Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

nearest 1 Ig/m 3 before comparison with

the annual primary'standard (fractional

values equal to or greater than 0.5 are to

be rounded up)." is corrected to read

"The expected annual arithmetic mean

is rounded to the nearest 1 pg/m3 before

comparison with the anual standards

(fractional values equal to or greater

than 0.5 are to be rounded up).".

18. On page 24667, Column 3, Section

3.0 of Appendix K, change

"Computational formulas for the 24-hour

standard" to "Computational formulas

for the 24-hour standards".

19. On page 24668, column 1, line 17 of

Appendix K, change "q" to "q" and line

24, change "years" to "year".

20. On page 24668, the following

formulas in Appendix K are

corrected:

Formula (2) is corrected to read

4

e =t£ eq

formula (3) is corrected to read

m

eq - (Nq/mq) x Eq (vj/kj)

j=l

formula (4) is corrected to read

nq xq= (1/n.) x q xi

and lines 6 and 7 under formula (4)

which read "x1 =the ith concentration

value recorded in the quarter." are

corrected to read "xi= the ith

concentration value recorded in the

quarter.".

formula (5) is corrected to read

4

= (1/4)'x Z

q=1

21. On page 24669, column 2, line 4 of

Appendix K, change "means" to "mean".

22. On page 24669 of Appendix K, the

formula which reads

k = (1/4) x (52.4 + 75.3 + 82.1 + 63.2 = 68.25

or 68.3

is corrected to read

k = (1/4) x (52.4 + 75.3 +82.1 + 63.2 = 68.25

or 68.3

23. On page 24669, formula (6) in

Appendix K is corrected.to read

7q :.(l/mq) X r EJ (xij/kj)

j=1 i=

[FR Doc. 87-17983 Filed 8-6-87; 8:45 am)

BILUNG CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[AD-FRL-3244-6J

PM,o Group I and Group II Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: List of PMo Group I and Group

II areas.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1987, the EPA

promulgated national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter with an aerometric

diameter of a nominal 10 micron of less

(PM 0) (see 52 FR 24634). The EPA also

promulgated policies and regulations by

which it will implement the PMo

NAAQS (52 FR 24672). In accordance

with these policies. EPA' has categorized

areas of the Nation into three groups

based on the likelihood that the existing

State implementation plan (SIP) must be

revised to protect the PMo NAAQS.

Areas with a strong likelihood of

violating the. PMo NAAQS and requiring

substantial SIP revisions were placed in

Group I; areas where, attainment of the

PMo NAAQS is uncertain and the SIP

may require only slight adjustment were

placed in Group II; and areas with a

strong likelihood of attaining the PM~o

NAAQS, and therefore probably having

an adequate control strategy, were

placed in Group 11.

By this notice; EPA is identifying the

Group I and Group II areas in each

State. The remainder of the State not in

Group I or II is placed in Group II.

ADDRESSES: Information supporting the

placement of each area in Group I, II, or

III can be obtained from the respective

EPA Regional Office which services the

particular State. The addresses of the

Regional Offices are:

- State Air-Programs Branch, EPA,

Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts 02203.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New

York 10278.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

I1, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta,

Georgia 30365.

9 Air and Radiation Branch, EPA,

Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

VI, Allied Bank Tower, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

0 Air Branch, EPA, Region VII, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 1300 Denver,

Colorado 80202-2413.

* Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region

IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco,

California, 94105.

* Air Programs Branch. EPA, Region

X, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Kenneth Woodard, Standards

Implementation Branch (MD-15), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,,

Research Triangle Park; North Carolina

27711. Telephone: (919) 541-5351 (FTS

629-5351).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 1,,1987 (52 FR 24672), EPA

promulgated in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

policies and regulations by which it will

implement the PMo NAAQS. The EPA's

policies for developing SIP's for PM1o are

discussed fully in section IV.C. of the

preamble to that Federal Register (52 FR

24679). Also as noted in that preamble,

section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(Act) requires that each State adopt and

submit,.within 9 months after revision of

a NAAQS, a SIP providing for

attainment and maintenance of the

primary NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than 3 years

from the date EPA approves the SIP.

