved as meeting the

requirements of part C of the Clean Air

Act for the prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality.

4. Section 52.1636 is revised to read

as follows:

§52.1636 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A

of the Clean Air Act are not met for the

State of New Mexico, outside the

boundaries of Bernalillo County,

because the plan does not include'

approvable procedures meeting the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.305 and

51.307 for protection of visibility in

mandatory Class I Federal 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

of the applicable plan for the 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 of the applicable plan for the

State of New Mexico, outside the

boundaries of Bernalillo 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 Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)

of the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA is taking

final action to redesignate areas (or

portions thereofn as nonattainment for

the PM-10 (particles with 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 for both

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 at the 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 fee may

be charged for copying. In addition, the

public may inspect information

pertaining to a particular area at the

respective EPA Regional Office which

serves the State where the affected area

is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Wallace (PM-10). S0 2/Particulate

Matter Programs Branch, Air Quality

Management Division (MD-15), Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, (919) 541-0906.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contacts and addresses of the 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 (or portions thereof) as

nonattainment for PM-10 and SO2

pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the

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), in January and

February of 1991, EPA notified the

Governors of the 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 on April 22, 1991 (56 FR

16274). Under section 107(d)(3)(B) of

the Act, the Governors of each of the

affected States were required to submit

to EPA the designations that he 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 of designations for all

ozone and carbon monoxide areas were

due from the Governor of each State

pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the

Act). Under section 107(d)(3)(C) of the

IReferences herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (1990 Amendments). The Clean Air Act

is codified, as amended. In the U.S. Code at 42

U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

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

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

Act, EPA promulgates the redesignation

submitted by the State, making such

modifications as EPA may deem

necessary. The EPA proceeded to

propose redesignation to nonattainment

for many PM-10 and S02 areas where

such action was not inconsistent with

the recommendations of the affected

State (see 57 FR 43846, September 22,

1992). The EPA is taking final action as

proposed, except for the changes

described below which were made in

response to public comments.

Section 107(d)(1)(A) of the Act sets

out definitions of nonattainment,

attainment, and unclassifiable. A

nonattainment area is defined as any

area that does not meet, 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 pollutant 2 (see section

107(d)(1)(A)(i)). Thus, in determining

the appropriate boundaries for the

nonattainment areas addressed in

today's final rule, EPA has considered

not only areas where violations of the

relevant NAAQS have been monitored

and/or modeled, but also 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 implementing the

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 of the PM-10 NAAQS (see

52 FR 24672). The EPA adopted a PM10 SIP development policy dividing all

areas of the country into three categories

based upon their probability of violating

the new NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong

likelihood of violating 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, and whose existing

SIP's most likely needed less

2The EPA has construed the definition of

nonattainment area to require some material or significant contribution to a violation in a nearby area. The Agency believes that it Is reasonable to

conclude that something greater than a molecular

impact is required.

adjustment, were placed in Group II; (3)

areas with a strong likelihood of

attaining the PM-lu NAAQS and,

therefore, needing adjustments only to

their preconstruction review program

and monitoring network, were placed in

Group 111 52 FR 24672, 24679-24682).

Pursuant to sections 107(d)(4)(B) and

188(a) of the Act, areas previously

identified as Group 1 (55 FR 45799,

October 31, 1990) and other areas which

had monitored violations of the PM-10

NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989 were,

by operation of law upon enactment of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

(Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399),

designated nonattainment and classified

as moderate for PM-10. Formal

codification in 40 CFR part 81 of those

areas was announced in a Federal

Register notice dated November 6, 1991

(56 FR 56694) (see also 57 FR 56762,

November 30, 1992). All other areas of

the country were designated

unclassifiable for PM-10 by operation of

law upon enactment of the 1990

Amendments (see section

107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act). In January and February of 1991, EPA

notified the Governors of those States

which recorded violations of the PM-10

standard after January 1, 1989 that EPA

believed that those areas should be

redesignated as nonattainment for PM10. In a Federal Register notice

published on April 22, 1991 (56 FR

16274), EPA identified those PM-1

areas for which EPA had notified the

Governors of affected States that the

area's PM-10 designation should be

revised to nonattainment. After

notification, the Governor of each

affected State was required to submit to

EPA the redesignation he or she

considered appropriate for each area.

