+(,121/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 67345 1980 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Apr 5 17:55:53 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

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

condition promulgated in EPA's final

rulemaking on April 9,1980. The purpose

of this notice is to inform the public that

the state has made a submission by the

required deadline. EPA is reviewing the

submission to determine if it complies

with the requirements of the 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

of final rulemaking. EPA's conditional

approval of the Missouri SIP is being

continued until final action on the

submittal is published 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

of Air 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 Control Regions (AQCR's) in

Arizona, as requested by the Governor.

The intended effect of this redesignation

is "to improve the coordination and

management of ongoing air, water, and

transportation planning programs by the

state and six Arizona Councils of

Government."

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10,1980.

ADDRESS: A copy of the redesignation

request is located at: The Office of the

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 of the Clean Air

Act, four AQCR's located partly or

entirely in Arizona were designated by

the Administrator. Those AQCR's were

described in the following sections of

Title 40 of the CFR, and included the

Arizona counties listed in 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's listed above

included the entire State of Arizona,

plus portions of four adjoining States.

On July 8,1970, the Governor's

Executive Order 70-2 established six

Arizona Planning Districts, which

comprise the entire State, as follows:

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] of the ClarkMohave Interstate AQCR as the Las

Vegas Intrastate AQCR and the Arizona

portion (Mohave and Yuma Counties) as

the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR.

The Redesignation

In a January 26,1979 letter to the

Administrator, the Governor of Arizona

requested that the AQCR's in Arizona

be redesignated to conform to the

boundaries of the six Arizona Planning

Districts. As a result of this

redesignation, Arizona will no longer

share AQCR's with the neighboring

States of Colorado, 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 of Colorado, New Mexico,

and Utah have consented to the

redesignation.

Effects of Redesignation

The redesignation of AQCR's in

Arizona should result in improved

coordination and management of air,

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 quality planning.

In addition, numerous administrative

changes are being made to Title 40, Part

52 of the CFR as a result of the

redesignation. These changes are

necessitated by revisions being made in

40 CFR Part 81 (Designation of areas for

air quality planning purposes), where all

of the 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, and new

AQCR's are being added.

On February 8,1980 (45 FR 8670) the

EPA published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, proposing to approve the

redesignation and inviting public

comments on the proposal. One letter,

from the Arizona Department of Health

Services, was received. The Department

supports the redesignation and states

that all six Arizona Councils of

Governnent also support the proposal.

The EPA is approving this

redesignation because it meets the

requirements of section 107(e) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended, which

requires, in effect, that the redesignation

be for purposes of improved air quality

management, and that it have the

consent of the Governors of all affected

states.

The EPA has determined that this

action is "specialized" and therefore not

subject to the procedural requirements

of Executive Order 12044.

(Secs. 107,110,301(a). Clean Air Act. as

amended (42 U.S.C. 7407.7410,7601(a))} Dated. October 2,1980.

Douglas K Costle,

Administrator.

Note.--Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Arizona was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1,1980.

Chapter , Title 40 of the 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 of plan. * * * * *

(30) Redesignation of AQCR's in

Arizona, submitted on January 26,1979,

by the Governor.

2. Section 52.121 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 52.121 Classification of regions.

The Arizona plan is evaluated on the

basis of the following classifications:

67345

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 67345 1980
67346 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 I I

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 of paragraph (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 of this 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 not require

permanent control of emissions from'

copper smelters necessary to achieve all

national standards for sulfur oxides.

Therefore, Regulation 7-1-4.1 (copper

smelters) of the Arizona Rules and

Regulations for Air Pollution Control, as

it pertains to existing copper smelters, is

disapproved for the Pima, Central

Arizona, and Southeast Arizona

Intrastate Regions.

(b) The requirements of § § 51.13 and

51.22 of this 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) of the

- Arizona Rules and Regulations for Air

Pollution Control, as it pertains 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) Replacement regulation for

Regulation 7-1-4.2(C) (Fossil fuel-fired

steam generators in the Northern

Arizona Intrastate 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 Plant in the Northern

Arizona Intrastate Region (§ 81.270 of

this chapter).

(d) Regulation for control of sulfur

dioxide emissions (Pima, Central

Arizona, and Southeast 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 of this

paragraph.