Due to a lack of PMo ambient

monitoring data, EPA considered

different ways of implementing this

requirement, including simply calling

upon States to develop and submit a full

PMo attainment demonstration and

control strategy for every area of the

country within the 9-month period. The

EPA believes, however, that such a

requirement would be unreasonable in

many areas. An analysis of ambient

total suspended particulate (TSP) data

for 1984-1986 in conjunction with the

methodology described in EPA's

"probability guideline" (Procedures for

Estimating Probability of Nonattainment

of a PMo NAAQS Using Total

29383

HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 29383 1987
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Suspended Particulate Matter or PMo

Data, EPA 450/4--86-017) indicates that

there could be from 50 to 150 counties in

which the PMo NAAQS will not be

attained. While these numbers are the

best indication at this time of the

potential nonattainment situation for

PMo, they are only estimates-and will

probably change as new ambient PM 0

data become available. The estimates

are, however, useful as an indication of

the degree of PMo SIP development that

may eventually be necessary. The key

point is that many of the 3141 counties

in the Nation may need no additional

particulate matter SIP provisions to

meet the revised NAAQS. Thus, for

many areas, the existing TSP SIP's may

already provide for timely attainment

and maintenance of the PMo NAAQS.

To call upon areas that almost certainly

have adequate SIP's to resubmit those

SIP's along with full attainment

demonstrations would be unnecessary

and therefore wasteful of limited State resources.1

There are, also, several areas where

available data indicate that air quality

may be close to the level of the NAAQS.

Many of these areas'may actually, be

shown, with more ambient data, to be in

attainment or may need only minor SIP

changes. Therefore, EPA believes that a.- demand for immediate submissions of

attainment demonstrations and control

strategies for all of these areas is

unreasonable when additional PM~o air

quality data could provide a more clear

picture of the status of the area. On the

other hand, due to applicable Act

requirements and the potential

environmental risk, the Administrator

did not consider it reasonable to permit

delay in the development of PM 0

control programs for areas with severe

air quality problems until adequate PMo

data were available to show that the

area was violating the PM1o NAAQS.

For the reasons given immediately

above, EPA adopted a policy by which it

is dividing all areas of the country into

three categories: (1) Areas with a strong

likelihood of violating the PMo NAAQS

and requiring substantial SIP adjustment

(Group I), (2) areas where attainment of

the standards is possible and existing

SIP's probably need less adjustment

(Group It), and (3) areas with a strong

likelihood of attaining the PMo NAAQS

and therefore needing only adjustments

Developing a sound attainment demonstration ta

generally resource intensive. It requires an in-depth

study of the emission characteristics of specific sources in the demonstration area and a thorough

evaluation of the anticipated effects of various

emission levels from those sources. The EPA

estimates it could require up to 4 work years and

$250,000 to develop a SIP for each area found to be

violating the NAAQS.

.to the applicable prevention of

significant deterioration/new source

review (PSD/NSR) and monitoring

:provisions in their SIP's (Group III).

The EPA used a three-step 1process to

categorize areas into Groups 1, I, and

III. First, where only ambient TSP data

or limited amounts of PMo data were

available, EPA in cooperation with State

agencies used those data and the

probability guideline to classify areas•

preliminarily as Group I, II, or I-II.The

EPA presumed that, at a minimum, the'

(1) areas with a probability of not

attaining the PMo standard of at least

95 percent fit into Group 1, (2) areas with

a probability of between 20 and 95

percent fit into Group II, and (3) areas

with a probability of less than 20

percent fit into Group III.

Second, EPA's Regional Offices, after.

consulting with the appropriate State

and local agencies, evaluated the

existing TSP SIP's, available existing

source data, and other relevant

information for each area in their

jurisdiction (1) to see whether

information other than the probability of

nonattainment justified changing the

group for an area, and (2) to determine'

the appropriate group for areas: that the

,EPA could not classify under the first

step because ambient TSP data'were

unavailable.