The EPA proceeded to propose

redesignation to nonattainment 13 areas

for PM-lu in the September 22, 1992

Federal Register notice. - Today, EPA is taking final action to

redesignate as nonattainment for PM-10

10 of the areas previously proposed for

redesignation in the September 22, 1992

Federal Register notice. The EPA is

deferring action on two of the remaining

areas and is no longer taking action to

redesignate Bernalillo, New Mexico, to

nonattainment for PM-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 of the city of

Walla Walla, Washington. The 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 of these comments, has decided to

defer action on the areas at this time. A

more detailed explanation for why EPA

is deferring action on these areas is

provided in the "Response to

Comments" section below.

The 10 areas that EPA is taking final

action on in today'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

York County, New York; 3 (9) Oakridge,

Oregon; and (10) the city of Weirton,

West Virginia. These 10 areas are

classified as moderate PM-10

nonattainment areas by operation of law

at the time of their nonattainment

redesignation (see section 188(a) of the

Act). Note also that the complete

descriptions of the nonattainment

boundaries for these 10 areas are set out

in the regulatory language at the end of

today's notice.

The EPA received comments

concerning the redesignation of some of

these areas during the public comment

period provided in the September 22,

1992 Federal Register notice and has

provided a detailed response to these

comments in the "Response to

comments" section below.

B. SO2

Following the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977, EPA published a

list of areas identified by the States as

nonattainment, attainment, or

unclassifiable for SO2. The 1990

Amendments provided for designations

of areas based on their status

immediately before enactment of the

1990 Amendments. For example, any

area previously designated as not

attaining the primary or secondary S02

NAAQS as of the date of enactment of

the 1990 Amendments was designated

nonattainment for SO2 by operation of

law upon enactment, pursuant to

section 107(d)(1)(C)[i) of the Act. In

addition, any area designated as

attainment or unclassifiable (or "cannot

be classified") immediately before the

enactment of the 1990 Amendments was

also designated as such upon the

enactment of the Amendments pursuant

to sections 107(d)(1)(C) (ii) and (iii) of

the Act. For the current status of SO2

areas, readers should refer to the

codification tables currently set forth in

40 CFR part 81 (1991) and to any

- After EPA proposed its PM-10 nonattainment

redesignation for New York County, the Natural

Resources Defense Council filed a petition requesting that EPA promptly proceed to final

action. Today's final action disposes of that request.

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

subsequent modifications to those SO2

tables that have been published in the

Federal Register (see also 56 FR 56706,

November 6, 1991).

As described above, EPA is

authorized to initiate the redesignation

of additional areas (or portions thereof) as nonattainment for SO2, pursuant to

section 107(d)(3) of the Act, on the basis

of air 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 of an area and in establishing SO2

nonattainment boundaries that are

consistent with section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of

the Act.4 As indicated previously, a

nonattainment area is any area which

does not meet the relevant NAAQS or

which significantly contributes to a

violation of the relevant NAAQS in a

nearby area.

In January and February of 1991, EPA

notified the Governors of the affected

States that EPA believed that certain

areas should be redesignated as

nonattainment for SO2 due to violations

of the primary and secondary standards.

