# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 67345 1980

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Nov 12 18:48:05 2013

-- 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.Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 199 / Friday, October 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

condition promulgated in EPA's final rulemaking onApril 9,1980. The purpose ofthis notice is to inform the public that the state has made a submission by the required deadline. EPA is reviewing the submission to determine ifit complies with the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act and the condition promulgated by EPA. A preliminary review indicates that the condition has been met and therefore, EPA intends to issue a notice offinal rulemaking. EPA's conditional approval ofthe Missouri SIP isbeing continued until final action on the submittal ispublished in the Federal Register.

Dated: October 1,1980. Kathleen Camin, RegionalA dmnnistrator.

IFRDoc. M-,1746 Filed 10-0-ft 845 am]
BILWNG CODE 6560-26-M

40 CFR Parts-52,81
[A9-FRL 1607-5]

Arizona Plan Revision: Redesignation ofAir Quality Control Regions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA takes final action to approve the redesignation of the Air Quality ControlRegions (AQCR's) in Arizona, as requested by the Governor. The intended effect ofthis redesignation is "to improve the coordination and management ofongoing air, water, and transportation planningprograms by the state and six Arizona Councils of Government." EFFECTIVEDATE:November 10,1980. ADDRESS: A copy ofthe redesignation request is located at: The Office ofthe Federal Register, 1100 "L"Street NW., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Louise P. Giersch, Director,Air and Hazardous Materials Division, EPA Region IX 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn. Douglas Grano, (415) 556-2938. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Under section 107 ofthe Clean Air Act, fourAQCR's located partly or entirely in Arizona were designated by the Administrator. Those AQCR's were described in the following sections of Title 40 ofthe CFR, and included the Arizona counties listedin parentheses: Sect. 81.36 Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate AQCR. (Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal. Santa Cruz] 81.80 Clark-Mohave Interstate AQCR. (Mohave, Yuma) 81.99 Arizona-New Mexico Southern Border Interstate AQCIR (Cochise. Graham, Greenlee) 81.121 Four Comers Interstate AQCR, (Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapal) Altogether, the AQCR'slisted above included the entire State ofArizona, plus portions offour adjoining States.

On July 8,1970, the Governor's Executive Order 70-2 established six Arizona Planning Districts, which comprise the entire State, asfollows: District 1-Maricopa County District 2-Pima County District 3-Apache, Coconino, Navajo,

and Yavapai Counties District 4-Mohave and Yuma Counties District 5-Gila and Pinal Counties District 6-Cochise, Graham, Greenlee,

and Santa Cruz Counties On February 4,1980 (45 FR 7544) the EPA, at the request of the Governor of Nevada, redesignated the Nevada portion (Clark County] ofthe ClarkMohave Interstate AQCR as the Las Vegas Intrastate AQCR and the Arizona portion (Mohave andYuma Counties) as the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR.
The Redesignation

In a January 26,1979 letter to the Administrator, the Governor ofArizona requested that the AQCR's in Arizona be redesignated to conform to the boundaries ofthe six Arizona Planning Districts. As aresult of this redesignation, Arizona will no longer share AQCR's with the neighboring States ofColorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

Section 107(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, requires the consent of the Governors of those neighboring States for the redesignation to take effect. The Governors ofColorado, NewMexico, and Utah have consented to the redesignation.
Effects ofRedesignation

The redesignation ofAQCR's in Arizona should result in improved coordination and management ofair, water, and transportation planning throughout the State, since the same District organizations now involved in wastewater management and transportation planning will also be responsible for air qualityplanning.

In addition, numerous administrative changes are beingmade toTitle 40, Part 52 ofthe CFR as a result ofthe redesignation. These changes are necessitated by revisions being made in 40 CFR Part 81 (Designation ofareas for airqualityplanning purposes), where all ofthe Arizona AQCR descriptions are being revised.

In Part 81, the names and descriptions of the AQCR's in §§ 81.36, 81.99, and 81.121 are being revised, andnew AQCR's are being added.

On February 8,1980 (45 FR 8670) the EPApublished a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, proposing to approve the redesignation and inviting public comments on the proposal. One letter, from the Arizona Department ofHealth Services, wasreceived. The Department supports the redesignation and states that all six Arizona Councils of Governnent also support the proposal.

The EPA is approving this redesignationbecause it meets the requirements ofsection 107(e) of the Clean AirAct, as amended, which requires, in effect, that theredesignation be forpurposes ofimproved air quality management, and that ithave the consent ofthe Governors ofall affected states.