(2)(i] The owner or operator of any

copper smelter located in the Southeast

Arizona Intrastate Region and identified

in this paragraph shall comply With all

the requirements of this paragraph. *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 will provide for the attainment

and maintenance of the national

- standards in the Pima Intrastate Region

(§ 81.269 of this chapter).

4. In § 52.126, paragraphs (a), (b),

(b)(1), and (b](3), and the first sentence

of paragraph (c) are revised to read-as

follows:

§ 52.126 Control strategy and regulations:

Particulate matter.

(a) The requirements of § § 51.13 and

51.22 of this chapter are not met since

the plan does not provide the degree of

control necessary to attain and maintain

the national standards for particulate

matter in Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal,

and Santa Cruz Counties. Therefore,

Regulation 7-1-3.6 (process industries)

of the Arizona Rules and Regulations for

Air Pollution Control is disapproved for

Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Santa

Cruz Counties.

(b) Replacement regulation fbr

Regulation 7-1-3.6 of the Arizdna Rules

and Regulations for Air Pollution

Control (Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal,

and Santa Cruz Counties). (1) No owner

or operator of any stationary process

source in Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, or

Santa.Cruz County shall discharge or

cause the discharge of particulate mattei

into the atmosphere in excess of the

hourly iate shown in the following table

'for the process .weight rate 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 of a Portland

cement plant in Gila, Maricopa, Pima,

Pinal, or Santa Cruz County with a

process weight rate in excess of 250,000

lb/hr shall discharge or cause the

discharge of particulate matter into the,

atmosphere in excess of the amount

specified in § 60.62 of this chapter.

(o) The requirements of § 51.22 of this

chapter are not met since the plan does

not contain regulations for Mohave and

Yuma'Counties in the Mohave-Yuma

Intrastate Region or Pinal-Gila Counties

in the Central Arizona Intrastate Region -

which provide enforceable and

reproducible test procedures for the

determination of compliance with the

emission standards. ***

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

are revised to read as follows:

§ 52.129 Review of new sources and

modifications.

(a) [Reserved]

(b) National standards not met. The

requirements of § 51.18(c) of this chapter

are not met in the Pima Intrastate

Region since the Rules and Regulations

of the Pima County Air Pollution Control

District are not adequate to prevent

construction or modification of a source

which would interfere with the

attainment or maintenance of the

national standards.

(c) * ** (1) The requirements of this

paragraph are applicable to any

stationary source in the Pima Intrastate

Region (§ 81.269 of this chapter), the

construction or modification of which Is

commenced after the effective date of

this regulation.

6. In § 52.130, paragraphs (a) and (c)(1)

and the first sentence of paragraph (e)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 52.130 Source surveillance.

(a) The requirements of § 51.19(a) of

this chapter are not met since the plan

does not contain legally enforceable

procedures for requiring sources in the

Northern Arizona, Mohave-Yuma,

Central Arizona, and Southeast Arizona

Intrastate Regions to maintain records

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 67346 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 199 / Friday, October 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

of and 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 of this chapter] shall, upon

notification from the Administrator,

maintain records of the nature and

amounts of emissions 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 P in the Maricopa Intrastate

Region. *** * * * * *

Subpart DD-Nevada

7. Section 52.1484 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 52.1484 Control strategy* Carbon

monoxide

(a) The requirements of § 51.14 of this

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 of this

chapter).

8. Section 52.1486 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 52.1486 Control strategy. Hydrocarbons

and ozone.

(a) The requirements of § 51.14 of this

chapter are not met since the plan does

not provide for the attainment and

maintenance of the national standard

for ozone in the Las Vegas Intrastate

Region (§ 81.80 of this chapter]. * * * * *

Subpart GG-New Mexico

§ 52.1621 [Amended]

9. In § 52.1621, the table is revised by

changing the name of the "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 of the

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 of New Mexico on January 10,

1972, is disapproved since it does not

provide for the degree of control

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 of the 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 of the

territorial area encompassed by the

boundaries of the following jurisdictions

or described area (including the

territorial area of all 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):

In the State of Arizona: Maricopa County.