In a Federal Register notice published on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16274), EPA

identified those SO 2 areas 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 of each affected State was

required to submit to EPA the

redesignation he or she considered

appropriate for each area. In the

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 of the areas previously proposed for

redesignation in September 22, 1992

Federal Register notice. 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 of Columbia (General

Service Administration's Central

Heating Plant); (3) the District of

Columbia (General Service

Administration's West Heating Plant);

(4) Madison County, Illinois (part); and

(5) St. Clair County, Illinois (part). The

'The EPA believes that those tools which are reasonably reliable can be used in determining.

under section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, whether an area "does not meet" or "contributes to ambient air

quality in a nearby area that does not meet" the

relevant NAAQS (see also 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 of these comments has decided to

defer action on the areas at this 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

of Weirton, West Virginia and Warren

County, Pennsylvania (part). The EPA

did not receive any adverse comments

concerning the redesignation of these

areas during the 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 of the proposal. For those areas that EPA Is redesignating in today's

action, EPA has responded to the public

comments received and, as appropriate,

made modifications in light of such

comments. In certain instances, EPA is

deferring redesignation of areas. Where

EPA is deferring redesignation of an

area, EPA will publish its final

determination on the area in a separate

notice and will respond to relevant

public comments at that time.

A. PM-IO: Arizona-Portion of Gila

County

Comments were received contending

that the PM-IO violations recorded in

Payson were due to sources in the

vicinity of the monitoring equipment.

Comments were received requesting that

industryin the Payson area be further

evaluated to determine if compliance

with the PM-10 NAAQS can be

achieved through the current State

permitting programs. One commenter

requested that EPA delay the

designation of the area as nonattainment

until sufficient information became

available to evaluate the extent of the

problem in the area. One commenter

further contended that areawide

violations were not recorded which

would justify a nonattainment

designation for the area. This particular

commenter further contended that the

proposed boundaries of the

nonattainment area are unwarranted

and would constitute an extreme and

unnecessary hardship upon the area. The EPA notes that particulate matter

sampling has been conducted in Payson

since 1974. A monitor measuring total

suspended particulates (TSP) s began

operation in downtown Payson in 1974.

Significant violations of the TSP

NAAQS were recorded annually until

1977 when the monitoring site was

relocated to the Tonto National Forest

Ranger Station, 2 miles north of the

original site. In 1980, the monitor was

again relocated to the original site and

again recorded significant annual

violations of the TSP NAAQS through

1986. In 1987, PM-10 monitoring was

begun and violations of both the 24 hour

PM-10 NAAQS and the annual were

recorded in 1989 and 1990. These

violations thus provided an ample basis

for proceeding with a nonattainment

designation for Payson (see section 107

(d)(1)(A)(i), (d)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR

50.6).

That commenters contended that

some monitors in the area have not

recorded violations, and that Payson

may only have a localized problem,

does not change the fact that Payson has

violated the PM-10 NAAQS and should

therefore be designated nonattainment.

Rather, these comments are relevant to

the scope and nature of the PM-10

nonattainment problem. These issues

are precisely what the SIP development

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 or rely on the State permitting

process instead of designating the area

nonattainment. The Act calls for States

containing areas designated

nonattainment to submit to EPA for

approval a plan that will expeditiously

bring the area back into attainment.

During the SIP development process,

comprehensive emissions inventory

data will be collected and monitors and

modeling will be employed to assess the

scope and nature of the problem and

reasonable measures will be

implemented to address the problem

(see, e.g., sections 189(a), 172(c), and

110(a)(2) of the Act). The Act provides

for EPA review of the SIP to assess its

sufficiency and to make it federally

enforceable (see, e.g., sections 110(k),

302(q), and 113 of the Act).

The Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

conducted a special monitoring study in

1990 to, among other objectives, identify

the sources (both point and area) that

s Total suspended particulates (TSP) was the

original air quality indicator for the NAAQS for

particulate matter. The TSP was a measurement of

all particulate matter in the ambient air, regardless of size. In July 1987, EPA revised the NAAQS for

particulate matter to include only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-i).

67336 Federal Register / Vol. 58,

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

contribute to the high PM-10

concentrations in Payson. The results of

that study indicate that the highest PM10 concentrations occur in the winter

months and that residential wood

combustion, an areawide PM-10 air

quality problem, is the 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 of particular point sources.

