# Elsctronic Filing

- Rscivsd, Clsrk's DfficB : 09/05/2013

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) AMERENENERGY**~1ED1NA** 

### VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC, l ) 

### Petitioners, ) ) 

### AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES. LLC, ) ) 

### Co-Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) 

### ILLINOIS E}JVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) 

### Respondent. ) PCB 

### 14-!0 (Varianee - 

### Air)

NOTICE TO: Jolm Therriault. Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD'S QUESTIONS. a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

DATED: September 5, 2013 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. 

### Box. 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

## ('-\**/I~** 

## .**~-·-~·.::,** By:**~ /~"-<-c-A** 

### ..... -· Gina Roccaforte

- Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel



### THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ATTACHMENT----

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD ILLINOIS POVVER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, ) 

### ) Co-Petitioner, ) ) V. ) ) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) Respondent. ) PCB 14-10 (Variance

- Air)



### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD'S QUESTIONS NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), by its attorney, and pursuant to the Hearing Officer's Order dated August 14, 2013, respectfully submits the Illinois EPA's Responses to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") questions provided 

### in Attachment A ofthat Order. The Board's questions for the Illinois EPA

are in bold italics and the Illinois EPA's responses immediately follow each question. 

### OUESTIONSFOR THEILLINOISENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY New 2010 1-hourSO;NAAOS 3. In the Board'sSeptember 20, 2012 order inAmeren Energy**Resource.~** 

### v. TEPA, PCB 12-126, theBoardstatedthat theAgency noted, "{t]he MPS was /tot designedto address the new 2010 1-hourS02

### [NAAQS], which was not proposed at the time theMPS was beingnegotiated." AgencyResp. at 22. The Board notes that the new 1- hourS02

### NAAQSaddresses shmtterm exposure andsets into motion a requirement for the states to assess attainment. 77

### Fed. Reg. 46295 (Aug. 3, 2012). Based on the recordatthis time, the Board does 1tot have enough information to determine 

## if AER's variance will inte1jere with the State's ability to attain ormaintain the new 1-fzourS02

### NAAQS

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office : 09/0512013

ortheproposedPMNAAQSbecause theJl,fPS andcurrentIllinois SIP do notyetaddress these standards. However, theBoard finds that grantingAER'spetitionfor variance with the conditions in the order below would be within the State's current obligation under the lllbwis SIP to attain andmaintain compliance with the NAAQS. Ameren EnergyResources v.IEPA, PCB 12-126, slip op. at56 (Sept. 20, 2012). Since thepetition wasfiledon July 22, 2013, USEPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signednotice of the FinalRule for the initialone-hourS0 2 

### air quality designations 011 

### July 25, 2013, and is submitting it.forpublication in the Federal**Registe1~** 

### See http://wJVw.epa.govlso2desir:nationslregs.html The B.D. EdwardsStation is located in one of the designated nonattainment areas for the new1-hourS02NAAQS. USEPA statedthatSIPs "wouldneedto provide for attainmentandmaintenance of the new 1-hourS02NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable, which we expect to be 110 

### later thanfiveyears after initial designation

... in all areas of the State

...." 75 Fed. Reg. 35553 (June 22, 2010). Fiveyears later wouldbe July 25, 2018, approximately 17months before the endof the requestedvariance. (a) Please address whether theAgencybelievesgranting the variance will jeopardize the State's current obligations under the Illinois SIP or to attain andmaintain the NAAQS. This variance does not allow any increase in emissions above what is currently allowed. Therefore, there is no impact to the enviromnent whether this variance is granted or denied. The Illinois EPAbelieves the granting ofthis variance will notjeopardize the State's obligations to attain and maintainthe !-hour S02NAAQS. This variance deals onlywith the requirements in question at the current time. Anynew rules mandating reductions in S02 will be addressed in a separate rulemaking proceeding before the Board. Variances for existing requirements do not affect any future rules. (b) 

### Please address whether the State's current obligations to attain andmaintain theNAAQS willbe satisfied by the net environmentalbenefit claimedbypetitioners over the term of the variance. 

### This variance neither increases nor decreases the amount ofemissions allowed. Therefore, there will be no impact to the State's ability to meet its obligations from this variance. Furthennore, the Illinois EPA does not need to rely onthe net environmental benefit for the meeting ofits obligations. hJStead, the Illinois EPA will propose new rules to the Board and suchrules will require sufficient reductions to allow the attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS.

2

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/05/2013

(c) Please comment preliminarily Oil 

### how, 

## if theAgellcyproposes alldthe Board adoptsflew rules to addressSIP obligatiolls for the new 1-hourS02

### NAAQS, thatactioll wouldaffect (1) the requested variallce, (2) the facilities covered by the requested variallce, and (3) the B.D. Edwards statioll inpa11icular. There would be no impact to any requirements ofthe variance from any new rule. Any affected emission source covered by any new rule proposed bythe Illinois EPA and adopted bythe Boardwould need to comply with both the new rule and the variance. The E.D. Edwards station would likewise need to complywith both the new rule and the variance. 

### 4. Please submit the following documents for inclusion in the record for this variance request: (a) The signednotice submitted forpublication in the Federal**Registe~:** 

### See http://www.epa.govlso2designationslpdfs/2013**0725(!~pd(** 

### (b) The USEPA report entitled "Responses to Significant Comments on the State and TribalDesignation Recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur DioxideNationalAmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS)", USEPA, July 2013. See http://wwlv.epa.gov/so2designations!pd[s/20130725rtc.pd( (c) "TechnicalSupportDocument (TSD), IllinoisAreaDesignations for the 2010S02 

### PrimaryNationalAmbientAir Quality Standard", USEPA. See http://www.epa.gov/so2designationsltsdl05 IL tsd.pdf The Illinois EPA is submitting the requested documents as Exhibits I, 2, and 3, respectively, and is also submitting for inclusion in the record the Final Rule, Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

### PrimaryNational Ambient Air Quality Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47191 (August 5, 2013), as Exhibit 4. The Illinois EPA also points out that the effective date ofthe Final Rule is October 4, 2013. 

### SIPRevision 5. 

### In PCB 12-126, theAgencystated that afterpreliminary discussions with USEPA Region 5 

### regardingpendingvariance request, 110 

### adverse issues were identified. Ameren Ene1·gv Resources, PCB 12-126, slip op. at55 

### (Sept. 20, 2012). Has theAgency discussed the instantvariance request with USEPA? If so,please elaborate on US EPA's response. The Illinois EPAhas not specifically discussed the instant variance request with USEPA. 

### However, previous discussions with USEPAhave indicated that it has no adverse issues with theprior variance (PCB 12-126). Additionally, onMay 16, 2013, the Illinois EPA submitted theprior variance to USEPA as a SIP revision and USEPA has still notindicated that there are any adverse issues.

3

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office : 09/05/2013

Since the allowable emissions are not changing from the ptior variance to this requested variance, there is no reason to believe USEPA would find any adverse ISSUeS. 

### OUESTIONFOR PETITIONERSAND THEAGENCY Effect on PCB 12-126 Variance 6. 

### Please address the ongoing legal effect, 

## if any, of the variancegranted inAmeren EnergvResources, PCB IJ-116 (Sept. JO, JOJJ), 

## if the requested variance in the instant case isgralltedandthe transaction by which IPH wouldacquireAER's active coal:fi.redpowerplantsgoes forward. The variance granted to AER in PCB 12-126 is legally in effect as specified bythe Board in that case. 

### Ifthe Board grants the variance in the instant case, and ifthe transaction involving IPH and the relevant parties is successfully concluded such that ownership of rhe affected coal-fired powerplants is transferred, then 

### it appears that the new variance would effectively supersede the PCB 12-126 variance. Therefore, 

### as a practical matter, theregulatory reliefand conditions granted bythe Board for the seven coal-fired power plants that were the subject 

### ofPCB 12-126 will remain in effect and unchanged, and legally, IPH and Medina Valley will hold ownership ofthe affected plants.

DATED: September 5, 2013 1021 North GrandAvenue East 

### P. 0. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 2171782-5544

4 Respectfully submitted, lLLfNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY _.j' By:

## \.::1~-------=-----­ Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel**-----------------------"-"~-"~"-----~--"~--"** 

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN. LLC, ) ) 

### Petitioners. ) ) 

### AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC. ) ) 

### Co-Petitioner, ) ) 

### v. ) ) 

### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY. ) ) 

### Respondent. ) PCB 14-10 (Variance

- Air)



### AFFfDAVIT I, Jim Ross, under 

### oath, hereby state that 

### I am 

### the Manager oft

### he Division ofAir Pollution Control in the Bureau ofAir ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency I 

### assisted 

### in preparing and have reviewed the Illinois Environmemal Protection Agency's Responses to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Questions and the facts stated therein aretrue and cotTect to the best ofmy knowledge and belief.

SUBSCRJBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME

## This~ay 

# ofSpkm,,hu

, 2013 

### ger Division ofAir Pollution Control Bureau ofAir Illinois Envirom11ental Protection Agency

OFFICIAL SEAL VICKY B!OATTY NOTARI' PUBLIC, STATEOF ltlJNOIS MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES 10.11!-2016

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013

The EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed the following notice on 7/25/2013, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis Internet version ofthe rule, it is not the official version ofthe rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDSys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/idsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA·HQ·OAR-2012-0233. Once the official version ofthis document is published in the FR, this version will be removed from the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version. 

### 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFRPart 81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233; FRL--####-#] RIN 2060-ARlS Air QualityDesignations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (S0 2) 

### Primary National AmbientAir Quality Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: This rule establishes air quality designations for certain areas in the United States for the 201 0 primary Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

### National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is issuingthis rule to identify a1·eas that, based

on recorded air quality monitoring data showing violations ofthe NAAQS, do not
meetthe 2010 S02

### NAAQS and areas that contribute to S02 

### air pollutionin a nearby

area that does not meet the S02

### NAAQS. Atthis tin1e, the EPA is designating as nonattainmentmost areas in locations where existing monitoring data from 2009- 2011 indicate violations ofthe 1-hour S02 

### standard. TheEPA intends to address in separate future actions the designations for all other areas for which the agency is not yet prepared to issue designations and that are consequently not addressed in this fmal rule. The CleanAirAct (CAA) directs areas designated nonattainmentby this rule to



### EXHIBIT 1

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

undertake certain planning and pollution control activities to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date ofthis mle is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under DocketID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233. All documents inthe docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some inf01mation is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Inf01mation or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain othermate1ial, such as copy1ighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy f01m. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov orin hard copy atthe EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday through Fdday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. In addition, the EPAhas established a website for this mlemaking at: http://1¥WW.epa.govlso2designations. The website includes the EPA's final S02 designations, as well as state and tribal initial recommendation letters, the EPA's modification letters, technical supp01i documents, responses to comments and other related technical information.

Page 2 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is notthe official version.

## EIBctrunic Filing - RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forgeneral questions conceming this action, please contact Rhonda Wlight, U.S. EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Tliangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-1087, email at wright.rhonda@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACTS: Region I-Donald Dahl (617) 918-1657, Region II-KennethFradkin (212) 637-3702, Region III-Ruth Knapp (215) 814-2191, Region IV-Lynorae Benjamin (404) 562-9040, Region V-John Summerhays (312) 886-6067, Region VI-Dayana Medina (214) 665-7241, Region VII-Larry Gonzalez (913) 551-7041, Region VIII-Crystal Ostigaard (303) 312-6602, Region IX-John Kelly (415) 947-4151, and Region X-Steve Body (206) 553-0782. The public may inspect the rule and state-specific technical support information at the following locations:

Regional Offices States Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New EPANew England, I Congress Street, Suite Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918- 1661. Richard Ruvo, Chief, AirPlanning Section, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and Page 3 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# EIBr::tronir:: Filing- RBr::ivBd, CIBrk's Offir::B: OB/05/2013

EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, 25lh Floor, Virgin Islands. New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4014. CristinaFernandez, Associate Director, Delaware, Disttict ofColumbia, Maty1and, Office ofAir ProgramPlanning, EPA Region Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187, (215) 814-2178. R. Scott Davis, Chief, Air Planning Branch, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, EPA Region IV, San1 Nunn Atlanta Federal Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina Center, 61 Forsyth, Street, SW, 12tl' Floor, and Tennessee. Atlanta, GA. 30303, (404) 562-9127. JohnMooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Street, and Wisconsin. Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6043. Guy Donaldson, Chief, AirPlanning Section, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Oklahoma and Texas. TX 75202, (214) 665-7242. Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, AirPrograms Branch, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. EPA Region VII, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66129, (913) 551-7606. Gail Fallon, Acting Unit Chief, Air Quality Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Planning Unit, EPA Region VIII, 1595 Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, (303) 312-6281. Doris Lo, Air Planning Office, EPA Region Ametican Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, IX, 75 Hawthome Street, SanFrancisco, CA Hawaii, Nevada andNorthem Mariana 94105, (415) 972-3959. Islands. Debra Suzuki, Manager, State and Tribal Air Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Programs, EPA RegionX, Office ofAir, Waste, and Taxies, Mail Code OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-0985.

Table of Contents The following is an outline ofthe Preamble. I. Preamble Glossary ofTe!TI1S and Acronyms Page 4 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official versjon.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

II. What is the purpose ofthis document? 

### III. What is Sulfur Dioxide? 

### IV. What is the 

### 20I0 SOz NAAQS and what are the health concerns that it addresses? V. What arethe CAA requirements for air quality designations andwhat action has the EPA takento meet these requirements? 

### VI. What guidance did the EPA issue and how did the EPA apply the statutory requirements and applicable guidance to determine area designations and**bounda1~es?** VII. What

### air quality

### data has the EPA used? 

### VIII. How do designations affect Indian Country? 

### IX. Where can

### I find infmmation fmming the basis for this rule and exchanges between the EPA, states and tribes related to this !Ule? 