TheEPA has determined that this action is "specialized" and therefore not subject to theprocedural requirements ofExecutive Order 12044. (Secs. 107,110,301(a). Clean AirAct. as amended (42U.S.C. 7407.7410,7601(a))}

Dated. October 2,1980. Douglas K Costle, Administrator.

Note.--Incorporation byreference ofthe StateImplementation Planfor the State of Arizona was approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register onJuly 1,1980.

Chapter ,Title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Subpart D-Arlzona

1. Section 52.120, paragraph Cc)(30) is added as follows: §52.120 Identification ofplan.
* * * * *

(30)Redesignation ofAQCR's in Arizona, submitted onJanuary 26,1979, by the Governor.

2. Section 52.121 is revised to read as follows: §52.121 Classification ofregions.

The Arizona plan is evaluated on the basis ofthe following classifications: 

### 6734567346 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No; 199 / Friday, October 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Classifications AQOCR (constituent counties)

PM SO. NO CO

- 03

Madcopa Intrastate (Maricopa)....

... I III III I I Pima Intrastate (Pima)

.............. .. I II [itf l 1 Northern Arizona Intrastate (Apsche, Coconino, Navsjo. Yavapai)

__ I III III III II Mohave-Yuma Intrastate (Mohave. Yuma)-. I III III lIU I Central Arizona Intrastate (Gil, Pinsl)..

. . I IA III III Itl Southeast Arizona Intrastate (Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz)- I IA III II I II

3.In § 52.125, the first and third sentences ofparagraph (a), and paragraphs (b), (c), (c)(1), (d), (d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (g)(1) are revised to read as follows:
§52.125 Control strategy and regulations. Sulfur oxides.

(a) The requirements of §§ 51.13 and 51.22 ofthis chapter are not met since the plan does not impose specific emission limitations on copper smelters in the Pima, Central Arizona, and Southeast Arizona Intrastate Regions. In addition, the plan does notrequire permanent control ofemissions from' copper smelters necessary to achieve all national standards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, Regulation 7-1-4.1 (copper smelters) ofthe Arizona Rules and Regulations forAir Pollution Control, as it pertains to existing copper smelters, is disapproved forthe Pima, Central Arizona, and Southeast Arizona Intrastate Regions.

(b) The requirements of §§ 51.13 and 51.22 ofthis chapter are not met since the plan does not provide the degree of control necessary to attain and maintain the national standards for sulfur oxides in the Northern Arizona Intrastate Region. Therefore, Regulation 7-1-4.2(C) (fuel burning installations) ofthe

- Arizona Rules and Regulations for Air

Pollution Control, as itpertains to existing sources, is disapproved in the Northern Arizona Intrastate Region for steam power generating installations having a total rated capacity equal to or greater than 6,500 million B.t.u. per hour. (c) Replacementregulation for Regulation7-1-4.2(C)(Fossil fuel-fired
steamgeneratorsin theNorthern ArizonaIntrastate Region).(1) This paragraph is applicable to the fossil fuel-fired steam generating equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and 3 at the Navajo Power Plantin the Northern Arizona Intrastate Region (§81.270 of this chapter).

(d)Regulation forcontrolof sulfur dioxideemissions(Pima,Central Arizona,andSoutheast Arizona Intrastate Regions).(1)(i)The owner or operator of any copper smelter located in the Pima Intrastate Region or in the Central Arizona Intrastate Region and identified in this paragraph shall comply with all the requirements ofthis paragraph.

(2)(i] The owner or operator ofany copper smelter located in the Southeast Arizona Intrastate Region and identified in this paragraph shall comply With all the requirements ofthisparagraph.

*r * * *. *

(g)[1) The requirements of § 51.13 of this chapter are not met since the plan does not demonstrate that the emission limitations applicable to existing fuel burning equipment producing electrical energy willprovide forthe attainment and maintenance ofthe national

- standards in the Pima Intrastate Region 

### (§81.269 ofthis chapter).

4.In § 52.126, paragraphs (a),(b), (b)(1), and (b](3), and the first sentence ofparagraph (c) are revised to read-as follows: 

### §52.126 Control strategyand regulations: Particulate matter.

(a) The requirements of §§ 51.13 and 51.22 ofthis chapter are not met since the plan does not provide the degree of control necessary to attain and maintain the national standards forparticulate matter in Gila,Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties. Therefore, Regulation 7-1-3.6 (process industries) ofthe Arizona Rules and Regulations for AirPollution Controlis disapproved for Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties.