Third, to insure national consistency,

all grouping was reviewed by

representatives of EPA's Headquarters

staff and Regional Offices.

The EPA has completed the process of

categorizing areas and the Group I and

II areas are listed by State in the

following section of this notice. Any

area of a State not listed as Group I or II

is considered to be in Group II.

The requirements and schedules for

developing PMo SIP's are different for

Group I, II, and III areas. Immediate

action to develop a full SIP that will

bring about attainment and maintenance

of the PMo NAAQS is required for

Group I areas because they have a strong likelihood of violating the

NAAQS and requiring substantial

revision of the existing SIP. Since the

attainment status of Group II areas is

uncertain, time is allowed for additional

monitoring of ambient PM1o

concentrations before revision of the

existing control strategy is required.

Group III areas have a strong likelihood

of attaining the PMo NAAQS.

Therefore, for Group III areas, the State

need only submit SIP revisions for, the

preconstruction review program and

monitoring network (52 FR 24681) within

9 months. The requirements for SIP

development for each group are

discussed fully at 52 FR 24680-24682.

The Group I and II areas of concern

are generally described below as a

county, a township, or a planning area.'

These descriptions are only the initial

definitions of the areas that must be

investigated in the SIP development

process. In the process of monitoring

and modeling PMo concentrations and

determining the extent of sources of

PMo emissions that impact the areas,

the States will better define the

boundaries of the area that is or may be

violating the standards.

In 1977, Congress added section

107(d)(1J to the Act which required EPA

to designate areas as nonattainment,

unclassifiable, or attainment for the

NAAQS existing at that time. In 40 CFR

Part 81, EPA made such designations for

TSP. Since the PMIo NAAQS is being

implemented under the provisions of

section 110 of the Act, such designations

are not necessary for PMo. Thus, EPA

.will not make such designations for

PMo (see 52 FR 24682). However, EPA

will retain the TSP designations to "

implement the requirements of Part C of

the Act relating to PSD (see 52 FR

24685).

II. List of Areas

Separate lists of Group I and Group II areas follow. They are listedby county

within each State. The area of concern

or planning area within the county is

specified where appropriate.

GROUP I AREAS

State and Area of Concern Counties

Alaska:

Anchorage....

Juneau ...........

Arizona:

Cochise.

Pinal ...............

Gila ..............

Mancopa.

Yuma .............

Pima ...............

California:

InyO ................

Mono .............

Fresno ...........

Kern ...............

Kings ..............

Tulare.

Los Angeles.

California:

Orange ..........

Riverside.

San

Bernardino.

Imperial ..........

Colorado:

Archuleta.

Adams ...........

Denver ..........

Arapahoe.

Jefferson.

San Miguel....

Prowers.

Pillion ............

Anchorage.

Juneau.

Paul Spur/Douglas area.

Hayden/Miami area and Phoenix plating

area. Hayden/Miami area.

Phoenix planning area.

Yuma planning area.

Ruto planning area.

,Owens Valley planning area and Searles

Valley planning area

Mammoth Lakes planning area.

San Joau Valley. San Joaquin Valley and Searles Valley planning area.

San Joaquin Valley.

San Joaquin Valley.

LA metropolitan area.

LA metropolitan area.

South Coast Air Basin and Coachella

Valley.

South Coast Air Basin and Searles, Valley

planning area.

imperial Valley planning area and Yuma

planning area.

Pagosa Springs.

Denver metropolitan area. i

Denver metropolitan area.

Denver metropolitan area..

Denver metropolitan area.

Tellunde.

Lamer.

Aspen.

29364

HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 29384 1987
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

GROUP I AREAS-Continued

State and

Counties Area of Concern

Fremont . Canyon City.

Connecticut:

New Haven.. Interstate 95 corridor.

Fairfield . Interstate 95 corridor.

Idaho:

Ada ............... Boise.

Shoshone . Pinehurst.

Bonner .......... Sandpoint.

Bannock . Pocatello.

Power ........... Pocatello.

Illinois:

Madison . County. Cook ............. County.

Indiana:

Lake ............. County. Porter ............ County. Maine:

Aroostook Presque Isle.