### X. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and RegulatmyReview 

### B. PaperworkReduction Act C. Regulatory FlexibilityAct D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Govemments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distdbution, orUse 

### I. National Technology Transfer and AdvancementAct (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in**Minm~ty** Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act L. Judicial Review I. Preamble Glossary ofTerms and Acronyms
The following are abbreviations ofterms used inthe preamble. APA CAA CFR 

### D.C. EO EPA FR NAAQS Administrative Procedure Act CleanAirAct Code ofFederal Regulations District ofColumbia Executive Order Environmental Protection Agency Federal Register N ationa! AmbientAir Quality Standards Page 5 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but itis not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

NTTAA 

### OMB SOz SOx RFA SIP UMRA TAR TSD U.S. 

## vcs National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Office ofManagement and Budget Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Oxides Regulatoty Flexibility Act State Implementation Plan Unfunded Mandate Refmm Act of 1995 Tribal Authority Rule Technical SupportDocument United States Voluntmy Consensus Standards 

### II. What is the purpose ofthis document? Thepurpose ofthis action is to announce and promulgate designations and boundaries for certain areas ofthe country not meeting the 201 0 S02NAAQS based

on available infonnation, in accordance with the requirements ofthe CAA. The initial list ofareas being designated nonattainment in each state and the boundaries ofeach

area appear in the tables.within the regulatory text. This notice identifies the 29 initial areas being designated as nonattainment

areas for the 2010 S02NAAQS. Thebasis for designating each area as "nonattainment" is monitored air quality data from calendar years 2009-2011 indicating a violation oftheNAAQS in the area. For these areas being designated nonattainment, the CAA directs states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) thatmeet the requirements ofsections 172( c) and 191-192 ofthe CAA and provide for attaimnent oftheNAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable, but no later than [INSERT DATE 5 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TIDS FEDERAL REGISTER]. The CAA directs states to submit these SIPs to the EPA

Page 6 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/05/2013

within 18 months ofthe effective date ofthese designations, i.e., by [INSERTDATE 18 MONTHS FROMTHE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS FINAL RULE]. III. Whatis SulfurDioxide? S02is one ofa group ofhighly reactive gasses known as "oxides ofsulfur" (SOx). The largest sources ofS02 emissions are fi"om fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources ofS02 emissions include industrial processes, such as extracting metal fi"om ore, and the burning ofhigh sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships and non-road equipment. S02 is linked with a number ofadverse effects on the respiratory system. IV. What is the 2010 SO, NAAQS and what arethehealth concerns thatit addresses? The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary S02

### NAAQS on June 2, 20I0. The rule was published in the FederalRegister 

### on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), and became effective on August 23, 2010. Based on the Administrator's review ofthe air quality criteria for oxides ofsulfur and theprimary NAAQS for oxides ofsulfur as measured by S02 , the EPA revised the primary S02 

### NAAQS to provide requisite protection ofpublic health with an adequate margin ofsafety. Specifically, the EPA established a new 1-hour S02 

### standard at a level of75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an an1bient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average ofthe annual 99thpercentile of 1-hour daily maxinmm concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined 

### in accordance with Appendix T of40 CFRpart 50. 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). The EPA also established provisions to revoke boththe Page 7 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office : DB/05/2013

existing 24-hour and annual primary S02 standards, subjectto certain conditions. 40 CFR 50.4(e). Cunent scientific evidence links short-term exposures to S02, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an anay ofadverse respiratmy effects including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing). Studies also show a connection between shmt-term exposure and increased visits to emergency depa!tments and hospital admissions for respiratmy illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly and asthmatics. The EPA's NAAQS for SOz is designed to protect against exposure to the entire group ofSO,. S02 is the component ofgreatest concern and is used as the indicator for the larger group ofgaseous SOx. Othergaseous SOx (e.g., S03) are found in the atmosphere at concentrations much lowerthan S02 . Emissions that lead to high concentrations ofS02 generally also lead to the formation ofother SOx. Control measures that reduce S02 can generallybe expected

to reducepeople's exposures to all gaseous SOx. This may also have the impmtant co-benefit ofreducing the formation offine sulfate particles, which pose significant public health threats. SOx can react with othercompounds in the atmosphere to form small pa!ticles. These particles penetrate·deeply into sensitive parts ofthe lungs and

can cause or worsen respiratmy disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leadingto increased hospital admissions and

Page 8 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013

premature death.' The EPA's NAAQS for particulate matter are designed to provide protection against these health effects. V. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and what action bas the EPA taken to meet these requirements? After thepromulgation ofa new orrevised NAAQS, the EPA is required to 

### designate areas as "nonattainment," "attainment," or "unclassifiable," pursuant to section l07(d)(l) ofthe CAA. The process for designating areas following promulgation ofa new orrevised NAAQS is contained in section l07(d) ofthe CAA. The CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within 2 years ofpromulgating a new or revised standard. IftheAdministratorhas insufficient information to make these designations by that deadline, the EPAhas the authority to extendthe deadline for completing designations byup to 1year. OnJuly27, 2012, the EPA announced that it had insufficient infmmation to complete the designations for the 1-hour

## so2 standard within 2 years and extendedthe designations deadline to June 3, 2013. At this time, the EPA is initially designating as nonattainruent most areas in locations where existing monitoring data fi"om 2009-2011 indicate violations ofthe 1- hour S02 standard. In some cases, wehave had to use data from a different threeyearperiod or are still evaluating whether data from 2009-2011 are influenced by exceptional events. In separate future actions, the EPA intends to address the

' See Fact Sheet Revisions to the PrinmyNational Ambient Air Quality Standard, MonitoringNetwork, and Data Reporting Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide at**http:/1\~ww.**epa.govl airquality/sulfurdioxidelpdfs/20100602fs.pdf Page 9 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Eh'lctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: OB/0512013

designations for all other areas for which the agency is notyet prepared to issue designations and that are consequently not addressed inthis fmalmle. With input fi·om a diverse group ofstakeholders, the EPA has developed a comprehensive implementation strategy for the future 

### S02 designations actions that focuses resources

onidentifying and addressing unhealthy levels of

### S02 in areas where people are most likelyto be exposedto violations ofthe standard. Forinfmmational purposes, the strategy is available at: http:IIWI'vw.epa.gov/airqualitylsulfiwdioxide/implement.html. The EPA plans to continue to work closely with state, tribal and local airquality management agencies to ensure health-protective, commonsense implementation of the !-hour S02NAAQS. Bynot laterthan l year after the promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS, CAA section l07(d)(l)(A) provides that each state governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA. The EPA reviews those state recommendations and is authorized to make
any modifications the Administrator deems necessa1y. The statute does not define the te1m "necessary,"but the EPA interprets this to authorize the Administratorto modify designations that did not meet the statutory requirements orwere otherwise inconsistent with the facts or analysis deemed appropriate by the EPA. 

### Ifthe EPA is considering modifications to a state's initial recommendation, the EPA is required to notify the state ofany such intended modifications to its recommendationnot less than 120 days priorto the EPA's promulgation ofthe fmal designation. During this period ofno less than 120 days, ifthe state does not agree withthe EPA's Page 10 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is notthe official version.

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

modification, ithas an opportunity to respond to the EPA and to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposedbythe EPA is inappropriate, as contemplated by section 1 07(d)(l)(B)(ii). Even ifa state fails to provide any reconnnendation for an
area, in whole orin part, the EPA still must promulgate a designation thatthe Administrator deems appropriate, pursuant to section 107(d)(l)(B)(ii). Section 107(d)(l)(A)(i) ofthe CAA defines a nonattaimnent area as any area that does not meet an ambient air quality standard orthat is contributing to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meetthe standard. Ifan area meets either
prong ofthis definition, then the EPA is obligated to designate the area as**~'nonattainment.,** The EPA believes that section 107(d) provides the agency with discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the definition ofa nonattaimnent area (e.g., "conttibutes to" and "nearby") for a new orrevised NAAQS, given considerations such as the nature ofa specific pollutant, the types ofsources that may contt·ibute to violations, the form ofthe standards for the pollutant, and other relevant information. Inparticular, the EPA believes that the statute does notrequire the
agency to establishbright line tests ortln·esholds for what constitutes "contribution"

or "nearby" for purposes ofdesignations 2 Similarly, the EPA believes that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application ofthe term "area"to include geographic areas basedupon full

or partial county boundaries, and contiguous or non-contiguous areas, as may be

2 This view was confirmed in Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

· Page 11 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

appropriate for a particularNAAQS. For example, section I07(d)(l)(B)(ii) explicitly provides thatthe EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an

area "orpmtions thereof," and under section I07(d)(I)(B)(iv) a designation remains in effect for an area "orpmtionthereof' until the EPA redesignates it. Designation activities for federally-recognized tribal governments are covered underthe authority ofsection 30l(d) ofthe CAA. This provision ofthe CAA authmizes the EPA to treat eligible tribes in a similarmanner as states. Pursuantto section 30l(d)(2), the EPApromulgated regulations, known as the Ttibal Authority Rule (TAR), on Febrnary 12, 1999. 63 FR7254, codified at 40 CFRpart 49. That rnle specifies those provisions ofthe CAA for which it is appropriate to treat tribes in a similar manner as states. Under the TAR, tribes may chooseto develop and implement their own CAAprograms, but are not required to do so. TheTAR also establishes procedures and criteria by which tribes mayrequest from the EPA a determination ofeligibility for such treatment. The designations process containedin section I07(d) ofthe CAA is included among those provisions determined to be approptiate bythe EPA for treatment oftribes in the same manner as states. Underthe TAR, tribes generally 

### ru:e not subject to the same submission schedules imposed by the CAA on states. As authotized bythe TAR, tribes may seek eligibility to submit designation recommendations to the EPA. In addition, CAA section 30l(d)(4) gives the EPA discretionary authority, in cases where it determines that treatment oftribes

as identical to states is "inappropriate or administratively infeasible," to provide for direct administration by regulation to achieve the appropriate purpose. Page 12 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

To date, sixtribes have applied under the TAR for eligibility to submit its own reconnnendations under section 107(d). Nonetheless, the EPA invited all tdbes to submit recommendations conceming designations for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. The EPA worked with the tribes that requested an opportunity to submit designation recommendations. Tdbes were provided an oppottunity to submittheir own recommendations and supporting documentation and could also comment on state recommendations and the EPA modifications. Designationreconnnendations and supp01ting documentation were submitted by most states and several tribes to the EPAbyJune 3, 2011. After receiving these reconnnendations, and after reviewing and evaluating each recommendation, the EPA provided a responseto the states and tribes onFebmaty 7, 2013. 3 In these letter
responses, we indicated whetherthe EPA intended to makemodificationsto the initial state or ttibalreconnnendations and explained the EPA's reasons for making
any such modifications. For the majority ofthe areas, the EPA agreed with the state's recommended boundary. The EPA requested that states and tJihes respond to any proposed EPAmodifications by AprilS, 2013. The EPA received comments from

some states suggesting changesto the EPA'sproposed modifications and providing additional information. The EPA evaluated these conunents, and all ofthe timely supporting technical information provided. As a result, and based on that input and analysis, some ofthe final designations reflect fmther modifications to the initial state

3 As indicated in theFebmary 2013 letters, theEPA is not yet prepared to designate any areas inIndian country. TheEPA intends to address the designations for these areas in separate future actions. Page 13 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

recommendations. The state and tribal letters, including the initial reconunendations, the EPA's Februa1y 2013 responses to those letters, any modifications, and the subsequent state comment letters, are in the docket for this action. Althoughnot required by section I07(d) ofthe CAA, the EPA also provided

an opportunity for members ofthe public to comment onthe EPA'sFebrumy 2013
response letters. In order to gather additional infmmation for the EPA to consider before making final designations, the EPA published a notice on Februa1y 15,2013 (78 FR 1124) which invited the publicto comment on the EPA's intended designations. In the notice, the EPA stated that public comments mustbe received on

or before Mm·ch 18, 2013. TheEPA received several requests from stakeholders for additional time to prepare theircomments. Some ofthe requesters noted that the original30-day commentperiod was insufficient time to review the EPA's responses
to states' and tribes' recommended designations and to compile meaningful responses due to the complexity ofthe issues impacting certain areas. Taking that into consideration, the EPA extended the public comment period to April 8, 2013. State and tribal initial recommendations and the EPA's responses, including modifications,

were posted on a publically accessible website (http://www.epa.gov/so2designations). Timely conunents from thepublic and the EPA's responses to significant comments

are in the docket for this action. 

### VI. What guidance did theEPAissue and how did the EPA apply the statutory requirements and applicable guidance to determine area designations and boundaries? Page 14 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: 08/0512013

In the notice ofproposed mlemaking for the revised S02NAAQS (74 FR 64810; December 8, 2009), the EPAissued proposed guidance on its approach to implementing the standard, including its approach to initial area designations. The EPA solicited conunent on that guidance and, in the notice offinal rulemaking (75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010), provided further guidance conceming implementation of the standard and how to identifY nonattainment areas andboundades for the S02 NAAQS. Subsequently, onMarch 24, 2011, the EPA provided additional designations guidance to assist states with making their recommendations for area designations and boundaries 4 

### Inthat guidance, the EPA recommended that monitoring data from the most recent three consecutive years be used to identify a violation ofthe S02NAAQS. This is appropriate because the fmm ofthe S02 NAAQS is calculated as a 3-year average ofthe 991h percentile ofthe yearly distdbution of 1-hourdaily maximum S02concentrations (specifically the most
recent 3 consecutive years). 5 The EPA is basing these initial final designations on monitored S02concentrations from Federal Reference Method and Federal Equivalent Method monitors that are sited ar1d operated in accordmce with 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58. The EPA notes that data from2008-2010 were themostrecent data availableto states and tribes when they made their recommendations to the EPAin
June 2011. Accordingly, although the determination ofwhether an area violates the

4 See, "Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primmy SulfurDioxide National AmbientAir Quality Standards," memorandumto Regional AirDivision Directors, Regions I-X, from Stephen D. Page, dated March 24, 2011. 5This notice refers to monitodng data for "calendaryears 2009-2011" which includes data from January 2009 through December 2011. Page 15 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

standard was based on 2009-2011 data, the EPA considered state recommendations and data from 2008-2010, as approp1iate, in detennining boundaries for nonattairunent areas. Inthe guidance, the EPA stated that the pelimeter ofa county containing a violating monitor would be the initial presumptive boundary for nonattainment areas, but also stated that the state, tribe and/or the EPA could conduct additional areaspecific analyses thatcouldjustify establishing either a larger orsmaller area. The EPAindicated that the following factors should be considered in an analysis of whether to exclude portions ofa county and whetherto include additional nearby

areas outside the county as pa11 ofthe designated nonattairunent area: 1) air quality data; 2) emissions-related data; 3) meteorology; 4) geography/topography; and 5) jurisdictionalboundalies, as well as other available data. States and tribes may identify and evaluate other relevant factors orcircumstances specific to a particular

area. Most states and severalnibes submitted their designations recommendations in June 2011. In each case, the EPA reviewed the state recommendations and, where appropliate, the EPA accepted the state's recommendations. However, where theEPA dete1mined that changes were necessary to a state's initial recommendation, we conveyed thosepreliminary dete1minations to the state in February 2013, and have worked with states to further review approp1iate boundaries. 

### Vll. What air quality data has the EPA used?

Page 16 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA**Administrator~** Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Eh:Jctronic Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

The final S02 designations contained in this action are based upon violations of the NAAQS determined by air quality monit01ing data from calendaryears 2009- 2011, exceptwhere itwas necessary or appropriate to use a different three-year period. The form ofthe standard requires a calculation ofmonitoring values from3 consecutive years. The !-hourp1immy standard is violated at an mnbient air quality monit01ing site whenthe 3-year average ofthe annual 99th percentile ofthe daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of40 CFR part 50. For compmison to the level ofthe standard, ambient airquality shall be measuredby a reference method based on appendix A orA-1, orby a Federal Equivalent Method designated in accordance with 40 CFRpart 53. VIII. How do designations affect Indian Country? All counties, partial counties or Air Quality Control Regions listed in the tables withinthe regulatory text are designated as indicated. Forthe first round ofS02 

### designations, the EPA is only designating certain nonattainment areas shown to be violating the NAAQS based onmonitored data. There are no areas in Indian Country being designated nonattairunent atthis time. All remaining areas, including areas of Indian Country, for which the EPA is notyetprepared to issue final designations will be addressed in a subsequent round ofdesignations. IX. Where can I find informationforming the basis for this rule and exchanges between the EPA, states and tribes related to this rule?

Page 17 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

Infonnationproviding the basis for this action are provided in several technical support documents (TSDs), a response to comments document (RTC) and otherinformation inthe docket. The TSDs, RTC, applicable EPA's guidance memoranda, copies ofconespondenceregarding this process between the EPA and the states, tribes and otherpa1iies, are available for review at the EPA Docket Center listed above inthe ADDRESSES section ofthis document and on the agency's S02 Designations website at 

### http://www.epa.gov/so2designations. Area-specific questions

can be addressed to the EPARegional Offices. 