(b)Replacementregulation fbr Regulation7-1-3.6 oftheArizdnaRules and Regulations for AirPollution Control(Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, andSantaCruz Counties).(1)No owner
or operator ofany stationary process
source in Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, or Santa.Cruz County shall discharge or
cause the discharge ofparticulate mattei into the atmosphere in excess of the hourly iate shown in the following table 'for the process .weightrate identified for such source: [In pounds per hour]

Process weight rate EmissOna POOh Emissirat late

50.

...................... 0.3 60.000 29.00

.......... 0.55 80,000 31.19 500

........ .. .......... 1.53 120.000 33Sto 1,000

.......... 2.25 160,000 34.05 5.000..-................... 6.34 200.000 08611 10,000...................... 9.73 400.000 40.05 20.000.........

........ 4.99 1,000.000 40.72

(3) No owner or operator ofa Portland cement plant in Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, or Santa Cruz County with a process weight rate in excess of250,000 lb/hr shall discharge or cause the discharge ofparticulate matter into the, atmosphere in excess of the amount specified in § 60.62 ofthis chapter.

(o) The requirements of §51.22 ofthis chapter are not met since the plan does not contain regulations forMohave and Yuma'Counties in the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate Region orPinal-Gila Counties in the Central Arizona Intrastate Region

- which provide enforceable and reproducible test procedures for the determination ofcompliance with the emission standards. ***

5. In § 52.129, paragraphs (b) and (c)(1)

are revised to read as follows: 

### §52.129 Review ofnew sources and modifications.

(a) [Reserved] (b) National standards notmet.The requirements of § 51.18(c) ofthis chapter

arenot met in the Pima Intrastate Region since the Rules andRegulations ofthe Pima County Air Pollution Control District are not adequate to prevent construction or modification ofa source which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance ofthe national standards. 

### (c) * ** 

### (1)The requirements ofthis paragraph are applicable to any stationary source in the Pima Intrastate Region 

### (§81.269 ofthis chapter), the construction or modification ofwhich Is commenced after the effective date of this regulation.

6. In § 52.130, paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) and the first sentence ofparagraph (e)

are revised toread as follows: §52.130 Source surveillance.

(a) The requirements of § 51.19(a) of this chapter arenot met since the plan does not contain legally enforceable procedures forrequiring sources in the Northern Arizona, Mohave-Yuma, Central Arizona, and Southeast Arizona Intrastate Regions to maintain recordsFederal Register / Vol. 45, No. 199 / Friday, October 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

ofand periodically report on the nature and amounts of emissions.

* * * * *

(c) *** (1)The owner or operator of
any stationary source in the Northern Arizona, Mohave-Yuma, Central Arizona, or Southeast Arizona Intrastate Region (§ §81.270, 81.268, 81.271, and 81.272 ofthis chapter] shall, upon notification from the Administrator, maintain records ofthe nature and
amounts ofemissions from such source

or any other information as may be deemed necessary by the Administrator
to determine whether such source is in compliance with applicable emission limitations or other control measures.

* * * * *

(e) The requirements of §51.19(e) of this chapter are not met since the plan does not provide sufficient regulations
to meet the minimum specifications of Appendix Pin the Maricopa Intrastate Region. ***

* * * * *

Subpart DD-Nevada

7. Section 52.1484 isrevised to read as follows:
§52.1484 Control strategy* Carbon monoxide

(a) The requirements of § 51.14 ofthis chapter are not met since the plan does
not provide for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards for carbon monoxide in the Las Vegas Intrastate Region (§ 81.80 ofthis chapter).

8. Section 52.1486 is revised to read as follows:
§52.1486 Control strategy. Hydrocarbons and ozone.

(a) The requirements of §51.14 ofthis chapter are not met since the plan does
not provide for the attainment and maintenance ofthe national standard for ozone in the Las Vegas Intrastate Region (§ 81.80 ofthis chapter].

* * * * *

Subpart GG-New Mexico
§52.1621 [Amended]

9. In § 52.1621, the table is revised by changing the name ofthe "Arizona-New Mexico Southern Border Interstate" AQCR to the "New Mexico Southern Border Intrastate" AQCR.

10. In § 52.1624, paragraphs (a)(1) and (b] are revised to read as follows:
§52.1624 Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur oxides.

(a) * * * (1)The plan does not provide for attainment and maintenance ofthe secondary standards for sulfur oxides in the New Mexico Southern Border Intrastate Region.