Michigan:

Wayne .......... County.

Minnesota:

Ramsey . County.

Montana:

Flathead . Kalispell.

Uncon .......... Ubby.

Lake .............. Ronan. Poison.

Missoula . Missoula.

Rosebud . Lame Deer.

Silver Bow. Butte.

Nevada:

Washoe. Reno planning area. Clark ............. L Las Vegas planning area. New Mexico:

Dona Ana . County. Ohio:

Cuyahoga . County.

Jefferson . County.

Oregon:

Jackson . Medford and White City.

Josephine . Grants Pass. Lane .............. Eugene and Springfield.

Klamath. Klamath Falls.

Texas:

El Paso ......... County.

Utah:

Salt Lake . Salt Lake metropolitan area and Magna.

Utah .............. Provo.

West Virginia: Brooke .......... Follansbee area. Washington: King .............. Seattle metrep;oitan area. Pierce ........... Tacoma metropolitan area. Spokane . Spokane.

Yakima ......... Yakima.

Thurston . Lacey. Walla Walla... Wallula.

Wyoming:

Sheridan. Sheridan.

GROUP II AREAS

State and Area of concern counties

Alabama:

Jefferson.

Alaska:

Fairbanks.

Arizona:

Coconino.

Graham.

Navajo ...........

Apache ..........

Santa Cruz....

Pina ...............

Cochise.

Pinal ...............

California:

Santa Clara..

San Joaquin..

Stanislaus.

Kern ...............

Los Angeles.

Colorado:

Adams ...........

Boulder ..........

Delta ..............

Eagle .............

El Paso ..........

North Birmingham and Leeds

Fairbanks.

Flagstaff planning area.

Safford planning area.

Show Low and Joseph City planning areas.

Show Low planning area.

Nogales planning area.

Ajo and Tucson planning areas.

Tucson planning area.

Casa Grande planning area.

County.

County.

County.

Southeast Desert Air Basin.

Southeast Desert Air Basin.

Brighton.

Longmont.

Delta.

Vail.

Colorado Springs.

GROUP II AREAS-Continued

State ad Area of concern counties

Garfield. Glenwood Springs. Rifle.

Gunnison . Crested Butte.

Routt .............. Steamboat Springs.

Mesa .............. Grand Junction. Fruits.

Weld . Greeley.

Guam: Piti .... County.

Idaho: Caribou.. Cond.

Illinois:

LaSalle ........... Oglesby.

Randolph . Baldwin.

Macon ........... Decatur.

Rock Island... Rock Island, Moline.

Will................ Joliet.

St. Clair. East St Louis.

DuPage .......... Addison.

Indiana:

Marion ........... Subpart of Indianapolis.

Vigo ................ Terre Haute.

Iowa:

Cerro Gordo. Mason City.. Unn ................ Cedar Rapids.

Polk ................ Des Moinea.

Kansas: Kansas City.

Wyandotte

Kentucky., Cattletsburg and Ashland.

Boyd.

Maryland: Baltimore.

Baltimore.

Michigan: . Saginaw . Carrollton.

Monroe .......... Monroe.

Minnesota:

Hennepin . Minneapolis.

St. Louis . Duluth and Iron Range. Itasca ........... Iron Range.

Lake ............... Two Harbors twp. Steams .......... St. Cloud twp.

Montana:

Blaine ............ Hays. Flathead . Columbia Falls.

Deer Lodge... Anaconda.

Lewis & Helena.

Clark.

Sanders . Thompson Falls.

Lincoln........... Eureka.

Nebraska:'

Cass. .............. Weeping Water.

Douglas . Omaha.

Nevada:

Lander ........... Battle Mountain area. Humbolt . Battle Mountain area. Elko ................ Battle Mountain area. Eureka ........... Battle Mountain ares. New Jersey

Hudson .......... Jersey City. Camden . Camden.

New York: Solvay.

Onondaga.

New Mexico:

Bernalillo . County.

Grant . County.

Santa Fe. County.

Sandoval . County.

Taos ............... County.