### X. Statntory and Execntive Order Reviews Uponpromulgation ofa new orrevisedNAAQS, the CAArequires the EPA

to designate areas as attaining ornot attaining theNAAQS. The CAAthen specifies requirements for areas based on whether such areas are attaining ornot attaining the NAAQS. In this fmal rule, the EPA assigns designations to selected areas as required. 

### A. Executive Order 12866: RegulatoryPlanning andReview andExecutive Order 13563: ImprovingRegulation andRegulatory Review This action responds to the CAArequirementto promulgate air quality designations afterpromulgation ofa new orrevised NAAQS. This type ofaction is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993) and 13563 (67 FR 3821, January 21,201 1). 

### B. Pape1workReductionAct This actiondoes not impose an information collection burdenunder the provisions ofthe 

### PaperworkReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

### et seq. Burdenis defined Page 18 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# I Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action responds to the requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA section 107 oftitle I. This action does not establish any new infonnation collection apmi from that already required by law. 

### C. Regulat01yFlexibilityAct This finalmle is not subject to the Regulat01y Flexibility Act (RF A), which generallyrequires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any mle that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. The RFA applies only to mles subject to notice-and-comment mlemaking requirements nnderthe Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements nnder the APA or any other statute because the action is not subject to the APA. CAA section I07(d)(2)(B) does notrequire the EPA to issue a notice ofproposed 1ulemaking before issuing this fmal action. 

### D. UnfundedMandates ReformAct This action contains no federal mandateunder the provisions ofTitle II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ofl995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local ortribal govemments ortheprivate sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements ofsections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA. This action is also not subjectto the requirements ofsection 203 ofUMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly oruniquely Page 19 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthisversion, but it is notthe official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013

affect small governments. It does not create any additional requirements beyondthose ofthe CAA and 

### SOz NAAQS (40 CFR 50.17); therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This action establishes nonattainment designations for cetiain areas ofthe country for the 20I0 S02 NAi\.QS. The CAA requires states to develop plans, including control measures, based on the designations for areas within the state. The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result ofthis action will

not cost 

### inthe aggregate 

### SI00 million ormore annually. Thus, this federal action will

not impose mandates that will require expenditures of$1 00 million or more in the aggregate in any 1year. 

### E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This fmal action does not have federalism implications. Itwill not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national governn1ent and the states or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovemment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes theprocess whereby states take primatyresponsibility in developingplans

to meet the S02 NAAQS in areas designated nonattain.ment by this action. This action will not modifythe relationship ofthe states and the EPA for purposes ofdeveloping
programs to attain andmaintain the S02 NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does

not apply to this action. F. 

### Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Page 20 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, 

# Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

This action does not have ttibal implications, as specified inExecutive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action concemsthe designation of certain areas as nonattainment for the 2010 S02NAAQS, butno areas ofIndian Counl!y are being designated by this action. Because this action does nothave tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply. AlthoughExecutive Order 13175 does not apply to this mle, the EPA communicated with tribal leaders and environmental staffregarding the designations
process. The EPA also sent individualized letters to all federally recognized !Jibes to explain the designation process for the 2010 802 NAAQ8, to provide the EPA designations guidance, and to offer consultationwiththe EPA. TheEPA provided further infom1ation to tribes throughpresentations attheNational Tribal Forun1 and throughpat1icipation in National Tribal Air Association conference calls. The EPA also sent individualized letters to all federally recognized tlibes that submitted recommendations to the EPA aboutthe EPA's intended designations for the 802 standards and offered tribal leaders the opp011unily for consultation. These communications provided opportunities for tribes to voice concems to the EPA about the general designations process for the 2010 802NAAQ8, as well as concems specific to a t!ibe, and inf01med the EPA about key tribal concems regarding designations as the mle was under development. 

### G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildrenji-om EnvironmentalHealth andSafety Risks
TI1e action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Page 21 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/2.5/2.013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is notthe official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant regulatmy action

as defmed in Executive Order 12866. While not subject to the Executive Order, this final actionmay be especially impottant for astlimatics, including asthmatic children, living in S02 nonattainment areas because respiratmy effects in asthmatics are among the most sensitive health endpoints for S02 exposure. Because asthmatic children are considered a sensitivepopulation, the EPA evaluated the potential health effects ofexposure to S02 pollution
among asthmatic children as prut ofthe EPA'sprior action establishing the 2010 S02NAAQS. These effects and the size ofthepopulation affected are summarized in the EPA's final S02 NAAQS rules. See http:l/www.epa.gov!ttnlnaaqs/standardslso2/ji-120I00622.pdf H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That SignificantlyAffectEnergy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action underExecutive Order 12866. I National Technology TransferandAdvancementAct (N1TAA) Section 12(d) ofthe NTTAA ofl995, Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to usevoluntaty consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatmy activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. TheNTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through Page 22 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

OMB, explanations whenthe agency decides notto use available and applicable VCS. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not considerthe use ofany VCS. 

### J. Executive Order 12898: FederalActions to Address EnvironmentalJustice in Minority Populations andLow-Income Populations. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmentaljustice. Its main provisiondirects federal agencies,

to the greatest extent practicable andpermitted by law, to make environmentaljustice pmi oftheirmission by identifYing and addressing, as**approp1~ate,** disproportionately high and adverse humanhealth or environmental effects oftheirprograms, policies and activities on minoritypopulations and low-income populations in the U.S. The CAA requires that the EPA designate as nonattainment "any m·ea that does not meet (orthat contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondmy mnbient air quality standard for the pollutant." By designating as nonattainment areas where available information indicate a violation ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS or a contributionto a nearbyviolation, this actionprotects all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in those areas regardless ofminority or economic status. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority orlow-income populations because itincreases the level ofenvironmental protectionfor all affected Page 23 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office : 09/0512013

populations without having any disprop011ionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any**minot~ty** or low-income population. 

### K. Congressional ReviewAct The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatmy Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the mle must submit amle repmt, which includes a copy ofthe mle, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe U.S. TheEPA will submit a repottcontaining this action and other required infmmation to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives and the Comptroller General oftheU.S. prior to publication ofthe mle in the 

### Federal Register. A major mle cannottake effect until60 days after it is published inthe 

### FederalRegister. This action is not a "majormle" as defmed by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This mlewill be effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROMPUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. L. 

### Judicial Review Section 307 (b) (I) ofthe CAA indicates which Federal Courts ofAppeal have venue for petitions ofreview offmal actions by the EPA. This sectionprovides, in part, thatpetitions for review must be filed in the Comt ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit: (i) whenthe agency action consists of"nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator," or (ii) when such action is locally orregionally applicable, if"such action is based on a Page 24 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

detem1ination ofnationwide scope oreffect and ifin taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a detetmination." This final action designating areas for the 2010 S02 NAAQS is "nationally applicable" within the meaning ofsection 307(b)(1). This final action establishes designations for areas across the U.S. for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Atthe core ofthis fmal action is the EPA's interpretation ofthe definition ofnonattainmentunder section !07(d)(l) ofthe CAA, and its application ofthat interpretationto areas across the country. Forthe samereasons, theAdministrator also is detennining thatthe final designations are ofnationwide scope and effect for the purposes ofsection 307(b

### )(I). This is particularly appropriate because, in therepmt onthe 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(l) ofthe CAA, Congress noted that the Adminisn·ator's detetmination that an action is of"nationwide scope or effect" would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effectbeyond a singlejudicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323,324, 

### reprintedin 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect ofthis final action extends to numerousjudicialcircuits since the designations apply to areas across the country. Inthese circumstances, section 307(b)(l) and its legislative history calls for the Administratorto find the action to be of"nationwide scope oreffect" and for venue to be in the D.C. Circuit. Thus, anypetitions for review offinal designations mustbe filed 

### inthe Court ofAppeals for the**Distt~ct** ofColumbia Circuitwithin 60 days from the date final action is published 

### inthe

### FederalRegister.

Page 25 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Elactronic Filing- Racivad, Clark's Offica: OB/0512013

Page 25 of51- Air 

### Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SOz) Primary NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards



### LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 40 CFRPART 81 Enviromnental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated:

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator.

Page 26 

### of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing

- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Forthe reasons set forth 

### in the preamble, 40 CFRPart 81, is amended as follows: PART 81- DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FORAIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES I. The authority citation for pati 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et. seq. Subpart C-Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 2. Section 81 .30I is amendedby revising thetable heading for "Alabama-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Alabama--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 3. Section 81.302 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Alaska-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Alaska--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 4. Section 81.303 is amended as follows:

a. By revising the table heading for "Alizona--S02' to read "Arizona--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Arizona--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Arizona--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primaty and Secondaty)" to read as follows: §81.303 Arizona. 

## * *** * Arizona--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy) Designation Designated Area Date 

## I Type Hayden,AZ' [INSERT 

## INonattainment Page 27 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Gila County (part) Theportions ofGila County that are bounded by: T4S, Rl4E; T4S, RISE; T4S, R!6E; TSS, RISE; TSS, Rl6E. Pinal County (part) The portions ofPinal County that are boundedby: T4S, R14E; T4S, RISE; T4S, R16E; TSS, R14E; TSS,R15E; TSS,R16E; T6S,R14E; T6S, RISE; T6S,R16E. Miami,AZ 1 [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Gila County (part) The portions ofGila County that are bounded by: T2N, RI4E; T2N, RISE; TIN,R13E; TIN, RI4E; TIN, RISE; TIS, RI4E; TlS, Rl4 1/2E; TIS, RISE. I· Excludes Indian country located m each area, Ifany, unless otherw1se spec1fied.

5. Section 81.304 is amendedbyrevising the tableheading for "Arkansas--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Arkansas--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". Page 28 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

6. Section 81.305 is amended by revising the table heading for "Califomia--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Califomia--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)". 7. Section 81.306 is amended byrevising the table heading for "Colorado--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Colorado--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (P1ima1y and Secondary)". 8. Section 81.307 is amended by revising the table heading for "Connecticut--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Connecticut--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Ptimary and Secondmy)". 9. Section 81.308 is amendedbyrevising the table heading for "Delaware--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Delaware--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAli.QS (Ptimary and Secondary)". 10. Section 81.309 is amendedby revising the table heading for "District ofColumbia -SulfurDioxide" to read "Disuict ofColumbia--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 11. Section 81.310 is amended as follows:

a. By revising the table heading for "Florida--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Florida--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Florida--2010 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primaty)" following the newly designated table "Florida--1971 Sulfur Dioxide

· NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" toread as follows:

§81.310 Florida. Page 29 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/0512013

***** Florida--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary) Designation Designated Area Date Type Hillsborough County, FL' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Hillsborough County (part) Thatpmtion ofHillsborough County encompassedbythe polygon with the vertices using Universal Traverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 17 with datumNAD83 as follows: (!)vertices- UTM Basting (m) 35881, UTMNorthing 3076066; (2) ve1tices- UTM Basting (m) 355673, UTMNorthing 3079275; (3) UTM Basting (m) 360300, UTM Northing 3086380; (4) vertices- UTM Basting (m) 366850, UTMNorthing 3086692; (5) vertices- UTM Basting (m) 368364, UTMNmthing 3083760; and (6) ve1tices- UTM Basting (m) 365708, UTMNorthing 3079!2!. Nassau County, FL' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL Page 30 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/0512013

E.EGISTE R] Nassau County, (part) Thatportion ofNassau County encompassing the circular boundary withthe centerbeing UTM Basting 455530 meters, UTMNorthing 3391737 meters, UTMzone 17, using the NAD83 datum (the location ofthe violating ambient monitor) and the radius being 2.4 kilometers. lExcludes Indian country located m each area, 1fany, unless otheiwJse specified. 12. Section 81.311 is amended by revising the table heading for "Georgia--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Georgia--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 13. Section 81.312 is amended by revising the table heading for "Hawaii--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Hawaii--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 14. Section 81.313 is amended byrevising thetable heading for "Idaho--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Idaho--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (P1immy and Secondary)". 15. Section 81.314 is 8lllended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Illinois--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Illinois--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Illinois--2010 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Illinois--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.314 Illinois. 

## *

## ** * * Illinois--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary) Page 31 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator} Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Designation Designated Area Date Type Lemont, IL 1 [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Cook County (part)

Will County (part) DuPage Township and Lockp01t Township Pekin, IL' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Tazewell County (part) Cincinnati To:"nship and Pekin Township Peoria County (pa1t) Hollis Township 'Excludes Ind1an country located m each area, 1fany, unless otherv11se specified. 16. Section 81.315 is amended as follows:

a. 

### By revising the table heading for "Indiana--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Indiana--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and

Page 32 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013

b. By adding a new table entitled "Indiana--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Indiana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.315 Indiana. 

## * * * ** Indiana--2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary) Desimation Designated .Mea Date Type Indianapolis, IN 1 [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Marion County (part) Wayne Township, Center Township, Peny Township Morgan County, IN' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Mor<>an County (part) Clay Township, Washington Township Southwest Indiana, IN ' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER Page 33 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE RT Daviess County (paii) Veale Township Pike Counjy (prut) 

### Washinoton Township TeneHaute, IN' (INSERT Nonattaimnent DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE Rl Viao County (prut) Fayette Township, Hanison Township I· Excludes Indian country located m each area, Ifany, unless otheiwise specified. 17. Section 81.316 is amended as follows:

a. By revising the table heading for "Iowa--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Iowa-- 1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Iowa--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaiy)" following the newly designated table "Iowa--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.316 Iowa. 

## **

## ** * Iowa--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAA ation Page 34 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrkls OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

Designated Area Date Type Muscatine, IA 1 

### [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Muscatine County (pa1t) Sections 1-3, 10-15,22-27, 34-36 of T77N, R3W (Lake Township) Sections 1-3, 10-15,22-27,34-36 of T76N, R3W (Seventy-six Township) T77N, R2W (B1oominaton Township) T76N, R2W (Fruitland Township) All sections except 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 ofT77N, R1W (Sweetland Township) I· 

### Excludes Indian country located m each area, 1fany, unless otherwise specrfied.

18. Section 81.317 is amendedby revising the tableheading for "Kansas--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Kansas--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 19. Section 81.318 is amended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Kentucky--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Kentucky--1971 SulfurDioxideNi\AQS (Primaty and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Kentucky--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Kentucky--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prima1y and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.318 Kentucky.
Page 35 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

** 

## * * 

## * Kentucky--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary) Designation Designated Area Date Type Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Campbell County (part) Thatportion ofCampbell County which lies south and west ofthe Ohio River described as follows: Beginning at geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983) on the edge ofthe Ohio Riverrunning southwesterly to KY Highway 1566; thence continuing running southwesterly along KY Highway 1566 to KY Highway 9 (AA Highway); thence running north westerly along KY Highway 9 (AA Highway) from Hwy 1566 to Interstate 275; thence running northeasterly along Interstate 275 to Highway 2345 (John's Hill Road), Hwy 2345 to US-27, US-27 to I275, I-275 to the Ohio River; thence running southeasterly along the Ohio Riverfrom Interstate 275 to geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983). Jefferson County, KY' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE 60 DAYS Page 36 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is notthe official version.

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Jefferson County (part) Thatp011ion ofJefferson County compassed by the polygonwith the vertices usingUniversalTraverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTMzone 16 with datum NAD83 as follows: (I) EthanAllenWay extended to the Ohio River atUTM Basting (m) 595738, UTMNorthing 4214086 and Dixie Highway (US60 and US31W) at UTMBasting (m) 59751, UTMNm1hing 4212946; (2): Along Dixie Highway from UTM Basting (m) 597515, UTM Northing 4212946 to UTM Basting (m) 595859, UTMNorthing 4210678; (3): Nearthe adjacentproperty lines ofLouisville Gas and Electric -Mill Creek Electric Generating Station and Kosmos Cement where they joinDixie Highway at UTM Basting (m) 595859, UTMNonhing 4210678 and the Ohio River at UTM Basting (m) 595326, UTM Northing 4211014; ( 4): Along the Ohio River from UTM Basting (m) 595326, UTM Northing 4211014 to UTM Basting (m) 595738, UTM Northing 4214086. 