(b) The following emission limitations in New Mexico's "Air Quality Control Regulations" are disapproved for the indicated reasons:

(1)Regulation 652.A (emission limitation for sulfur from existing nonferrous smelters) adopted by the State ofNew Mexico on January 10, 1972, is disapproved since it does not provide for the degree ofcontrol necessary to attain and maintain the secondary standards for sulfur oxides in the New Mexico Southern Border Intrastate Region. Regulation 652.A is approved for attainment and maintenance ofthe primary standards. §52.1630 [Amended]

11. In § 52.1630, the table is revised by changing the "Arizona-New MexicoSouthern Border Interstate" AQCR to the "New Mexico Southern Border Intrastate" AQCRPART 81-DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES Subpart B-Designation of Air Quality Control Regions

12. Section 81.36 is revised to read as follows: §81.36 Marlcopa Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

The Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Air Quality Control Region has been renamed the Maricopa Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (Arizona] and has been revised to consist ofthe territorial area encompassed by the boundaries ofthe following jurisdictions

or described area (including the territorial area ofall municipalities (as defined in section 302(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h()} geographically located within the outermost boundaries of the area so delimited):

Inthe State ofArizona: Maricopa County.
13. Section 81.99 is revised toread as follows: §81.99 New Mexico Southern Border Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

The Arizona-New Mexico Southern Border Interstate Air Quality Control Region-has been renamed the New Mexico Southern Border Intrastate Air Quality Control Region and has been revised to consist of the territorial area encompassed by the boundaries of the following jurisdictions ordescribed area (including the territorial area ofall municipalities (as defincd in section 302( ofthe Clean AirAct, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(fo) geographically located within the outermost boundaries ofthe area so delimited):

In the State ofNewMexico: Grant County, Hidalgo County. LunaCounty. ,

14. Section 81.121 is revised to read as follows:
§ 81.121 Four Comers Interstate Air Quality Control Region.

The Four Comers Interstate Air Quality ControlRegion (Colorado-New Mexico-Utah] has been revised to consist ofthe territorial area encompassed by the boundaries ofthe following jurisdictions or described area (including the territorial area ofall municipalities (as defined in section 302(j) ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(o) geographically located within the outermost boundaries ofthe area so delimited):

In the State ofColorado: Archuleta County, Dolores County.La Plata County, Montezuma County. SanJuan County.

In the State ofNew Mexico: San Juan County (in itsentirely): Rio Arriba County (thatportion lying west (Pacific slope) ofthe Continental Divide, and allportions ofthe jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation lying east (Atlantic slope) ofthe Continental Divide); Sandoval County (thatportion lying west (Pacific slope) ofthe Continental Divide, and all portions ofthe Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation lying east (Atlantic slope) ofthe Continental Divide]; McKinley County (that portion lying west(Pacific slope) ofthe Continental Divide); Valencia County (that portion lying within the Zuni and Ramah Navajo Indian Reservations).

In the State ofUtah: Emery County. Garfield County. Grand County.Iron County, Kane County, San Juan County, Washington County,Wayne County.

15. Section 81.269 is added as follows:
§81.269 Pima Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

The Pima Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (Arizona) consists ofthe territorial area encompassed by the boundaries ofthe followingjurisdictions

or described area (including the territorial area ofall municipalities (as defined in section 302(f) ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(')) geographically located within the outermost boundaries ofthe area so delimited):

In the State ofArizona: Pima County.
16. Section 81.270 is added as follows:
§ 81.270 Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

The Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region consists ofthe territorial area encompassed by the boundaries ofthe followingjurisdictions

or described area (including the territorial area ofall municipalities (as 6734767348 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 199 / Friday, October 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

defined in section 302(f) ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(fo) geographically located within the outermost boundaries ofthe area so delimited):

In the State ofArizona: Apache County, Coconino County,Navajo County, Yavapai County.

17. Section 81.271 is added as follows: I §81.271 Central Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

The Central Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region consists of the territorial area encompassed by the boupdaries of the following jurisdictions

or described area (including the territorial area of all municipalities (as defined in section 302(f) ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(f }geographically located within the outermost boundaries of the area so delimited):

Inthe State ofArizona: Gila County,Pinal County.