13. Section 81.99 is revised to read 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 or described area

(including the territorial area of all

municipalities (as defincd in section

302( of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

1857h(fo) geographically located within

the outermost boundaries of the area so

delimited):

In the State of New Mexico: Grant County,

Hidalgo County. Luna County. ,

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 Control Region (Colorado-New

Mexico-Utah] has been revised to

consist of the territorial area

encompassed by the boundaries of the

following jurisdictions or described area

(including the territorial area of all

municipalities (as defined in section

302(j) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

1857h(o) geographically located within

the outermost boundaries of the area so

delimited):

In the State of Colorado: Archuleta County,

Dolores County. La Plata County, Montezuma

County. San Juan County.

In the State of New Mexico: San Juan

County (in its entirely): Rio Arriba County

(that portion lying west (Pacific slope) of the

Continental Divide, and all portions of the

jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation lying

east (Atlantic slope) of the Continental

Divide); Sandoval County (that portion lying

west (Pacific slope) of the Continental Divide,

and all portions of the Jicarilla Apache Indian

Reservation lying east (Atlantic slope) of the

Continental Divide]; McKinley County (that

portion lying west (Pacific slope) of the

Continental Divide); Valencia County (that

portion lying within the Zuni and Ramah

Navajo Indian Reservations).

In the State of Utah: 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 of the

territorial area encompassed by the

boundaries of the following jurisdictions

or described area (including the

territorial area of all 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):

In the State of Arizona: 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 of the

territorial area encompassed by the

boundaries of the following jurisdictions

or described area (including the

territorial area of all municipalities (as

67347

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 67347 1980
67348 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 199 / Friday, October 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

defined in section 302(f) of the Clean Air

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(fo) geographically

located within the outermost boundaries

of the area so delimited):

In the State of Arizona: Apache County, Coco nino 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) of the Clean Air

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(f } geographically

located within the outermost boundaries

of the area so delimited):

In the State of Arizona: 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 of the following jurisdictions.

or described area (including the

territorial area of all municipalities (as

defined'in section 302(f) of the Clean Air

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(fo) geographically

located within the outermost boundaries

of the area so delimited):

In the State of Arizona: Cochise County,

Graham County, Greenlee County, Santa

Ciuz County.

[FR Doc. 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 for Air 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 the Wisconsin

request to redesignate, the technical

support material, and the public

comments are available for public

inspection-during normal business hours

at: -

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Air Programs 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 of Air Management, Department

of Natural 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 of final rulemaking is issued

under the authority of section 107 of the

Clean Air Act, as amended. Section

107(d)(1) of the 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 nona ttainment

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) of the 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 (43 FR 8962), September

11, 1978 (43 FR-40412) and October 5,

1978 (43 FR 45993).

On May 3, 1979, the Secretary of the

Wisconsin Departmenf of Natural

Resources (DNR), acting for the Natural

Resources Board, recommended

redesignating portions of Green Bay and

Milwaukee. This redesignation request

included-a technical support document

which recommends that portions of

Milwaukee and Green Bay be 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 of public

hearings on February 12 and 13, 1979, in

Green Bay andMilwaukee; and the

Board approved it in March 1979. On

September 14,1979, the EPA proposed

for public comment rulemaking

approving Wisconsin's redesignation

request [44 FR 53547].

Onlyone corporation responded to

this proposal 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 of Columbia

Circuit has reviewed the averaging Issue

in "PPG Industries vs. Costle" (File No.

79-1708).

EPA Response: It is the EPA's policy

to report continuous air quality

monitoring data as running average

concentratiofis. Running averages are

specified in the "Guidelines for

Interpretation of Air Quality Standards"

(February 1977). Continuous running

averages represent actual air quality

better than discrete block averages

because people breathe in SO2 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 of the NAAQS.

Under either averaging procedure,

however, the annual 1978 S02

monitoring data indicate-that there are 2

or more exceedances of the 24 hour SO2

NAAQS. The S02 NAAQS is violated If

there is more than I exceedance

annually. Therefore, on a technical basis

the averaging issue is moot in this

redesignation, In regard to delaying redesignation

pending the Court's review of the

averaging issue, it is EPA 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 of quality assurance

problems.

EPA Response: The monitored S02 air

quality data was measured at sites on

the University of Wisconsin at

Milwaukee North Campus (UWM) and

Jones Island. The EPA has determined

that these sites meet (or satisfy) the

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 67348 1980