## AFTER PUBLICA 

### TIONIN 

## THE FEDERAL REGISTE Rl

1 

### Excludes Indian count1y 

### located 1n 

### each area, if

### any, unless otherwise spec1fied. 20. Section 81.319 is amended as follows:
Page 37 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic: Filing - Rec:ived, 

# Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Louisiana--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Louisiana--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Louisiana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Louisiana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (P1immy and Seconda1y)" to read as follows: §81.319 Louisiana. 

## ***** Louisiana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAOS (Primm-v) Designation Designated Area Date Type St. BemardPmish, LA1 [INSERT Nonattainment DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN 

### THE FEDERAL REGISTE 

### Rl St. BemardParish I. Excludes Ind1an country located m each area, 1fany, unless otherw1se specified. 21. Section 81.320 is amended by revising the table heading for "Maine--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Maine--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 22. Section 81.321 is amended by revising the table heading for "Ma1yland--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Mmyland--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)".

Page 38 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office : 08/05/2013

23. Section 8!.322 is amended by revising the table heading for "Massachusetts-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Massachusetts--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 24. Section 8!.323 is amended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Michigan--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Michigan--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Michigan--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Prima1y)" following thenewly designated table "Michigan--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Seconda1y)" to read as follows: §81.323 Michigan. 

## ***** Michicran--?010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary)



## - Desi.gnation DesignatedArea Date Type Detroit, MI 1 

### [INSERT Nonattainment 

### DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Wayne County (pmi) The area bounded on the east bythe Michigan-Ontario border, onthe south by the Wayne County-Monroe County border, on the westby Interstate 75 northto Southfield Road, Southfield Road to Interstate 94, and Interstate 94 north to Page 39 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

Michigan Avenue, and on the no11h by Michigan Avenue to Woodward Avenue and a line on Woodward Avenue extended to the MichiganOntario border. 'Excludes Indtan country located m each area, 1fany, unless otherwtse specified. 25. Section 81.324 is amended byrevising the table heading for "Minnesota--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Minnesota--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty and Secondary)". 26. Section 81.325 is amended byrevising the table heading for "Mississippi--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Mississippi--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 27. Section 81.326 is amended as follows:

a. Byrevisingthe table heading for "Missouri--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Missouri--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondruy)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty)" following the newly designated table "Missouri--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primaty and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.326 lvl.issouri. 

## ***** Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty) Desia-nation Designated Area Date Type Jackson County, MO' 

### [INSERT Nonattainment 

### DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA Page 40 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE Rl Jackson County (part) The pmiion ofJackson County bounded by I-70/I-670 and the Missouri Riverto the north; and, to the west ofi-435 to the state line separating Missouri and Kansas. Jefferson County, M0 1 [INSERT Nonattainrnent DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDER>\L REGISTE Rl Jefferson County (pa11) Thatportion within Jefferson County described by connecting the following four sets ofUTM coordinates moving in a clockwise manner: (Herculaneum USGS Quadrangle) 718360.283 4250477.056 729301.869 4250718.415 729704.134 4236840.30 718762.547 4236558.715 (Festus USGS Quadrangle) 718762.547 4236558.715 729704.134 4236840.30 730066.171 4223042.637 719124.585 4222680.6 (Selma USGS Quadrangle) 729704.134 4236840.30 730428.209 4236840.3 741047.984 4223283.996 730066.1714223042.637 Page41 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Elsctronic Filing

- Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 08/05/2013

(Valmeyer USGS Quadrangle) 729301.869 4250718.415 731474.096 4250798.868 730428.209 4236840.3 729704.134 4236840.30 

# " Excludes Ind1an country located m each mea, 1fany, unless otherw1se spec1fied. 28. Section 81.327 is amended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Montana--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Montana--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and b. By adding anew table entitled "Montana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following tbe newly designated table "Montana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.327 Montana. 

## * * *

## ** Montana-- r IOXl e nmarv: 2010 Sulfu D" "d NAAQS (P

. ) Desia-nation Designated Area Date Type Billings, MT' 

### [INSERT Nonattainment 

### DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Yellowstone County (part) The area originates at tbe point defmed as the southwestcomerof Section 11, Township 1S, Range 26E. From that point the boundary proceeds north along tbe westem Page 42 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/05/2013

section line ofSection II to the point ofintersection withthe midline ofinterstate Highway 90. From that point the boundaty follows the midline oflnterstate Highway 90, across the Yellowstone River, to the point where the highway midline intersects the northemboundary ofSection 35, Township IN, Range 26E. From that pointthe boundary proceeds east along the northem section line ofSections 35 and 31 to the point where Old US 87/Hm·din Road leaves the section line and tums southeast. Theboundary follows the midline ofOld US 87/Hardin Road southeast to the point where the road intersects the westernboundary of**theSE~** of**theSE~** ofSection 31, Township IN, Range 27E. From thatpointthe boundmy proceeds south along the**~** section line to the southemboundmy ofTownship 1N, then east to the northeast comerof Section 5, Township 1S, Range 27E. The boundmy then proceeds south along the eastem section line of sections 5 and 9 to the southeast comer ofSection 9, Township 1S, Range 27E, where itturns west and follows the south section line of Sections 9 and 7, Township lS, Range 27E; and Sections 12 and 11, Township IS, Range 26E, back to the point oforirrin. 'Excludes Indmn country located m each area, Ifany, unless otheiWise specified. 29. Section 81.328 is an1ended byrevising the tableheading for "Nebraska--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Nebraska--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prinlmy and Secondary)". Page 43 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

30. Section 81.329 is amended by revising the table heading for "Nevada--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Nevada--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 31. Section 81.330 is ainended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "NewHampshire--SulfurDioxide" to read ''New Hampshire--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NA/\.QS (Primary and Seconda1y)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled ''New Hampshire--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (P1immy)" following thenewly designated table ''New Hampshire--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)" to read as follows: §81.330 New Hampshire. 

## * * * 

## * * New Hainpshire--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary) Designation Designated Area Date J'ype Central New Hampshire, NH 1 [INSERT Nonattainrnent DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Hillsborough County (part) Goffstown Town MenimackCounty (pm-r) Allenstown Town, Bow Town, ChichesterTown, Dunbarton Town, Epsom Town, Hooksett Town, Loudon Town, Pembroke Town, Pittsfield Town, City ofConcord Rockingham County (part) Page 44 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthisversion, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office : 09/05/2013

CandiaTown, Deerfield Town, Nmthwood Town 1Excludes Indian country located in each area, ifany, unless otherwise specified. 32. Section 81.331 is amended byrevising the table heading for "New Jersey--Sulfur Dioxide" to read ''NewJersey--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 33. Section 81.332 is amended by revising the table heading for "NewMexico-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "New Mexico--1971 Su!fuT DioxideNAAQS (Primaty and Secondary)". 34. Section 81.333 is amended by revising thetable heading for "New York--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "New York--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (PTimary and Secondary)". 35. Section 81.334 is amended byrevising the table heading for ''North Carolina-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Nmth Carolina--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty and Secondary)". 36. Section 81.335 is atnended by revising the table heading for ''NmthDakota-- SulfurDioxide" to read "North Dakota--I971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primaty and Secondaty)". 37. Section 81.336 is atnended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Ohio--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Ohio-- 1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondaty)"; and

Page 45 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

b. By adding anew table entitled "Ohio--2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primmy)" following the newly designated table "Ohio--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)" to read as follows: §81.336 Ohio. 

## ***** Ohio--2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Prima1y)



## - Designation Designated Area Date Type Campbe!l-Cleimont Counties, KY-OH' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE Rl Clermont County (pa1t) Lake County, OH' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Lake County Muskingum River, OH 1 

### [INSERT Nonattaimnent DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE Page 46 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthisversion, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

FEDERAL REGISTE Rl Moroan County (patt) CenterTownship Washinoton County (pmi) Waterford Township Steubenville OH-WV' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Jefferson County (pati) Cross Creek Township, Steubenville Township, Warren Township, Wells Township, Steubenville City 1 Excludes Indtan country located m each area, tfany, unless otherwtse specified. 38. Section 81.337 is amended byrevisingthetable heading for "Oklahoma--Sulfur Dioxide"to read "Oklahoma--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 39. Section 81.338 is mnended by revising the tableheading for "Oregon--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Oregon--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 40. Section 81.339 is mnended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Pennsylvania--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Pennsylvania--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)"; and

Page 47 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 08/05/2013

b. By adding a new table entitled "Permsylvania--2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Pennsylvan.ia--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Plimaty and Secondaty)" to read as follows: §81.339 Pennsylvania. 

## * * 

## * * * Pennsylvan.ia--2010 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary) Desio-nation Designated Area Date Type Allegheny, PA' [INSERT Nonatta.inment DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA 

### TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Allegheny County (patt) The area consisting of: Borough ofBraddock Borough ofDravosburg Borough ofEast McKeesport Borough ofEast Pittsburgh Borough ofElizabeth Borough ofGlassport Borough ofJefferson Hills Borough ofLiberty Borough ofLincoln Borough ofNorthBraddock Borough ofPleasant Hills Borough ofPort Vue Borough ofVersailles Borough ofWall Borough ofWest Elizabeth Borough ofWest Mifflin City ofClairton City ofDuquesne Page 48 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

City ofMcKeesp01t Elizabeth Township FonvardTownship NorthVersailles Township Beaver, PA' [INSERT Nonattairunent DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Beaver County (pmt) Area consisting oflndustry Borough, Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton Township, Potter Township and Vanport Township Indiana, P A 1 

### [INSERT Nonattairunent DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Indiana County Anustrong County (part) Area consisting ofPlumcreek Township, South BendTownship, and Elderton Borough WarTen, PA' [INSERT Nonattairunent DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL Page 49 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthisversion, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

REGISTE Rj Warren County (nati) Area consisting ofConewago Township, Glade Township, PleasantTownship, and the City of Wan·en Excludes lnd1an country located m each m·ea, 1fany, unless otherwlSe spec1fied. 41. Section 81.340 is amended by revising the table heading for "Rhode Island-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Rhode lsland--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)". 42. Section 81.341 is an1ended by revising the table heading for "South Cm·olina-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "South Carolina--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Plimmy and Secondaty)". 43. Section 81.342 is amended by revising the tableheading for "South Dakota-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "SouthDakota--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Prima1y and Secondmy)". 44. Section 81.343 is mnended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Tennessee--SulfurDioxide" to read "Tennessee--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)"; and b. By adding a newtable entitled "Tennessee--2010 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Prima1y)" following the newly designated table "Tennessee--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)" to read as follows: §81.343 Tennessee. 

## ***** Tennessee--2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Plimary) Page 50 of54 This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Desicrnation Designated Area Dale Type Sullivan County, TN 1 [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Sullivan County (patt) That portion ofSullivan County encompassing a circle having its center atthe B-253 powerhouse coordinates 36.5186 N; 82.5350 W and havin<> a 3-kilometerradius. IExcludes Ind1an counn-y located m each m·ea, 1fany, unless otherw1se spec1fied. 45. Section 81.344 is amended by revising the table heading for "Texas--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Texas--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondat-y)". 46. Section 81.345 is amended byrevising the table heading for "Utah--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Utah--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 47. Section 81.346 is amended by revising the table heading for "Vem1ont--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Vermont--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prin1at-y and Secondm-y)". 48. Section 81.347 is amended byrevising the table heading for "Virginia--Sulfur Dioxide"to read "Virginia--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primat-y and Seconda1-y)". 49. Section 81.348 is amended by revising the table heading for "Washington--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Washington--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primat-y and Secondat-y)". 50. Section 81.349 is amended as follows: Page 51 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthisversion, but it is not the official version.

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

a. Byrevising the table heading for "West Virginia--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "West Virginia--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (P1immy and Secondary)"; and b. By adding a new table entitled "West Virginia--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prin1a1y)" following the newly designated table "West Virginia--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)" to read as follows: §81.349 West Virginia. 

## ***** West Virginia--2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary) Desicrnation Designated Area Date Tj!jJ_e Steubenville, OH-WV' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Brooke County (pmt) Area boundedby the Cross Creek Tax District Mm·shall, WV' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Marshall County ( p31t) Area consisting ofClay Tax district, FranklinTax District, and Page 52 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken stepsto ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/0512013

I WashingtonTax District 

# I

1 Excludes Indian counny located in each area, ifany, unless othe1wise specified. 51. Section 81.350 is amended as follows:

a. Byrevising the table heading for "Wisconsin--SulfurDioxide" to read "Wisconsin--1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)"; and b. By adding anew table entitled "Wisconsin--20I0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy)" following thenewly designated table "Wisconsin--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)" to read as follows: §81.350 Wisconsin. 

## ***** Wisconsin--7010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy)


# - Desio-nation Designated Area Date TYQe Rhinelander, 

### WI' [INSERT Nonattainment DATE60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICA TIONIN THE FEDERAL REGISTE R] Oneida County (pa1t) City ofRhinelander, Crescent Town, Newbold Town, Pine Lake Town, and Pelican Town 'Excludes Indmn country located m each area, 1fany, unless othe!W1se specified. 52. Section 81.351 is amendedbyrevising the table heading for "Wyoming--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Wyoming--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". Page 53 of54
This document is a prepublication version,.signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013

53. Section 81.352 is amended byrevising the table heading for "American Samoa-- SulfurDioxide" to read "Amedcan Samoa--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 54. Section 81.353 is amended by revising the table heading for "Guam--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Guam--1971 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 55. Section 81.354 is amended byrevising the table heading for "Northern Mariana Islands--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Northern Mariana Islands--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primruy and Secondruy)". 56. Section 81.355 is amended byrevising thetableheading for "Pue110 Rico--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Pue11o Rico--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 57. Section 81.356 is amended byrevising the table heading for "VirginIslands-- Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Virgin Islands--1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Prima1y and Secondary)".

Page 54 of54
This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on 7/25/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy ofthis version, but it is not the official version.

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Responses to Significant Comments on the State and Tribal Designation Recommendations for the 2010 SnlfnrDioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

DocketNumber EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency July 2013



### EXHIBIT 2

# Elactronic Filing - Racivad, Clark's Offica: OB/05/2013

Table ofContents 1.