18. Section 81.272.is added as follows:
§81.272 Southeast Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

The Southeast Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region consists of the territorial area encompassed by the boundaries ofthe followingjurisdictions.

or described area (including the territorial area ofall municipalities (as defined'in section 302(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(fo) geographically located within the outermost boundaries ofthe area so delimited):

In the State ofArizona: Cochise County, Graham County, Greenlee County, Santa Ciuz County. [FRDoc. 80-31319 Filed 10-9-80.8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 6560-26-M

40 CFR Part 81

[A5-FRL 1628-1] Designation of Areas forAir Quality Planning Purposes Attainment Status Designations: Wisconsin

- AGEN,CY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking changes the attainment status for portions of Milwaukee and Green Bay, Wisconsin, from attainment and unclassifiable, respectively, to nonattainment of the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide. This change is requiredby recorded violations of the SO2 NAAQS in both Milwaukee and Green Bay. DATE: This designation is effective as of November 10. 1980. ADDRESSES: Copies of theWisconsin request toredesignate, the technical support material, and the public comments are available forpublic inspection-during normal business hours at:

- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

AirPrograms Branch, 230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2922,401 M. Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 Bureau ofAir Management, Department

ofNatural Resources, 4610 University Avenue, Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:. Robert B. Miller, Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice offinal rulemaking is issued under the authority ofsection 107 ofthe Clean AirAct, as amended. Section 107(d)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act required states to submit to the Administrator a list identifying all air quality control
areas, ofportions thereof,that had not attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Act further required that the Administrator promulgate this list, with such modifications as he deemed necessary. On March 3,1978, the Administrator promulgated nonattainment designations for Wisconsin for total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide (S02), carbon monoxide (CO), photochemical oxidants and nitrogen dioxidqe (N02) (43 FR 8962, 40 CFR 81.350). Section 107(d)(5) ofthe Act provides that a state, from time to time, may review and revise its designations list and submit these revisions to the Administrator for promulgation. The criteria and policy guidelines governing these revisions and the Admiristrator's review of them are identical to those used in the original designations and are summarized in the Federal Register on March 3, 1978 (43FR 8962), September 11, 1978 (43 FR-40412) and October 5, 1978 (43 FR 45993).

On May 3, 1979, the Secretary ofthe Wisconsin Departmenf ofNatural Resources (DNR), acting for the Natural Resources Board, recommended redesignating portions ofGreen Bay and Milwaukee. This redesignation request included-a technical support document which recommends thatportions of Milwaukee and Green Baybe changed

- froni attainment and unclassifiable designations respectively, to nonattainment for S02. T e technical document was based on observed ' monitoring violations of the primary standard in.Green Bay and Milwaukee, This document was the subject ofpublic hearings on February 12 and 13, 1979, in Green Bay andMilwaukee; and the Board approved it inMarch 1979. On September 14,1979, the EPA proposed for public comment rulemaking approving Wisconsin's redesignation request [44 FR 53547].

Onlyone corporation responded to thisproposal with comments, These .comments and EPA's response to them follow:

Comment: The Wisconsin DNR and the EPA should use block averages rather than continuous running averages for ascertaining S02 concentrations. Further, the EPA should delay redesignation until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit has reviewed the averaging Issue in "PPG Industries vs. Costle" (File No. 79-1708).

EPAResponse:It is the EPA'spolicy toreport continuousair quality monitoring data as running average concentratiofis. Running averages are specified in the "Guidelines for Interpretation ofAir Quality Standards" (February 1977). Continuous running averages represent actual air quality better than discrete block averages because people breathe in SO 2 from the ambient air on a continuous basis rather than in midnight "blocks". If EPA used block averages, it would evaluate for fewer 24-hour periods and would risk overlooking violations ofthe NAAQS.

Under either averaging procedure, however, the annual 1978 S02 monitoring data indicate-that there are 2

ormore exceedances of the 24 hour SO2 NAAQS. The S02 NAAQS is violated If there is more than Iexceedance annually. Therefore, on a technical basis the averaging issue is moot in this redesignation,

In regard to delaying redesignation pending the Court's review ofthe averaging issue, it isEPA policy to
assume its procedures are valid until they are overturned by a court. Once the court has rendered a decision in any such case, appropriate steps can be taken regarding the SIP,

Comment:The commentor claims that' most of the measured exceedances of the S02 NAAQS upon which thd Wisconsin DNR based its nonattainment redesignation request for Milwaukee are invalid because ofquality assurance problems.

EPA Response:The monitored S02 air quality data was measured at sites on the University ofWisconsin at Milwaukee North Campus (UWM) and Jones Island. The EPA has determined that these sites meet (or satisfy) the