Further, in January 1991, EPA

provided the State of Arizona with

notification that Payson should be

redesignated to nonattainment 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 in the

September 22, 1992 Federal Register

notice. The EPA has not been informed

by the State that the nonattainment

redesignation for the area should be

changed. In redesignating an area to

nonattainment, EPA accords significant

deference to the State's judgment unless

further information is received which

indicates that modifications to the

State's submittal are necessary (see, e.g.,

section 107(d)(3) of the Act).

Furthermore, EPA has the authority

under section 110(k)(6) of the Act to

correct the boundaries of a

nonattainment area where, for example.

SIP equivalent information submitted to

EPA reveals that the previous

boundaries were in error (see 56 FR

37656, notes 6-7 (August 8. 1991). and

57 FR 56762-63 (November 30, 1992)).

For example, EPA would consider

exercising its authority under section

110(k)(6) if the SIP development process

reveals that the boundaries issued today

are clearly inappropriate and other

information persuasively supports a

change.

Portion of Mohave County

In its proposal to redesignate a

portion of Mohave County, Arizona, as

nonattainment for PM-10, EPA

requested information addressing

whetherand to what extent the Mohave

Power Plant (MPP) in Laughlin, Nevada,

contributes to the PM-10 nonattainment

problem and the appropriateness of the

proposed nonattainment boundaries for

Mohave County in light of any such

information (57 FR 43848). The Nevada

Bureau of Air Quality (NBAQ) and the

Southern California Edison Company

(SCE), operators and co-owners of the

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

1 percent impact on annual average

ambient PM-10 levels in 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 of the 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 of soil

dust, but that MPP operations cover

only a small fraction of the local area

and water is applied to minimize

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) of the Act to correct the

boundaries of this nonattainment area If,

for example, information obtained in the

SIP development process reveals4hat

the boundaries issued today are in error.

The EPA also received comments

from SCE and NBAQ contending that

the violations monitored in Mohave

County were due to exceptional events

and that EPA should not proceed with

a designation for this area on the basis

of such data.

On July 26, 1990, ADEQ informed

EPA that an exceedance of the 24-hour

PM-10 NAAQS was recorded in

Bullhead City in 1989. The data were

from a monitoring site operated by DRI

for SCE. Sampling is conducted once

every 6 days (see, e.g., section 3.1 of 40

CFR part 50, appendix K). Additionally,

ADEQ reported that the annual PM-10

NAAQS was violated in 1989. In its

letter to EPA, ADEQ stated that although

it had no input into the selection of the

monitoring site, based on its

observations, the site appeared to be

representative of the central Bullhead

City area. Further, ADEQ reviewed a

summary of DRI's quality assurance

program and found it to be satisfactory.

The NBAQ claimed that there were

elevated wind speeds on 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 to the 24-hour

NAAQS exceedance in 1991.

Section 2.4 of 20 CFR part 50,

appendix K, has been partially

superseded by the changes made to the

Act in the 1990 Amendments (see

section 193 of the Act). Section 2.4

defines an exceptional event as an

uncontrollable event caused by natural

sources of particulate matter or an event

that is not expected to recur at a given

location.

The 1990 Amendments added section

188(f) to the Act which authorizes the

waiver of certain PM-10 requirements

based on the nonanthropogenic

contribution to the PM-10 problem in

the area (see draft guidance announced

in 57 FR 31477, July 16, 1992). The

premise of section 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 if EPA

did not designate areas on this basis.6

Thus, recurrence alone, and not the

source of the exceedance, remains

relevant in determining whether an

exceedance qualifies as an "exceptional

event" under section 2.4.