### 0 Introduction

..........................................................................................................4 2.0 Background

..........................................................................................................4 3.0 Responses to Significant Comments onthe First Round ofinitial Area Designations for the 20 I

### 0 S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

.........5

3.1 General Issues

...................................................................................................5 3.1.1. Not Yet Taking Action onAreas With No Monitored Violation

.................5 3.1.2. Basing Nonattainment Designations onModeling

......................................7 3.1.4. Requests to Extend the Public Comment Period

....................................... 10 3.2 Area-Specificissues

........................................................................................ IO 3.2.1. EPA Region I

.......................................................................................... 10 3.2.2. EPA Region 2

.......................................................................................... II 3.2.3. EPA Region 3

.......................................................................................... 13 3.2.4. EPA Region 4

.......................................................................................... 17 3.2.5. EPA Region 5

.......................................................................................... 19 3.2.6. EPA Region 6

..........................................................................................29 3.2.7. EPA Region 7

..........................................................................................39 3.2.8. EPA Region 8

...........................................................................................42 3.2.9. Multi-RegionAreas

..................................................................................59

Page 2 of63

# Elactronic Filing - Racivad, Clark's Offica: OS/0512013

List ofAbbreviations and Acronyms CAA EPA FR NAA NAAQS NFR OAQPS PPB 

# so2 SIP TPY TSD Clean Air Act Environmental Protection Agency Federal Register Nonattainment Area National Ambient Air Quality Standard Notice ofFinal Rulemaking EPA Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Parts Per Billion Sulfur Dioxide State ImplementationPJan Tons Per Year Technical Support Document

Page 3 of63

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

1.0 Introduction This document, together with the preambleto the fmal designations action, and the Technical Supp01t Documents (TSDs) for the designations, presents the responses of EPAto the significant comments wereceived on our initial designations decisions conveyed to states in Feb!uary 2013. Theresponses presented in this document are intended to augment the responses to comments that appearin the preamble to the fmal action and the TSDs orto address comments not discussed in those documents. 2.0 Background On June 2, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S02) to provide increased protection ofpublic health ii·om S02pollution. The EPA established a new primary !-hour S02 standard at a level of75 ppb to protect against health effects associated with S02 exposure, including a range ofserious respiratory illnesses. TheEPA retained the secondary 3-hour S02 standard onMarch 20,2012,to protect against welfare effects, including impacts on sensitive vegetation and forested ecosystems. History shows us that better health and cleaner air go hand-in-hand with economic growth. Working closelywiththe states and tribes, the EPAis implementing the 2010 S02standard using a common sense approachthat improves air quality and minimizes the burden on state and local governments. As prut ofthis process, the EPA is working with the states and tribes to identify ru·eas in the countrythat meet the standard and those that need to take steps to reduce S02 pollution. Within one year after a new or revised air quality standard is established, the CleanAir Act (CAA) directs the Governor ofeach state to submit to the EPAa list ofall areas inthe state, withrecommendations for whether each area meets the standard. As a first step in implementing the 20I0 S02 standard, the EPA asked states to submit their designation recol1llllendations, including appropriate area boundaries, by June 3, 2011

.The EPA latertook steps to extend the designationprocess for the 2010 S02 standard by I year due to having insufficient information to make initial area designations at thattime. Withthis extension, the statutorydeadline to complete designations is June 3, 2013. On February7, 2013, the EPA sent letters (often refenedto as "120-day letters") to state and tribalrepresentatives responding to some oftheir recommendations and identifying an initial set ofareas that do not meet the 2010 S02 standard based on three years ofmonitoring data showing NAAQS violations. For other areas, EPA explained that it was not yet preparedto propose ortake fmal designations actions. States, tribes, and the public had the opportunityto comment onthe EPA's preliminarydesignations decisions for the initial set ofareas, and to providenew information and analyses to the 

### EPA

Page 4 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

3.0 Responses to Significant Comments on the FirstRound oflnitial Area Designations for the 2010 S02 National AmbientAir Qualitv Standards (NAAQS) The following sections are summaries ofsignificant comments received on EPA's preliminary designation decisions for the areas that EPA is designating nonattainment based on monitored violations, and theEPA's responses to those comments. 3.1 General Issues 3.1.1. Not Yet Taking Action on Areas With No Monitored Violation 

### Comment: EPA's February6, 2013, letters stated that EPA was notyet prepared to include in the initial round ofproposed designations any areas for the S02NAAQS which had no monitors with 3 years ofdata showing violations. This approach does not appear to be an option for EPA to avoid issuing designations under the Clean Air Act. TherefOre, EPA should designate all areas with no violating ambient monitoring data as "unclassifiable/attainment" since there is no evidence ofviolations in such areas. This approach is similar to the one takenbyEPA when completing the initial designations for the 2010 short-termNAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (N02). A designation is required under the CAA, and EPA should act to issue one ofthe three designations provided in the CAA. Failure to designate areas byJune 2013 for the S02 standard seems to be ignoring the statutory duty ofEPA under the CAA and opening the doorto litigation. This approach does not seemto be the best use oflimited resources both at EPA and in the state agencies. Two other commenters also requested that EPA designate as unclassifiable those areas for which there is cu!Tently no 

### SOz air monitoring data, noting that this would enable EPA to meet its statuto1y deadline for completing designations. The commenters state that CAA section 107(d)(l)(A)(iii) providesthat any area that cannot be classified onthebasis ofavailable infmmation as meeting ornot meeting the NAAQS should be designated as unclassifiable. The commenters notethatEPAhas designated areas as unclassifiable for several pollutants in the past, including an "unclassifiable/attainment" designation under the 2010 N02 NAAQS for all areas in the country. The commenter further notes that for the 2010 N02 NAAQS, EPApromulgated designations approximatelytwo years after the new 

### NOz NAAQS was finalized and that since issuing those designations EPAhas continued to work on collecting additional air quality data for the 2010 N02 NAAQS. 

### EPA's Response: These comments do not address, either in suppmtor opposition, EPA's specific proposed designations actions for the areas discussed in the agency's February 6, 20!3, letters regarding those specific areas. EPAis not yet taking any final actionregarding other areas. Therefore, the comments are not germaneto the specific proposed initial designations addressed inthis final action, and are outside the scope of this action. It is therefore not necessary for EPA to respond to thepoints raised by these comments regarding other areas that are not addressed in this initial action, and EPAhas neither proposed action for those areas nortaken final action for them in this round of designations.

Page 5 of63

# Elactronic Filing

-Racivad, Clark's OfficB: 09/05/2013

However, for informational purposes, EPA wishes to remind stakeholders that in the S02**~AAQS** final mle andpast discussions with stakeholders, it has been fi·equently acknowledged that the current S02 monitoring networkprovides relatively limited geographic coverage, and manymonitors in the existing network are not sited with the objective ofcharacterizing source-oriented maximum concentrations. The EPA is moving torward atthis time with area designations for a set ofareas with monitors showing violations based on 3 calendar years ofdata. As the EPA explained in the proposed designations, the agency is not at this time prepared to propose or take final designations action on other areas not addressed by ow· first row1d ofproposed designations. In light ofpotential public health impacts that may exist but are not being adequately characterized bythe existing monitoring network, the EPAbelieves that it would be preferable to obtain additional data and information regarding 

## so, emissions at remaining areas to possibly support more definitive future nonattainment and/or attainment designations for such areas, rather than designating these areas as m1classifiable based onthe limited information about S02 air quality the agency now has. TheEPA developed a draft strategy for implementing the S02 NAAQS on the basis of several stakeholder discussions that focuses on characterizing air quality inareas with the largest sources and thenusing these data for future designation actions. Under this draft strategy, iffollowed, states would have the flexibility to characterize air quality through monitoring or modeling, and, in additionto any case-by-case designations issued based on new infonnation, two additional generalrounds ofdesignations would provide states time to collect this information. Indeveloping this draft strategy, which co.ntinues to evolve, the EPA has taken into consideration the comments we received following the Final S02NAAQS Rule, the March 2011 draft designations guidance, the September 2011 draft in1plementation guidance, and the three stakeholder meetings held in 2012. After assessing the different issues raised in these comments, the EPAhopes to follow what it believes is the most common-sense approach for implementing the S02NAAQS. The agency expects that this approach will allow each stateto take a primaryrole in deciding how to characterize air quality in its ownpriority source areas. Comment: The commenters state that EPAhas not identified a statutorybasis to delay designations pending planned revisions to the 

## so, monitoring network requirements as part ofthe in1plementation ofthe 2010 !-hourSO,NAAQS. The conunenters believe that in similar fashion to the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA should not allow future planned revisions to the existing S02 monitoring networkrequirements to result in the delay of designations for any areas in the COW1try. 

### EPA'sResponse: As stated in the Febmary 15, 2013 FederalRegister notice of availability and public comment period for EPA's responses to state and tribal S02 designation recommendations (78 FR 11124), the EPAis not yet preparedto respond to state and tribal area designationrecommendations, or seekpublic input thereon, for areas otherthan those with monitored violations ofthe 2010 S02NAAQS addressed in the Febmary 15,2013 notice. EPAintends to address the remaining areas in the country, including those areas for whichthere is currently no S02 air monitoring data, in a subsequent rom1d or multiple rom1ds ofresponses and designations once additional data are gathered. However, as is made clear in the Febmary 15, 2013 notice, the EPA in that Page 6 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

action was not proposing as a regulatory action and was not solicitingpublic comments onthe intended approach for these other areas, regarding either designations or implementation. Opportunities for additional public input on EPA's intended approach for these other areas will be available. We invite future public pa1ticipation fi:om this commenter and others when these oppmtunities are provided. 

### Comment: Multiple commenters discuss that the ambient monitoring data demonstrates compliance with the !-hourS02 NAAQS and that EPAhas approved their monit01ing networks and evenprevious State Implementation Plans (SIPs). This information should notbe disregarded. Additionally, EPA has acknowledged in the 120-dayletters that 2009-2011 air quality data shows no violations ofthe 2010 S02 standard in many of Region 8's counties. Thus EPA shouldproceed with designations for all areas based on the information that is presently available and not defer. Fmther, the defen·al ignores Section 107 ofthe Clean Air Act's timeline for designations and nowhere in the CAA does it allow EPA to defer designations any further then past the !-year extensionthat EPA has already taken. EPA recognized and anticipated atthe time ofthe 1-year extension that most areas ofthe country will be designated unclassifiable. One commenter discusses that EPA seems to be contemplating future mlemaking to require some level ofmodeling analysis to accompany the analysis on monitored data but since this mlemaking does not exist at this time designations should be completed. Another commenter discusses the negative effects ofdeferral which include development ofa new SIP without having effective designations inplace, harm to stakeholders by notproviding clear designations, unce1tainty for another eight years, state planners do notknow where to direct resources dueto EPA's indecisiveness, and the deferred planning schedule will overlap the 2015 designationprocess. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA disagrees withthe commenters asse11ion that EPA is disregarding monitoring data and previous SIPs in this initial round offmal designations, since we are not at this time reaching any fmal conclusions about areas that do not have violating monitors. Objections to EPA's notyet addressing other areas are outside the scope of this final action, and all concerns regarding the treatment ofsuch areas should be raised in response to EPA's future proposed designations for those areas. 

### Comment: One commenter says EPA should follow what was done for the 1-hourN02 designationprocess, which met the requirements ofthe CAA but also allowed for more time to collect data. 

### EPA'sResponse: At this time, we are only initially designating areas with violating monitors, and are not yet prepared to address the remaining areas. Concerns about how such remaining areas are addressed should beraised inresponse to our future proposed designations for those areas. 

### 3.1.2. Basing NonattainmentDesignations on Modeling Comment: A couple ofcommenters said that EPA's intention in its February 2013 120- day letters to designate 30 areas consisting of just 10 counties and 31 partial connties,
Page 7 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

while not proposing or issuing final designations for the remaining roughly 3000 counties in the country for years beyond the June 2013 designation deadline is unlawful. The existing S02 monitoring network is inadequate to the task ofascet1aining attainment; nor is reliance onmonitors alone effective for detemlining what areas are failing to attainthe NAAQS. Instead, EPA must base its designations on all evidence before it, including modeling analyses, as has been its longstanding historical practice. EPA must designate all areas as nonattaimnent for wllich modeling shows exceedances of the NAAQS. Even under EPA's delayed implementation schedule, designations must be made based onmodeling. Forthe foregoing reasons, EPA must designate in June 20 13 as nonattainment all those areas modeled to have exceedances ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS in the enclosed analyses. Absent such nonattainment findings, the SIPsprepared and subnlitted by the states will be inadequate unless they include orreference federally enforceable emission linlitations infmmed by modeling sufficientto prevent exceedances ofthe standard. 

### EPA'sResponse: The majority ofthese comments, including modeling analyses, do not address, either in support oropposition, the EPA's specific intended designations actions for the areas discussed in the agency's February 6, 2013, letters regarding those specific areas. Therefore, these points are not gennane to the specific proposed initial designations, and are outside the scope ofthis action. Itis therefore not necessaryfor the EPAto respond to thepoints raised bythese comments regarding other areas that are not addressed in this initial action, and theEPAhas neither proposed a designation action for those areas nortaken fmal action for them in this round ofdesignations. Nor has the EPA proposed action ortaken fmal action regarding whether other evidence such as modeling may support specific nonattainment designations under the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. The EPA will take the cornmenters' points under advisement when other areas are addressed, and urge conunenters to re-subnlit their comments in response to the EPA's future proposed designations, when they occur, ifthe conunenters still have such concems at thattime. Nine ofthe 

### SOz enlissions sources identified in these comments are located within the boundaries ofthe nonattainment areas the EPA is fmalizing at this time. The modeling and other informationprovided bythe commenters does not appear to conflict with EPA's conclusions regarding the areas currently being designated nonattainment, which EPA is basing atthis time on the available monitoring data. EPA is not at this time prepared to reach fmal conclusions based onsuch modeling information, eitherto reject or accept it as a basis for expanding our first round ofnonattainment designations. EPAis moving forward at this time with area designations for a set ofareas with 3 years ofmonitoring data showing violations. The Federal**Re~ister** notice announcing the public comment period for theproposed designations was specific to those areas we are currently designating nonattainment and the commenters did not subnlit any information suggesting they objectto the proposed nonattainment designations for those specific areas. EPAhas developed a draft strategy for implementing the S02 NAAQS on the basis ofmeetings with several stakeholders that focuses oncharacterizing air quality in areas withthe largest sources and in the more populated areas and using this data in
Page 8 of63

# Elactronic Filing- Racivad. Clark's Offica: 09/0512013

future designations. Under this draft strategy, iffollowed, states would have the flexibility to characterize airquality in these areas throughmonitoring or modeling, and additionalrounds ofdesignations (in addition to any case-by-case designations based on new information) would provide states time to collect this information and provide it to EPA as it becomes available. In developing this draft strategy, which continues to evolve, EPAhas taken into considerationthe comments we received following the Final S02 NAAQS Rule, the March 2011 draft designations guidance, the September 2011 draft implementationguidance, and the three stakeholder meetings held in 2012. After assessing the different issues raised in these comments, the EPA hopes to follow what it believes is the most common-sense approach for implementing the S02 NAAQS. As stated above, the EPA did not propose and is not taking final action at this tin1e to conclude whether modeling and other information besides monitoring is appropriate to supp01t specific designations underthe S02 NAAQS. Instead, we are only concluding that the initial designations ofnonattainment are appropriate for the specific areas where 3 calendar years ofmonitoring data support a conclusionthat theNAAQS is violated. The EPA intends to further address how modeling may be appropriatelyused in future designations for additional areas under the S02NAAQS in forthcoming rulemaking and technical assistance documents. 3.1.3. Revocation ofOld Standard 

### Comment: EPA should forward with revocation ofthe older S02 standards (annual and 24-hour standards). 

### EPA'sResponse: The fmal S02 NAAQS rulemaking already addressed how and when revocation ofthepriorprimaryNAAQS would occur, and EPA did notproposeto reopen that issue inthis action. Therefore, it is outside the scope ofthis final designations action, and it is not necessary for EPA to respond to this comment. However, for informational purposes, EPA directs the commenterto the fmal NAAQS preamble's discussion ofthis issue, at 75 FR 35549-50, 35580-82, and to the regulatory text adopted with the NAAQS at 40 CFR 50.4(e). This regulatorytext providesthat the prior primary S02NAAQS willremain applicableto an areauntil! year after the effective date ofthat area's designation under the 1-hour S02NAAQS, and then no longer apply, except in the case ofareas that at the time ofpromulgation ofthe 1-how- NAAQS were designated nonattainment underthe priorprimaryNAAQS orwere not meeting the requirements of a SIP call underthe priorNAAQS; for those areas, thepriorNAAQS would not be revoked until the area submits under CAA section 191 and EPA approves a SIP providing for attaimnent ofthe new 1-hourNAAQS. 40 CFR 50.4(e). Inthepreamble discussion ofthis issue, EPA explained that states were directed to continue implementing attainment and maintenance SIPs associated withthe priorNAAQS untilthey are subsumed by any new planning and controlrequirements associated with the new NAAQS, in orderto assure compliance withthe Clean Air Act requirements ofsection 110(1), I72(e) and 193, as applicable. 75 FRat 35580-82. We note that innone ofthe several petitions for administrative reconsideration ofthe fmal NAAQS thatwe received did anyone ask us to revisit this issue. Nor did any ofthe numerous litigants challenging
Page 9 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

the fmal NAAQS object to ourtreatment ofrevocation oftheprior NAAQS. We do not regard the comments on the proposed designation action as constituting a new administrativepetition for rulemaking to revise the final NAAQS rulemaking's promulgation of40 CFR 50.4(e), as in our proposed designation action we gave no indication ofany intention to reopen that issue. Finally, ifwe were to amend section 50.4(e), the rulemaking requirements ofCAA section 307(d) would apply to such an action, while under CAA section 107 no suchrequirements apply to designations actions and we did not voluntarily designate this action as a section 307(d) rulemaking. Therefore, this action would not have been an approp1iate one for unde1taking any amendment to 40 CFR 50.4(e). 