Ohio:

Wyandot . Carey.

Scioto ............ New Boston.

Trumbul . Warren, Howland twp.

Lorain ............ Sheffield twp.

Butler ............. Middletown.

Seneca .......... Thompson twp. Sandusky . Jackson twp.

Belmont . Martins Ferry.

Colum- East Liverpool. bianna.

Franklin . Columbus.

Hamilton . Cincinnati.

Mahoning . Youngstown.

Montgomery.. Dayton.

Richand . Mansfield.

Stark .............. Canton.

Summit .......... Akron.

Oklahoma: County.

Comanche.

Oregon: Deschutea. Bond.

Multnomah... Portland.

Union ............ La Grande. Lane .............. Oakridge. Pennsylvania:

Allegheny . County.

GROUP II AREAS-Continued

State and

counties Area of concern

Philadelphia. Erie ................

Lawrence.

Mercer .........

Puerto Rico:

San Juan.

South Dakota:

Pennington,

Texas:

Dallas ...........

Harris ............

Lubbock.

Nueces.

Virg inia:

Buchanan. West Virginia:

Hancock.

Brooke.........

Washington:

Benton ..........

King ..............

Wisconsin:

Brown ...........

Milwaukee..

Waukesha.

Douglas.

Dane ........

Wyomi g FremonL

Bridesburg-Port Richmond.

County.

County.

County.

San Juan.

Rapid City.

County.

County.

County.

County.

County.

county.

Remainder of county not In Group 1.

Kennewick.

Bellevue.

DePere.

Milwaukee.

Waukesha.

Superior.

Madison.

Lander.

Authority: Sections 110 and 301 of the

Act give the Administrator authority to

adopt policies necessary to implement

NAAQS.

Date: August 3, 1987.

Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 87-17990 Filed 8-6-87; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 6560-U

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[AD-FRL-3244-31

Regulations for Implementing Revised

Particulate Matter Standards;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The EPA is correcting errors

in the regulations for implementing the

revised particulate matter standards

which appeared in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Mr. Daniel deRoeck at (919) 541-5593

(FTS 629-5593).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA

has promulgated revisions to its

regulations for the review of new and

modified sources and the prevention of

significant deterioration of air quality.

These revisions address the fact that

EPA has revised its national ambient air

quality standards for particulate matter.

The revised regulations contained errors

29385

29385

HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 29385 1987
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

which are described briefly below and

are corrected by this notice.

Date: August 1, 1987.

J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator,-for Air and

Radiation.

In rule document 87-13709 beginning

on page 24672 in the issue of

Wednesday, July 1, 1987, make the

following corrections:.

§ 51.165 [Corrected]

1. On page 24713 in the second

column, the section heading "§ 51.151

Permit requirements" should read

"§ 51.165 Permit requirements."

§ 51.166 [Corrected]

2. On page 24713 in the third column,

§ 51.166(i)(10), in the seventh line,

"§ 52.21(i)(11)(i)(iii)" should read

"§ 52.21(i)(11),"

Appendix S-[Corrected]

3. On page 24714 in the second

column, in the instructions for

amendment of Appendix S in the third

line, "section 11.A.10(i) should read

"section II.A.10(i)."

[FR Doc. 87-17985 Filed 8-6-87:8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 22

[CC Docket No. 85-388; RM-5167]

Rural Cellular Radio Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Extension of time.

SUMMARY: This document extends the

time for filing petitions for

reconsideration of the Rural Cellular

Radio Service Order on

Reconsideration, 52 FR 22461 (June 12,

1987). The filing period is being

extended as a result of corrections

(published in the August 6, 1987 Federal

Register) made to the order after the

deadline for filing petitions for

reconsideration had passed.

DATE: Petitions for Reconsideration must

be filed by September 8, 1987.

ADDRESS: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Gerald Mark Goldstein, Mobile Services

Division, Common Carrier Bureau; Tele:

202-632-6450.

Kevin J. Kelley,

Chief, Mobile Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 87-17894 Filed 8-6-87; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-0"

29386

HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 29386 1987