The commenters did not provide

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, if so, the magnitude of

the contribution from these sources [see

Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d

839, 846-48 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding

EPA's rejection of public 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 of these

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 their contribution to PM-10 air

quality problems. Accordingly, EPA

believes that the available air quality

data provide an ample basis to proceed

with a nonattainment designation for

the Bullhead City area. Further, the

sSee U.S. v. Nordic Village, -Inc.. 112 S.ct. 1011,

1015 (1992) (rejecting a statutory interpretation that

"violates the settled rule that a statute must. if

possible, be construed in a fashion that every word

has some operative effect") (citation omitted):

Boisie Cascade Corp. v. EPA. 942 F.2d 1427, 1432

(9th Cir. 1992) ('luinder accepted canons of

statutory interpretation, we must interpret statutes

as a whole, giving effect to each word and making

every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute

inconsistent, meaningless or superfluous") (citation

omitted).

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

State of Arizona has recommended that

EPA redesignate this area as

nonattainment for PM-1 (see section

107(d)(3)(C) of the Act).

California-Sacramento County

The EPA received a comment'

contending that the PM-10

concentrations of 155 pg/m3 measured

at the Stockton Boulevard monitoring site in 1989, and a measured exceedance

of 153 jig/m3 at the Citrus Heights site

in 1990, were both marginal

exceedanres of the NAAQS for PM-10,

and should not be used as a basis for

redesignating Sacramento County to

nonattainment.

Pursuant to 40 CFR, part 50, appendix

K, an exceedance is defined as a value

which is measured above the level of

the 24-hour standard after rounding to

the nearest 10 gg/m3 (i.e., values ending

in 5 or greater are rounded up). Therefore, the PM-10 concentration of

153 pg/m3 measured at the Citrus

Heights site would not be considered as

an exceedance of the PM-10 NAAQS.

However, the PM-10 concentration of

155 pg/m3 is considered to be an

exceedance of the 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 of air quality, the

attainment and maintenance of which,

based on air quality criteria reflecting

the latest scientific knowledge and

allowing for an adequate margin of

safety, is requisite to the protection of

the public health (see sections 108 and

109 of the Act). The NAAQS is a

designated level, not a designated range,

of PM-10 above which the air quality is

considered unhealthy. The commenter also contended that

the PM-10 exceedance of 187 pg/m 3

measured at the Del Paso Manor

monitoring site in 1990 occurred due to

extremely cold temperatures which led

to an unusual number of fireplaces

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 be considered as a basis for

redesignation of the Sacramento County

area to nonattainment.

The commenter, In this instance, has

conceded that, residential wood

combustion contributed to the measured

exceedances of the NAAQS for PM-10.

The commenter also concedes that the

exceedances were due to the operation

of a large number of residential wood

stoves in a highly populated area which

poses a significant public health risk.

The purpose of the SIP process is

basically to identify and control such

sources of PM-10 that contribute to

violations of the 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 Air at 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 of the area is necessary,

only the portion of Sacramento County

where the exceedances were measured

should be redesignated.

The EPA provided the State of

California with notification that

Sacramento County should be

redesignated to nonattainment in

January of 1991 (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 policy to use county boundaries as the default, though procedures set forth in EPA's guidance

documents may also be applied. Given the

nature of the emission sources contributing

to California's PM-10 problems, we tend to

think that large nonattainment boundaries are appropriate for planning purposes. We

would like an opportunity 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 as the

basis for its rulemaking. The EPA

receive no further comments from the

State, and therefore proceeded to

propose Sacramento County as the,

nonattainment boundaries for the 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 monitor recording the PM10 violation(s) is located. The EPA has

presumed that such boundaries would

include both the area violating the PM-10

NAAQS and any area 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, consistent with

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 of the area of

representativeness of the monitoring

station, together with consideration of

terrain, meteorological, and sources of

emissions; (2) spatial interpolation of air

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 of this 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 of the 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 of Sacramento.

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 of the city of

Sacramento.

In addition, monitoring data from

1989, 1990, and 1991 indicate that

Sacramento County has experienced

elevated levels of PM-10. In several

cases (described below), these levels

represented greater than or equal to 80

percent of the PM-10 NAAQS. These

observed concentrations do not

represent exceedances of the PM-10

NAAQS. Nevertheless, these data were

67338 Federal Register / Vol. 58,

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

collected from five different monitoring

sites in the County and provide

additional evidence of the scope of

elevated PM-10 concentrations in the

County.