### 3.1.4. Requests to Extend the Public CommentPeriod Comment: Several commenters fi·om industries stated that the 30-dayconunentperiod is too short to effectively review the EPA's response to state's recommendations and compile meaningful responses; therefore, theyrequested a 30-day extension to the public conunent period. This will allow them time to more thoughtfully considerboththe policy and technical issues associated withtheproposal. Specifically, the S02 issue in the Billings/Laurel, MT axea is very complex and EPA's upc01ning designation will have a significant impact onthe area. There exists much historical and contemporaneous information that makes this area unique. Some ofthis information has alreadybeen submitted to EPA, but there is additional information and related comments that EPA should consider and more time is needed to compile, review and submit this information. Commenters believe the additional time is reasonable and 

### fuir given thepotential and severe long-termeffects ofthe proposed determination onMontana, the county, its diverse stakeholders and in the proposed rejection ofMontana's own 2011 proposal. Given EPA has had nearly2 years to consider Montana's (and others) comments, it seems reasonable to allow the public anadditional30 days for review. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPAappreciates the tin1e and effort ofthe commenters in participating in this matter. The EPAinvited public comments onits responses to States and Tribes throughMarch 18, 2013, and states were asked to comment byAprilS, 2013. The EPAwas able to accommodate the requests for an extension ofthepublic comment period throughApril8, 2013. Dueto the statutorytimefi-ame for promulgating designations set out in CAA Section 107(d), the EPA was unable to consider anypublic comments past April81h. The April 8thdeadline was necessary to allow EPA sufficient time to review and respond to all significant comments in advance ofpromulgating the 2010 S02 designations in July 2013. 

### 3.2 Area-Specific Issues 3.2.1. EPA Region 1 3.2.1.1. State ofConnecticut

Page 10of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Comment: EPA should designate Connecticut as attaimnent for the S02 NAAQS. In addition to monitoring S02 levels well below the NAAQS, DEEP has completed modeling ofall sources in Connecticut with greaterthan 

### I00 tpy actual emissions. This modeling, when based on actual emissions for those emission units with CEM data and allowable emissions for those units without CEM, shows attainment ofthe NAAQS. EPA'sRe5ponse: Inthis designations action, EPA is limiting its final conclusions to those areas with 3 calendar years ofdata showing violations ofthe !-hour S02 NAAQS. Therefore, this conunent is outside the scope ofthis specific final designations action. In EPA's February 

### 2013 proposed response to ce1iain state and tribal designation recommendations for the S02 NAAQS, EPA solicited comments regarding a specific set ofareas which the Agencyproposed to designate nonattainment. We specifically stated we were not soliciting comments on orprepaTedto propose designations for other areas for which states and tribes have submitted designation recommendations, im)uding any areas that mayultimately become designated unclassifiable or attainment or for which modeling might be used to support a final designations decision. The EPA 

### is still not yet prepared to respond to state and tribal area designationrecommendations for these other areas, and intends to addTess such areas in a subsequent round or multiple rounds of proposed responses and final designations actions. Atthis time, EPA is not reaching a final decision in response to whether Connecticut has shown attainment ofthe !-hour SOzNAAQS. 3.2.1.2. Central 

### New Hampshire Comment: One conm1enter agrees with EPA'sproposal to designate a p01iion ofNew Hampshire as nonattainrnent for the S02 NAAQS. The commenter states that, "New Hampshire's recommendation correctly reflects the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations, which compelEPAto designate as S02nonattainment areas the highlighted parts ofHillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham Counties. In addition, the proposednonattainment designation is not only consistent with the law, but it is also necessary to protect public health and the environment." The highlighted area referred to in CLF's letter is the same area known as the Central NewHampshire S02 nonattainment area inEPA's Technical Support Document. L"'PA'sResponse: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support. 3.2.2. EPA Region 2 3.2.2.1. Warren County, NJ Comment: One commenter recommends a nonattainment designation for Warren County and its smTOunding area due to the impacts from the nearbyPmiland Power Plant. The commenter requests EPAreconsider its decisionto not move forward with a nonattainment designation ofWarren County and its vicinity.

Page ll of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/0512013

The commenter states that EPA is without authorityunder theClean Air Act to delay this nonattainment designation, which is in accordance with the evidence. Data from the Columbia Lake Wildlife Management Area (Columbia Lake) monitor, as well as modeling performed byNJDEP and EPA, demonstrates that the NRG/GenOn Portland Power Plant significantly conn·ibutes to and causes nonattainment ofthe I-hour S02 NAAQS in New Jersey. The monitor continues to measw·e exceedances ofthe health standard when the coalunits operate and the wind blows fi·om the Portland stacks toward the monitor. 

### EPA'sResponse: After considering the reco1Jlll1endation and the additional information provided byNew Jersey, we are stillnot prepared at this time to include the Warren County, New Jersey area in this initial round offinal designations that is based only on monitors with 3 calendar years ofdata showing violations ofthe I-how· S02NAAQS. Moreover, as explained earlier, EPA is still notprepared at this time to base proposed or final nonattainment designations underthe !-hourNAAQS onmodeling data, whether alone or as a supplement to complete or incomplete monitming data. Forthis first round ofS02 designations, onlyareas with monitored violations ofthe standard shownby 3 calendaryears ofdata are being considered, as we explained inthe proposal, and the Columbia Lake monitorhad not at proposal and has stillnot been inoperation at its site for 3 calendar years, and has not yet generated the necessary amount ofdata. Under EPA'srules, in orderto calculate a valid design value for the area on whichto base a designation based on monitoring, three complete calendar years ofdata are required. There are cwTently less than three complete calendaryears ofdata for the air monitor located in Warren County, whichbegan operating in September 2010. We recognize that additional data will be available soon, and we will continue to work with New Jersey and proceed as appropriate as additional monitoring data become available for the Warren County area, and as we further address how to consider modeling information to supp011 designations under this NAAQS. 

### Comment: One co1Jlll1enter mentioned that federal regulations allow for data substitution in accordance with40 CFR Parts 50-Appendix T, "Interpretation ofthe Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides ofSulfur (sulfur dioxide)-Section 3(d). In fact, the USEPA is currently applying this rule to other sites with less than 75% data capture in a year, notablythe monitor in Muscatine, Iowa, where missing data was substituted withzero values to declare the countyas not attaining the health standard. 

### EPA'sResponse: Since the monitor in Warren County, New Jerseyhas not been in operationand generating data for the necessary 3 calendar year period in orderto support a final nonattainment designationbased on monitoring, we consider the request to designateWa!Ten County based on a shorter period ofmonitoring operation as outside the scope ofthis fmal designations action. We disagree with the suggestion that the data substitution authority of40 CFRpart 50, appendix T, section 3(d) could be appropriately used in a situation where a monitor has not actually been in place for 3 years and there is no period in which the monitor "failed" to generate the datais was expected to provide. The data substitution authoritypresumes that an actually sited monitor had been expected to be operating and generating dataover the subject 3 year period, buthad for some Page 12 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

reason failed to generate valid data for some period within its 3-year operatingperiod. The 2010 fmal 

### SOz NAAQS preamble discussion regarding the appendix T data substitution nowhere suggests that the data substitution authority should be used to create a fictional period ofmonitor operation and data where a monitor did not actually exist for the assumed 3-year period. See 75 FRat 35582-85, and 40 CFRpart 50, appendix T, section 3. Such a situation is very different fi·om the Muscatine, Iowa situation, in which a monitorhas been in place and operation for well overthe minimum 3-yearperiod, but failed to generate the expected amount ofvalid data and there is a missing period for which to substitute data. InWan·en County, there is no period in which the monitor failed to generate datait was expected to provide, so there is no "gap" for which to substitute data. Finally, we notethat in Warren County the minimum necessary 3-year period ofthe monitor's operation will soonpass, and after that the EPA will be able to workwith New Jersey to proceed as appropriate in response to the data the monitor has produced at that time. Therefore, we are not now prepared in this final designations action to extend the data substitution authority to a situation where there is no failed monitored period for which to substitute data that, under ourmles, does not appear to have been contemplated. 3.2.3. EPA Region 3 3.2.3.1. State ofDelaware Comment: OnJune 13, 201 I Govemor JackMarkell recommended that the EPA designate each ofDelaware's three counties as unclassifiable for the 2010 75 ppb 1-hour 

### SOz NAAQS. Delaware now has a complete S02monitoring network, and has complete air dispersion modeling that clearly suppo1is a designation ofattainment for the entire state. 

### EPA'sResponse: The comment is outside the scope ofthis final designations action based on monitoring data. Inthis fmal action, EPA is only issuing fmal nonattainment area designations for areas with monitors thathave 3 calendaryears ofdata showing violations ofthe S02NAAQS. EPA is not prepared that this time to address ortake any action onother areas, which we will address infuture final designations actions. Once EPA starts to address these other areas, the state may wishto provide this infonnationfor the record at that time. 3.2.3.2. Allegheny, PAArea Comment: NRGEnergy agrees with USEPA's proposed nonattainment areafor Allegheny County. The cornmenter indicates it is appropriate thatthe Elrama Generating Station located in WashingtonCountyPA should not be included in the nonattainment area. S02ambient air monitoring exceedances and S02 emissions from Elramawere reviewed bythe cornmenter and the cornmenter surmises that the analysis suggests that exceedances in Allegheny Countymay occur independent ofoperations at Elrama. Additionally the cornmenter indicates that the emission units at Elrama are currently in a layup status. Page 13 of63

# Electronic 

# Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

EPA'sResponse: The EPA concurs in general with the commenter's main pointthat EPA 

### is not yet prepared to include the Eh·ama fucility in Washington County, PA in the Allegheny PA nonattainment area. EPA does not feel there is sufficient infonnation at this time to detennine the designations status ofanyp01tion ofWashington CountyPA, or support including any p01tion ofWashington County PAinthe initial Allegheny nonattainment area. At this time EPA is designating as nonattainment a po1tion of Allegheny County. Additional teclnlical information onthese topics can be found in the Allegheny PANonattainment Area section in the TSD that accompanies this action. However, EPA is also not yet preparedto reach any fmal decisions regarding whether the Eh-ama facility contributesto NAAQS violations on any otherbasis, and we will fi.uther address this source and Washington County in a future fmal designations action. 

### Comment: One commenter requests that EPA include portions ofWashingtonCounty in the nonattainment area designation for the following reasons: I. Two significant sources ofS02 that combine to enlit over 3,500 tons ofS02 (based upon USEPA data) arelocated in closeproximityofthe Libe1ty morlitor; and their location is south/southwest ofthe Liberty monitor, which EPA acknowledges are in a geographic location most likelyto impact the Libe1ty monitor. 2. One source in Washington County is a local source (just overthe border between Allegheny and Washington) that directly contributes to air quality conditions during inversion events which EPA alleges are the reasons for the exceedance at the Liberty morlitor. 3. EPA has acknowledged the appropriateness to include significant sources ofS02 beyond countylines in nonattainment designations, as it has withthe [ndiana nonattainment area, which includes Armstrong County. Forthese reasons, the commenter encourages EPA and PADEP to includeportions of WashingtonCounty with large S02 sourcesthat are located in a geographic area most likely to impactthe Libertymonitor as part ofthe nonattainment area. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA is not yet prepared, based oncurrent information related to the morlitored violation inAllegheny County, to conclude that sources inWashington CountyPA contribute to those morlitored violations. TheEPAwill fi.nther address the WashingtonCounty sources in a future final designations action. While the EPA acknowledges that in some cases it 

### is appropriateto include nearby sourcesbeyond countylines inthis initial round ofmorlitoring-based designations, inclusion ofadditional sources is on a case by case basis, and in manycases we are choosing to limit the scope ofour initial nonattainment designations while reserving for future analysis in a subsequent round ofdesignations whether nearby sources and areas are causing or contributing to violations. [n such cases, as inthis one, we are not yet reaching fmal conclusions regarding initially excluded sources and areas. Regarding items 

### #1 and 

### #2, for now EPA acknowledges thatthere are sources in Washington Countylocated near Allegheny County, but notesthat enlissions from these sources have been decreasing and
Page 14of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

that one source is not currently operating. Despite an overall decrease in emissions from the sources in Washington County, the S02 levels at the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County has shown little variation, suggesting it is being primarilyimpacted by other sources. Additional information and technical analyses for both the Indiana PA Nonattainment Area and the AlleghenyPANonattainment Area can be found in the Pennsylvania TSD which accompanies this action. 

### Comment: One commenter applied EPA's five factors for determining attainment with the new !-hour S02 NAAQS and has determined that most ofAlleghenyCounty should not be designated as nonattainment. Rather, the commenter proposes the partial county "LowerMonongahela Valley S02 Nonattainment Area," which would include the following municipalities in Allegheny County: West Mifflin, Dravosburg, McKeespmt, Versailles, PmtVue, Glassport, Liberty, Lincoln, Clairton, West Elizabeth, Elizabeth Township, BoroughofElizabeth, Fmward, Jefferson Hills, and Pleasant Hills. Union Township and Finleyville Borough inWashington County should also be included in this nonattainment area as apa1tial county combination oftheMonongahela Valley and Allegheny CountyAirBasins withinthe Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate AQCR. The commenter asserts that the remainder ofthe county should be excluded from the nonattainment designation based on the application ofEPA'sfive factors. Based on the results ofthe commenter's analysis using EPA's five factors for dete1mining attainn1ent withthe new 1-hour S02 NAAQS, the commenterrecommends that onlythe municipalities in Allegheny County and Washington Countythat were identified above be designated as the "LowerMonongahela Valley S02 Nonattainment Area."In addition, the commenterrecommends that portions ofWashington County should also be included inthe Allegheny County nonattaimnent areas. 

### EPA'sRe•pmzse: EPA agrees that only a portion ofAllegheny County needs to be part ofthe initial nonattainn1ent area, while reserving for finther analysis in a fillure designations actionhow other nearby areas should be designated. However in addition to the areas identified by ACHD, EPA is designating a few other portions ofthe county as part ofthe nonattainment area since a source ofsignificant S02 emissions is located within these additionalportions ofthe county

.. EPA does not agree thatthere is yet sufficient information to determine that a pmtion ofWashington CountyPA should also be included in the AlleghenyPA Nonattainment Area. Sources in Washington County will be further addressed in a future fmal designations action. Additional informationcan be found onthese issues in the PA TSD in the section discussing the Allegheny PA Nonattainment Area. 

### Comment: Reduce the Allegheny Countynonattainment area to the municipalities ofthe CityofClailton, the City ofMcKeesport, Dravosburg, Elizabeth, Glassport, Jefferson Hills, Liberty, Lincoln, Pleasant Hills, Port Vue, Versailles, West Elizabeth and West Mifflin Boroughs, and Elizabeth and Forward Townships. The reason for the recommended modification ofthe Allegheny County nonattainment area is outlined in Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which can be found in the federal docket system.

Page 15 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

EPA'sResponse: EPA agrees that only a portion ofAllegheny Countyneeds to be part ofthe initial nonattainment area, while rese1ving for further analysis in a future designations action how othernearby areas should be designated. However in additionto the areas identified by the Commonwealth, EPA is designating some otherpmiions ofthe county as part ofthe nonattainment area since a source ofsignificant S02 emissions is located within these additional pmiions ofthe county

. Additional information can be found in the TSD in the discussion ofthe AlleghenyPANonattainment Area. 3.2.3.3. Beaver, PAArea 

### Comment: Reduce the Beaver County nonattainment area to six municipalities: Brighton, Potter and Vanport Townships and Industry, Midland, and Shippingport Boroughs. The reason for the recommended modification ofthe Beaver County nonattainment area is outlined in Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which can be found in the federal docket system. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPAreviewed the information provided by the Commonwealth and concurs thatthe initial Beaver PANonattainment Area should be reduced from the**m~ginal** proposal ofthe entire county to apartial county consisting ofthe municipalities identified by the CmnmonwealthofPennsylvania. EPAwill designate CU!Tently excluded areas in a future round offinal designations. Additional information and analysis regarding tbis area is contained in the PATSD that accompanies this action in the section oftheTSDthat discusses theBeaver PANonattainment Area. 3.2.3.4. Indiana, PA Area 

### Commellt: EPA responded to the Commonwealth's designationrecommendations, agreeing with all ofPennsylvania's original designation recommendations, but also including a portion ofArmstrong County as pmi ofa nonattainment area. After consideration ofEP A's intention to add aportion ofi'mnstrong County, and after further analysis, the state recommends that EPA remove the intended partial designation of Armstrong County for the reasons outlined in Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which canbe found in the federal docket system. 

### EPA'sRe;ponse: EPA agrees with the Commonwealth regarding the inclusion ofall of Indiana County in the nonattainment area. However, EPA does not concur with removing the pmiions ofArmstrong Countythat were in the proposed nonattairunent m·ea. EPAreviewed the additional information provided by the Commonwealth but did not fmd it sufficient tojustifyremoving the po11ions ofArmstrong countyfrom the nonattainment area. Additional infmmation and analysis regarding this area is contained in thePA TSD that accompanies tbis action in the section ofthe TSD that discusses the Indiana PA Nonattainment Area. 3.2.3.5. Warren, PAArea

Page 16 of63

# Electronic Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Comment: Reduce the Warren Countynonattainment areato 

### tour municipalities: Conewago, Glade and Pleasant Townships and the City ofWanen. The reason for the reconunended modification ofthe Wan·en Countynonattainment area is outlined in Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which can be found in the federal docket system. 

### EPA'sRe;ponse: EPAreviewed the information provided bythe Conunonwealth and concurs that the initial Wa!1'en PANonattainment Area should be reduced fi:om the original proposal ofthe entire county to apartial county consisting ofthe municipalities identified by the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. Cun·ently excluded areas will be designated in a future round affinal designations. Additional information and analysis regarding this area is contained in the P A TSD that accompanies this action in the section ofthe TSD that discusses the Wa!1'en PA Nonattainment Area. 3.2.4. EPA Region 4 3.2.4.1. Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH Area Comments regardingthis area are addressed in section 3.2.9.1 3.2.4.2. Nassau County, FL Area 

### Comment: One conunenter believes theproposed nonattainment designation is not appropriate because the commenter believes that the datausedto make the detemlination is notrepresentative ofambient concentrations ofS02. As described below, there are technicalproblemswiththe location ofthe ambient monitoring station and the data validation process. Atthis time Nassau County should be designated as "unclassifiable" and a more suitable monitoring station should be selected for detennination ofthe county's attainment status. Specifically, the comrnenter expresses concerns that S02 e1nissions from a nearby wastewatertreatment plant and diesel emissions fi:om truck traffic on an adjacent driveway impact the Nassau County monitoring site operatedbythe State ofFlorida, and that it is not representative ofambient air. The conm1enter also comments that tl1e data fromthe Nassau County monitor should not be considered valid because the data from a nearby monitor operatedbyRayonier "differ substantially" from the Nassau County monitor data. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA disagrees withthe comrnenter. The StateofFlorida submitted reconunendations for S02 designations which included certified data from an approved monitoring plan for the Nassau County area. In addition, the State performed air quality modeling for that area to support its recommended nonattainment boundary. Inour February 6, 2013, letterto the State, EPA did not proposeto modify Florida's recommended boundary, and agreed with the State's technical analysis for the area.

Page 17 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Regarding the suitability ofFlorida's S02 monitoring station inNassau County, FL, EPA disagrees with the commenterthat the Nassau County monitoring data should be considered invalid. The State ofFlorida has operated the monitor in accordance with all ofthe requirements of40 CFRPart 58, and has certified to EPA that the data is accurate and complete. After reviewing the nearby sources, EPA believes that the wastewater treatment plant and nearby truck traffic are not significant sources ofSOz emissions, and that the monitor is properly sited and is representative ofambient air. EPA also does not agree thatthe data discrepancies observed between Rayonier's S02 monitoring site and Florida's S02 monitoring site should invalidate Florida's monitoring data. Since the Rayonier monitoring data was not collected using an EPA approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, the data do not meet the quality assurance requirements of40 CFRPart 58. Therefore, based uponthe above discussion, EPA believes that the appropliate response is to agree with the State's recommendation and initially designate a pottion ofNassau County, FL as nonattainment. We will designate currently excluded areas in a future round affinal designations. SeeEPA's TSD for this area for more rationale on why the nonattainrnent area designation is appropriate for this area. 3.2.4.3. Sullivan County, TN Area 

### Comme11t: The TSD defmes a pottion ofSullivan County which consists ofa 4.3 kilometer radius circle centered on a point within the EastmanChemical Company facility. The TSD statesthatthis circle encompasses the Eastman facility as well as the one violating monitor in the County. The TSD also states that this boundary encompasses two local SOz sources, AFG Industries and Domtar Paper Company. In fact, it appears the location ofthe Domtar facility governs the size (4.3 kilometer radius circle) ofthe proposedboundary. Table 3 in the TSD lists 1\FG as emitting 49 tons peryear ofS02 and Domtar emitting 892 tons per year, based onthe 2008 National Emissions Inventory. It is Eastman's understanding that the AFGfacility has ceased operation and that the Domtar facility does not emit S02• The commenter's review ofthe 2008 NEI found on EPA's website showed no S02 emissions fromthe Domtar facility. Given that inclusion ofthese facilities results in a larger non-attainment area, Eastman requests the boundary be re-defined to be centeredonEastman's predominant sources ofS02 (coal-fired powerhouses) and have a radius large enough to encompass the violating monitor. This would result in an area defined by a circle having its center atthe B-253 powerhouse coordinates 36.5186 N; 82.5350 Wand having a 3-kilometerradius. The Commenter contends that this boundary will ensure that the only significant source ofS02 emissions (Eastman) in the vicinity is evaluated for control measures that can be included in an attainment demonstration for the area and that the plan will ensurethat the air quality at the location ofthe violating monitor (Ross N Robinson) as well as the other long-termmonitor 

### inthe area (Meadowview) is predicted to meet theNAAQS. Notethat the requested boundary encompasses both monitors mentioned above. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPAhas evaluated this additional information and considered it for the fmal deterrnioation for the initial boundary for this area. Based onthis information Page 18 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: DS/0512013

and a revised recommendation fi:om the StateofTennessee (which is consistent with Eastman's recommendation), EPAhas revised the boundary for the fmal initial nonattainment area for Sullivan County. EPA will designate currently excluded areas in a future round offmal designations. Please see the TSD for the Sullivan County, TN Area for the updated boundruy.

3.2.5. EPARegion 5
3.2.5.1. Lemont, ILArea Comment: Citizens Against Ruining the Environment (CARE) and the Respiratory Health Association (RHA) generally supp01t thepreliminruy determinations regarding Illinois regions that do not attain the 2010 S02 NAAQS based on monitored air quality data. Because ofthe number ofhumanreceptors, there is an urgent public health justification for ILEPA and U.S. EPA to plan for and achieve attainment as soon as possible, without waiting until2017. 

### EPA. 's Response: EPA appreciates the supp01t fi:om CARE and RHA for promulgating nonattainment designations for the Lemont and Pekin areas. While the attainment date is not diJectly addressed in this rulemaking regru·ding designations, the promulgation of nonattainment designations willtrigger nonattainmenrplanning requirements that will require Illinois to develop a plan to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years afterthe area becomes designated nonattainment. Comment: Specifically as to the Lemont non-attainment area, CARE and RHA assett this non-attainment area includes at least the threeTownships in the Illinois recommendation and the U.S. EPA response. CARE and RHA also concur that the stationru·y sources ofair emissions conh·ibuting to this non-attainment include at least the Will County coal-fired powerplant, the Citgo Refinery and Oxbow Calcining, all of which are in an industtial conidor immediatelyto the west and southwest ofthe Lemont monitor. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA appreciates this support for the proposed nonattainrnent area boundaries. Comment: Oxbow Calcining is the closest S02 source to the Lemont monitor. Both IL and U.S. EPA assert Oxbow Calcining causes and conttibuteto non-attainment with the 2010 S02NAAQS. Yet, there is no federally enforceable annual S02 emission limit in the Oxbow airpermit. 

### EPA!sResponse: At issue here is what area 

### is violating orconttibutingto violations at the Lemont monitor, and this comment implicitly supports EPA's proposal to include Oxbow Calcining in the nonattainment. The designation ofnonattainment areas triggers nonattainment planningrequirements, and comments regarding the presence or absence ofacceptable emission limits are more germane to the process ofIllinois developing its nonattainmentplan and EPA rulemaking onthatplan. Page 19 of63

# Elactronic Filing - Racivad. Clark's Offica: 09/0512013

Comment: In characterizing the sources that cause or contribute to non-attainment inthe Lemont area, both U.S. EPA and IL EPA focus onthree· contiguous sources in an industrial corridorto the west and southwest ofthe Lemont monitor. However, there is a fourth facility in this same con·idor, the Seneca Petroleum facility, that was not referenced in this source assessment. EPA'sResponse: According to the 2008 :NEI, the Seneca Petroleum facility either does not exist or emits less than 1 00 tons per year. In any case, this facility is within the nonattainment areathat EPA is promulgating, based onthe contributions ofother nearby facilities, iuespective ofthe emission level ofthis facility. Comment: Midwest Generation ("MWG") operates coal-fired powerplants in the Lemont non-attainment area (the Will Countyfacility) and the Pekin non-attainment area (the Powertonfacility). These facilities are identified by IL EPA and U.S. EPA as being major sources that cause and contributeto S02 non-attainment in the Lemont and Pekin areas. Midwest Generation also operates a coal-fired powerplant in Joliet, immediately to the south ofthe Lemont non-attainment area, whichtodayis a significantly larger S02 source than its Will Countycounterpart. Today, none ofthese coal-burning facilities employ flue gas desulfurizationpollution control equipment. None ofthe fucilities has (or ever had) a Title 5/CAAPP operating permit; in fact, the last effective operating pennits for these facilities were issued byIllinois inthe mid-1990's as federally enforceable state operating permits. All·ofthese facilities are subject to an enforcement case initiated by the United States ofAmerica and the State ofIllinois for undertaking major modifications without nndergoing new source review (United States ofAmerica and the State ofIllinois and Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Edison Mission Energy and CommonwealthEdison Company, No. 09-5277, United States District CoU11, Not1hern District ofIllinois, Eastern Division; CARE is a PlaintiffIntervener in this case). 

### EPA'sResprmse: Again, comments regarding thepresence or absence ofacceptable emission lin1its are more gennane totheprocess ofIllinois developing its nonattainment plan and EPA rulemaking onthat plan. Commeut: Joliet, with a population of 148,402, is downwind oftwo large 802 sourcesMidwest Generation's Joliet plant and the Exxon-Mobil refmery- that Illinois discounted as**contt~buting** to the monitored NAAQ8 exceedances in Lemont, but which RHA and CARE asset1 must be included in any credible analysis ofregional 802 ambient air conditions and contributing sources. CARE and RHA question whether the boundaries ofthe Lemont nonattainment area are expansive enough, and whether there are other stationary sources that are significantly contributingto nonattainment. To ensurethatthe nonattainment area is being accurately defmed, CARE and RHA asset1 that an additional monitor should be installed to assess ambient air conditions to the south ofthe existing boundary oftheproposed nonattainment area. Page 20 of63

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 09/0512013

CARE and RHA also submitted information developed by Sien·a Club in suppo1t ofa filing before the Illinois Pollution Control Board against Midwest Generation. This information includes modeling conducted by Sie!Ta Club based on allowable emissions from Midwest Generation's Joliet plant, indicating a violation east southeast ofthe facility. CARE and RHA state that Sierra Club used modeling to assess the impact ofthe Joliet plant in the absence ofmonitoring data that precisely delineates conditions downwind. CARE and RHA then asse1t that there does not appear to be a basis for a southem boundary ofthe Lemont area that neatly excisesthe contributions ofthe Joliet facility and excludes Joliet fi:om the nonattainment area. 

### EPA'sRespo11se: The comments fi·mn CARE and RHA provide no information on impacts ofthe Midwest Generation's Joliet plant on the violationrecorded in Lemont. The attached material fi·om Sie!Ta Club references maps showing a distribution of impacts ofthe Joliet plant, but these maps were not included in CARE and RHA's comments. The only location specifically addressed in these comments is east southeast ofthe facility, which is a significant distance fi·om Lemont. Fmthermore, no analysis is provided to indicate that high impacts at the Lemont monitor from the Joliet facility are occurr-ing at a time when the Lemont monitor is recording highconcentrations ofS02. CARE and RHA's comments also do not provide evidencethatthe Exxon Mobil refmery contributes to violations at the Lemont monitor. To the cont!·my, pollutionrose informationprovided with Illinois' recommendations indicates that violations predominantlyoccur with west winds. Since these two facilities are considerable distance fi·om the Lemont monitor, and since CARE and RHA haveprovided no evidence that these facilities contributeto the violations recorded at the Lemont monitor, EPA continues to believe that the proposednonattainment areaboundaries appropriately exclude these two facilities. The comments ofCARE and RHA suggest that EPA take one ofthree options: 1) designate a lm·ger nonattainment areathat includes the area ofviolation and contributing sources both in Lemont and inJoliet, 2) designate the Joliet area as well as the Lemont areas as separate nonattainment areas, or 3) designatethe Lemont area as nonattainment and require further monitoring to assess whether the Joliet area is violating the standard. Forreasons given above, EPA believes that the proposed Lemont nonattainment m·ea boundaries are the appropriate boundaries for this area. EPA is not cun·ently acting on other areas such as the Joliet area. EPA has posted a strategypaper on the intemet that envisions requiring further analysis ofareas like the Joliet area, as CARE and RHA suggest. However, action on the Joliet area is notpart ofthis rulemaking, which in Northeast Illinois addresses onlythe Lemont area. 