Elevated PM-10 Concentrations in

Sacramento County

1989

Site 06-067-0001: 139 pg/m3

Site 06-067-0002:125 PWM3

Site 06-067-0006: 142 PrM3

Site 06--067-0283: 120 pgm3

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 of the 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 of ambient 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) of the Act to

correct the boundaries of a

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 for the

consideration of further information on

this issue.

Finally, PM-10 air quality problems

are generally areawide. The commenter

concerned about the scope of the

boundaries indicated that residential

wood combustion contributed to at least

one of the air quality exceedances

monitored and also indicated that PM10 levels in the area are affected by

motor vehicle emissions. These are

precisely the types of sources that give

rise to broader areawide PM-10 air

quality problems.

Colorado-Portion of Routt County

The State of Colorado submitted

comments indicating that on May 28,

1991, the Routt County Commissioners

adopted a PM-10 nonattainment

boundary for a portion of Routt County

which included the city of Steamboat

Springs, as well as certain surrounding

areas in Routt County. The adoption

incorporated a map indicating the

boundary of the area in question.

Subsequently, on June 20, 1991, this

boundary was adopted by the Colorado

Air Quality Control Commission. The

State requested that EPA issue a final

boundary consistent with that adopted

by the State. In today's final action, EPA

has adopted a final boundary for the

affected portion of Routt County that is

consistent with the State's

recommendation and is taking final

action to redesignate the area.

Idaho-Kootenai County

The EPA received many comments on

its proposed nonattainment

redesignation for this area. The EPA is

still assessing these comments and is

not making a final decision at this time.

The EPA expects to make a final

decision for this area within the next

few months and will issue a notice in

the Federal Register announcing its

final decision at that time.

Idaho-Part of Shoshone County

The 1990 Amendments authorize a

State, on its own initiative, to submit to

EPA a revised designation for an area in

that State (see section 107(d)(3)(D)). The

city of Pinehurst, a portion of Shoshone

County, was designated nonattainment

for PM-10 by operation of la* upon

enactment of the 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 this area to

include additional townships along the

Silver Valley (see 56 FR 37658 (August

8, 1991)). In the September 22, 1992

proposal for today'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 in part rescinding its request to

expand the PM-10 nonattainment area

boundary for Pinehurst. The IDEQ

requested that EPA expand the

boundary to include an area just slightly

larger than the city of Pinehurst. The

IDEQ indicated that during the SIP

development process for the city of

Pinehurst it obtained information that

allowed it to further refine the PM-10

nonattainment boundary for this area.

Because the State has withdrawn 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

more circumscribed boundary requested

by the State which includes an area

slightly larger than the city of Pinehurst.

The EPA also notes that the State has

indicated to EPA that the moderate PM10 SIP developed for the city of

Pinehurst covers the slightly expanded

boundary. The EPA will assess this

during its review of the moderate area

SIP for the city of Pinehurst. The

moderate area plan for Pinehurst is

ultimately approved by EPA, and it

covers the expanded areas outside the

city, then it would be unnecessary for

the State to submit a separate moderate

area plan addressing the area

encompassed in the slightly expanded

boundary.

New Mexico-Bernalillo County

In the proposal for today's action,

EPA indicated that the city of

Albuquerque provided information

demonstrating that since a 1989

exceedance of the annual PM-10

NAAQS, the same site (#35-001-1013 or

"the Alameda site") had monitored a

downward trend in the annual values

(57 FR 43848). 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 in the

area. Nevertheless, EPA proceeded with

proposing-the designation because

certain measures taken to reduce PM-10

had not been submitted to EPA as a SIP

revision and, therefore, EPA had no way

of ensuring that the measures would be

permanent and federally enforceable.

Since the proposal, the State of New

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 of certain

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

the city of Albuquerque. Section

107(d)(3)(A) of the Act provides that,

among other things, "planning and

control considerations' dre relevh..t in

determining whether the Administrator

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 1993
67340 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

for this area. 7 Further, an assessment of

recent data indicates that the downward

trend of the 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 this area as

nonattainment at a later date should

information reveal a PM-10 air quality

problem with either the 24-hour or

annual NAAQS. In fact, in the

September 22, 1992 proposal, EPA

specifically indicated that it was aware

of potential violations of the 24-hour

NAAQS in Albuquerque and was

assessing the situation. The EPA is

continuing to review this issue.

Washington-Part of Benton; 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

not making a final decision regarding

the redesignation of this action at this

time. The EPA expects to make 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. Sulfur Dioxide: District of

Columbia-Two Areas in Washington,

DC

The EPA received a comment from a

commenter who contended that the area

within a 1 kilometer range of the

General Services Administration's

(GSA) central heating plant and the area

within 1.5 kilometers of GSA's west

heating plant should not be

redesignated to nonattainment until

EPA and the District of Columbia have

completed the process of negotiating a

compliance plan with GSA. The

aforementioned compliance plan is

required under the terms of the

enforceable compliance agreement

entered into by EPA, the District of

Columbia, and GSA. It is the District's

intention to incorporate the terms of the

final compliance plan and compliance

agreement, along with a technical

analysis, demonstrating that the

emissions from GSA's two heating

plants no longer cause violations of the

NAAQS for S02 into a formal SIP

revision to be submitted to EPA.

As previously stated in the September

22, 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR

23846), EPA proceeded with the

' Note also that "planning and control

considerations" have Informed EPA's decision to

defer action on the S0 2 areas discussed below.

redesignation of the two areas

surrounding the GSA heating plants

because the District of Columbia had not

submitted the aforementioned SIP

revision to EPA. Since the date of the

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 the areas by October 31,

1993. This SIP revision consists of

requirements to reduce emissions at the

sources in question and provide an

attainment demonstration for the area.

Therefore, EPA has decided not to

finalize the redesignation to

nonattainment at this time, pending

review of the forthcoming SIP

submission. The EPA reserves the right

t- finalize the proposed redesignation of

the area if the SIP revision submitted by

the District of Columbia is ultimately

disapproved by EPA.

Illinois-Portion of Madison and St.

Clair Counties

The EPA received several comments

addressing its proposed SO2

nonattainment redesignations for

portions of these two counties. At the

outset of the redesignation process, EPA

notified the Governor of Illinois that,

based upon available information, EPA

believed that Madison and St. Clair

Counties should be redesignated

nonattainment for SO2 (56 FR 16274,

April 22, 1991). In the State's response,

it largely agreed with EPA (see, e.g., 57

FR 43846). 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 of these 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 to EPA in the form

of a SIP revision by October 31, 1993,

and as far in advance of that date as

possible. Therefore, the State has

requested that EPA not proceed with the

nonattainment designation for these

areas at this time. Others commenting

on behalf of industry in these areas took

a similar position to that of IEPA.8

The EPA is deferring final action at

this time on the nonattainment

sOne commenter raised additional issues

including allegations about the procedures and

technical basis associated with EPA's proposed

redesignation for the affected portion of Madison

County. Because, as indicated below, EPA is not

taking final action on this area at this 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, if the State does not submit

the SIP revision for these areas by the

October 31, 1993 commitment date

which addresses the SO2 air quality

problem in these areas, EPA intends to

assess whether a nonattainment

redesignation for these areas should be

finalized and would likely proceed with

such a final redesignation at that time.

Pennsylvania-Portion of Allegheny

County

As stated in the September 22, 1992

Federal Register notice (57 FR 23846),

EPA's rationale for proposing

redesignation of the portion of

Allegheny County inclusive of Lincoln,

Liberty, Glassport, and Port Vue

Boroughs and the city of Clairton to

nonattainment is due to monitored

violations of the 24-hour standard for

SO2 . The 24-hour standard was violated

in 1986 and 1988.

The commenters contend that the

principle source of SO2 emissions in the

proposed nonattainment area, U.S.

Steel-Clairton Works, has invested a

substantial amount of money and effort

into making enhancements to its coke

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 of U.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 of the

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.

In response 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 of Pennsylvania and Allegheny

County as it codifies these significant

improvements to the desulfurization

facility into the federally-approved SIP

for Allegheny County (through the

Pennsylvania SIP). However, EPA

retains the right to finalize the proposed

redesignation of the area !f Allegheny

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

County does not submit a SIP revision

for the "Clairton area" as expeditiously

as possible.

IV. Significance of Today's Action

A. Significance for PM-1O

Areas redesignated as nonattainment

in today's action are subject to the

applicable requirements of part D, title

I of the Act and will be classified as

moderate by operation of law [see

section 188(a) of the Act]. Within 18

months of the redesignation, the State is

required to submit to EPA an

implementation plan for the area

containing, among other things, the

following requirements: (1) Provisions

to assure that reasonably available

control measures (including reasonably

available control technology) are

implemented within 4 years of the

redesignation; (2) a permit program meeting the requirements of section 173

governing the construction and

operation of new and modified major

stationary sources of PM-10; (3)

quantitative milestones which are to be

achieved every 3 years until 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 the plan will provide for

attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than the end of the sixth calendar year

after the 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) of the Act]. The EPA has

issued detailed guidance on the

statutory requirements applicable to

moderate PM-10 nonattainment area

(see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and

57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)).

The State is also required to submit

contingency measures, pursuant to

section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which are

to take effect without further action by

the State or EPA, upon a determination

by EPA that an area has failed to make

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 of contingency measures as

called for in section 172(b) of the Act.

The affected States are to submit

contingency measures for the areas

redesignated nonattainment for PM-10

in today'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 of the Act (see section 191(a) of the

Act). The implementation plans must

provide for attainment of the S0 2

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,

but no later than 5 years from the date

of the final nonattainment designation

[see section 192(a) of the Act]. As with

PM-10, EPA has issued detailed

guidance on the development of SIP's

for SO 2 nonattainment areas that are

consistent with part D, title I of the Act

(see 57 FR 13498).

VI. Miscellaneous

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small 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 of an area to

nonattainment under section 107(d)(3)

of the Act does not impose any new

requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects

the status of a geographical area and

does not impose any regulatory

requirements on sources. To the extent

that an affected State must adopt new

regulations, based on an area's

nonattainment status, EPA will review

the effect that those actions have on

small entities at the time the State

submits those regulations. I certify that

the redesignation action announced

today will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed as provided by

section 307(b)(1) of the Act within

February 22, 1994. Filing an

administrative petition for

reconsideration of the rule for purposes

of judicial review nor extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

-review of the rule may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

the rule (see section 307(b)(1)). This

action may not be challenged in any

subsequent proceedings to enforce its

requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

VII. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 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 for part 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" and by

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

Gb County (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. Sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33 of R11E.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67341 1993
67342 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 January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 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 in the January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. January 20, 1994 Moderate.

Searles Valley Planning area, and excluding that area in the 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:

j 81.306 Colorado.

*t * b *t *

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67342 1993
Federal 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 on May 28. 1991 and the Colorado Air

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 of Shoshone County excluding 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 quarter of 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 of Plnehurst ................................. 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:

f 8.327 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 1993
67344 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 1993
Federal 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....................... ..................... W arren Boro ................................................................................... x PleasantTwp ............................ x............... x Glade Twp ......................................................................................... 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 West VlrgInla.

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 and Clay:

Magisterial Districts ........................................................................... x x

Rem ainder of State .......................................................................... .. ........................... .. ......................... ............. ........... x

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 67345 1993