### Comment: RHA and CARE request clarification onthe constmctionpermit standards that will be imposed ona new S02 source inthenewly designated nonattainment areas (whichwould also apply to major modifications to existing sources). RHA and CARE also request S02 emissions informationprovided bythe Citgo Refmery, which is operating subject to a federal Consent Decree. It appears that Citgo's S02 Page 21 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/0512013

emissions have been reduced exponentially. Can U.S. EPA characterize Citgo's 802 emissions over the past five years, and confumthis significant downward trend? EPA's**Re~pome:** These conm1ents are not gennane to this rulemaking on designations. Nonattainment planning requirements will be addressed separately. Illinois will evaluate emissions Ji"omthe Citgo Refmery as pmi ofit nonattainment planning process. (See also a co1nn1ent and response presented below concerning boththe Lemont and Pekin areas.) Commeut: The ExxonMobil Joliet Refmery suppmtsthe EPA's concun-ence withthe Illinois EPA's recommendationthat Will County be divided, 8.1ld to askthat all townships, other than Lockpmi, and DuPagetownships be designated as attaimnent or unclassifiable as they do not have a significant inlpact onthe Cook County SOI monitor AQS ID # 17-03!-160llocated at 729 Houston, Lemont, which is located in Cook Countyjust across the Will County boundary. EPA'sResponse: EPA appreciates ExxonMobil's support ofthe Lemont nonattainment area. However, no action is being taken onthe remainder ofWill Country in this rule making, so theremainder ofWill Countrywill notreceive anattainlnent orunclassifiable designation. 

### 3.2.5.2. Pekin, IL Area Comment: Boththe Illinois EnvironmentalRegulatmy Group (IERG) and Ameren submitted comments urging EPAto exclude Hollis Township from the nonattainment m·ea based onlow frequency ofwinds coming from that direction, particularly during hours ofviolating when S02 concentrations exceeded the standard. IERG states thatthe meteorology analysis submitted by IEPA is not suppmiive ofthe inclusion ofthis area. They provided two composite photos, one ofa wind rose fi:om IEPA layered on a map fi·om IEPA ofthe area showing the locations ofthe facilities and the other ofa pollution rose from IEPA layered on that s8.1lle map. IERGagrees withIEPA's assessment that sources to the west and southwestmost likely contribute to the exceedance. IERG compared wind directionto hours ofS02 exceedances from 2007 to 201 I and provided percentages ofthe wind direction during exceedances. They found that the wind direction was variable 3.7% ofthetinle, from the NW 0.4%, 8.1ld not from the other nmtherly directions. Ameren stated that their E.D. Edwards facility is almost directly nmih ofthe monitor and that wind from the north accounts for less than 5% ofthe total wind direction occurrences and thereforetheprobabilityofthe facility causing an exceedance is low. Ameren also states that 99% ofthe violating S02 values at that monitor occmTed when winds were fromthe South -Southwestto West-Nmthwest withthe majority from theWest and West-Southwest. Ameren stated thatthe wind speeds were usually greaterthat l 0 mph during exceedances, whichpoints to the facilities with shmt stack heights in the west. Ameren believes that emission levels are not the only factor to be considered, 8.1ld EPA Page 22 of63

# Elactronic Filing - Racivad, Clark's OfficB: 09/0512013

should look at the meteorology ofa monitor and the actual locations offacilities, stack heights, stack flow and temperature, and other relevant operating characteristics ofthe facilities. Ameren also provided a pollutionrose in graph form and a table ofhourly S02 exceedance fi·om 2008-20I0 withthe associated wind direction and speed. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPAbelieves that winds come fi'om the direction ofE.D. Edwards with sufficient fi·equency that the substantial emissions ofthis facility warrant being considered to contribute to the violation in Pekin. Ameren states that the winds fi·om the nmihaccount for less than 5percent ofthetotal wind occurrences. An even distribution ofwinds among I6 wind directions would mean about 6 percent ofthe winds from each direction, so this does not signifYparticularlylow frequency. As shown in !EPA's initial recommendation, ofthe sixteenwind directions, eleven ofthe directions occur 3 to 6% of the time. Four ofthe directions occur 6 to 9% ofthe time with the most fi·equent southerly direction occuning less than I5% ofthe time. Thus, winds coming fi·om the direction ofE.D. Edwards plant toward the Pekin monitor occur with sufficient frequency that the facility has significant potential to contributeto the monitored violations. Most ofiERG's and Ameren's comments focus on winds during hours when S02 concentrations at the Pekin monitor exceeded the level ofthe standard. EPA agrees that the winds for the PekiinNonattainment area are most fi·equently fi·om the south and west wind directions during times ofexceedances. However, tllis statement does not answer the question ofwhetherwinds Ji'om the direction ofthe E.D. Edwards plant occur with sufficient fi'equency to conclude that the plant contributes to the violation. Inresponse to !ERG's and Ameren's presentation ofaverage wind directions during hours ofS02 exceedances for 2008 to 2010, EPA conducted a similar review. EPA examined the average oftwo-minutewind direction samples instead ofanhourly sample to better evaluate variable winds. Fromthis review, EPA identifiednumerous occasions when exceedances occurred dming times with generallynortherly winds. For example, EPA found that on May 9, 2010 at I4:00, the S02 value was monitored at 97 ppb with an hourly average wind direction of343 degrees**~'W)** with a wind speed of4 mph. The facility likely cause the greatest impact fi·om this direction is the Ameren E.D. Edwards facility. Another example was an exceedance ofI09 ppb on April2I, 20I0 at 15:00, whenthe wind was blowing at 5 mph at 3I7 degrees. This exceedance, with no1ihwest winds, suggests significant contributions from either or both ofthe facilities in that direction, i.e., either orboth ofE.D. Edwards and the Aventine Renewable Energy facility in Pekin Township. Wind data supplied by Ameren showed an exceedance on January I7, 2010 of89 ppb. The wind direction is shown to vary during this homfi·om 10 to 40 degrees, which suggests a significant contribution to the exceedance from the AmerenE.D. Edwards facility. Ameren's data also show several instances ofvariable wind direction and calm winds with exceedances associated withthe time period. With calmwinds, significant contiibutions are likelyto arise from nearby facilities with significant emissions in several directions fromthe monitor, including inparticular in the direction from which the E.D. Edwards plant would contribute.

Page 23 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

When winds are variable, a proper analysis often requires assessing thevariety ofwind directions observed dming the pertinent period. For example, onApril 9, 2009, an exceedance ofI !9ppb was recorded struting at 10:00. The homlywind data showedthe average wind direction to be 233 degrees. However, in looking atjust a twenty minute period ofthe actual two minuterolling averages, from I0:35 to I0:55, the wind direction shifted quite frequently, as seen in the table below: Local Time Wind Direction (Degrees) I0:35 347 10:36 354 10:37 325 10:38 255

. 10:39 229 10:40 239 10:41 237 10:42 238 10:43 244 10:44 204 10:45 168 10:46 155 10:47 155 10:48 161 10:49 108 10:50 27 10:51 351 10:52 348 10:53 341 10:54 343 10:55 2 Several ofthese data points are inthe n01therly direction ofthe facility, suggesting that the E.D. Edwards facility was contributing to the exceedance during severalportions of the hour. These two minute data are two minute averages ofwind direction and speed that are rolling every minute, meaning there are 60 two minute averages everyhour. These data show a more accurate picture ofthe wind patterns during a recorded hour. The data allow forthe change ofwind direction during the hourto be observed instead ofbasing the entirehour on one average or one reading. The table below shows that looking beyond a single wind direction reading shows several additional instances ofpossible contributionto the exceedances from the direction ofthe Ameren facility. The table below looks at the two minute data dming hours ofexceedance. The number of occmTences is the number ofrolling two minute data during the hourthat were between 315 (Northwest) and 11 (NorthbyEast), which were used to indicate potential for significant contribution from the E.D. Edwards facility. Thetotal possible number of occurrences during an hour is 60 due to the average rolling everyminute. Page 24 of63

# Ehoctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficE!: 08/05/2013

Numbet· of Exceedancc Date Hour Occurrences Value

4/9/2009 10:00-11:00 8 78 5/3112009 II:00-12:00 5 144 5/31/2009 12:00-13:00 14 112

6/9/2009 12:00-13:00 4 137 6/9/2009 13:00-14:00 3 83 7/15/2009 12:00-13:00 I 84 7/3112009 9:00-10:00 

### 5 76 I0/4/2009 14:00-15:00 3 98 1117/2010 I:00-2:00 7 89 4/2112010 15:00-16:00 25 109

5/9/2010 12:00-13:00 9 104 5/9/2010 14:00-15:00 39 97 10/1/20I0 13:00-14:00 15 97 3/2112011 12:00-13:00 9 126

5/7/201 I 13:00-14:00 I 76 8/8/2011 17:00-18:00 24 

### 95 9/25/2011 13:00-14:00 5 104 On each ofthese occasions, the E.D. Edwards facility was likely contributing to the exceedance during at least some portion ofthe hour. This review suggests that, in addition to winds in the direction from the E.D. Edwards facility towardthe Pekinmonitor being common in general, winds in this direction also occurperiodically on occasions whenthe Pekin monitor shows 

### 802 concentrations to exceed the standard. Furthermore, winds in this area are fi:equently variable, suchthat a significant fi·action ofthe contribution to exceedances could be arising from the E.D. Edwards facility on these occasions as well. Given the quantity ofemissions fi·om this facility (approximately 11,000 tons per year), EPA believes that winds blow from this facility towardthe Pekin monitor with sufficient fi·equency, including specifically on days with high monitored concentrations, to warrantthis facility being considered to contribute to violations at the monitor. 

### Comment: Midwest Generation (''MWG") operates coal-frred powerplants in the Lemont non-attainment area (the Will County facility) and the Pekin non-attainment area (the Powerton facility). These facilities are identified byIL EPA and U.S. EPA as being major sources that cause and contributeto 

### 802 non-attainment in the Lemont and Pekin areas. Midwest Generation also operates a coal-fired powerplant in Joliet, inrroediately to the southofthe Lemont non-attainment area, whichtodayis a significantly larger 

### 802 sourcethan its Will Countycounterpart. Today, none ofthese coal-burning facilities employ flue gas desulfurizationpollution control equipment. None ofthe facilities has (or ever had) a Title 5/CAAPP operating permit; in fact, the last effective operating permits Page 25 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

for these facilities were issued byIllinois in the mid-1990's as federally enforceable state operating permits. All ofthese facilities are subject to an enforcement case initiated by the United StatesofAmerica and the State ofIllinois for unde1taking major modifications without undergoing new source review (United States ofAmerica and the State oflllinois and Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Edison Mission Energy and Conm1onwealthEdisonCompany, No. 09-5277, United States District CoUli, Nmthem District ofIllinois, Eastem Division; CARE is a PlaintiffIntervener in this case). 

### EP4'sResponse: This information supports the proposed nonattainment area boundaries. Illinois will need to considerthe need for further control ofthese facilities as it prepares its nonattainment areaplans. 3.2.5.3 Detroit, MIArea 

### Comment: U. S. Steel requested that USEPA include the pmtions ofMomoe Countythat include the DTE Momoe Station in the Detroit nonattainment area. U.S. Steel observed that this powerplant is a significant somce ofS02• U.S. Steel observed that before 2009, this plant was the "second largest coal-fired power plant in the nation." U.S. Steel asserted further that air quality improvements following installationofscrubbers ontwo ofthe four units in 2009 "suggest a strong correlation between [emissions at Monroe Station and Detroit air quality]." U.S. Steel quoted EPA's rationale for excluding Monroe Station from the nonattainment area, and objects that "the data support a finding that ifsimilar controls were installed onthe two remaining units,

... thenthe [violating monitor] would most likely demonstrate attainment." U.S. Steel submitted a presentationprepared byMike Lebeis ofDTE Energy. This presentation describes a review ofthe seasonal frequency ofelevated S02 concentrations at the critical monitor in Detroit (at the Southwest High School, or SWHS) and notes significant changes in S02 emissions in Southeast l\llichigan during the studyperiod, in particular the installation ofscrubbers on Units 3 and 4 in November and June 2009, respectively, and the temporary shutdown ofthe Detroit area U.S. Steel facility from November 2008 to August 2009. Thepresentationhighlights the fact that only seven occasions ofconcentrations above 75 ppb occurred in 2009, during none ofwhich was U.S. Steel operating. The presentation includes a slide entitled "Summary Findings

- Hypothesis" which speculates that high S02 concentrations arise fi-om a combination of impacts from regional sources and local sources, but no analyses are presented that assess the relative impacts ofregional versus local sources. Nevertheless, U.S. Steel characterizes the presentation as "clearly [suggesting] that thatboth regional S02 sources and local S02 sources are the reasons for elevated S02 readings at the SWHS monitor. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that since 2010, therehas been a noticeable drop in the number ofhoms per year that S02 exceeds 7 5 ppb at the SHWS monitor." According to theLebeis presentation, this would suggest thatthe lower readings at the SWHS monitor are attributable at least in part to the improvements at the Momoe PowerPlant. This presentation also states that in2009, the only hours whenthe NAAQS was exceed at

Page 26 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

SWHS occurred 

### in the Spring when US Steel operations were curtailed,' suggesting that U.S. Steel, a local source, does not significantly impact the SWHS monitor. Forthese reasons, U. S. Steel encouraged USEPA and MDEQ to include portions of Momoe County to include Momoe Station, a large S02 source locatedupwind ofthe SWHS monitor, 

### as part ofthe "Wayne County" nonattainment area. 

### EPA's**Re~JHmse:** Neither 

### in its comments nor 

### in its attached presentation did U.S. Steel provide any analysis ofthe impacts ofMonroe Station 

### in relationto the impacts ofother somces that are closerto the monitor. Instead, the evidence U.S. Steelpresents must be considered anecdotal, reflecting the frequency ofelevated S02 concentrations in conjunctionwith information about variations 

### in emission rates. The presentation itself attributes the relatively low number ofexceedances of75 ppb recorded 

### in 2009 to the relatively cooltemperatures recorded that year. Indeed, thevariations in the fi:equency of exceedances in other years may simplyreflect variations 

### in meteorology. Other data in the Lebeis presentation, namelythe fact that few exceedances occur when U.S. Steel is shutdown and more exceedances occur when U.S. Steel is operating, suggest support for a conclusion that U.S. Steel is a significant contributorto the exceedances, but the influence ofmeteorological variations is too imp01iantto be able to usethese statistics to reach either this orU.S. Steel's conclusion. The Lebeis presentation repotis that 201 0 has the greatest number ofexceedances ofthe 75 ppb standard, with moderately low numbers ofexceedances occurring in 2011 and 2012. U.S. Steel asserts that the low numbers ofexceedances in 2011 and 2012 reflect the impact ofcontrols at Monroe Station, but U.S. Steel offers no explanation as to why the highnumber ofexceedances in 2010, which also came after the implementation of controls at two units ofMomoe Station, should not be considered evidence that these controls had no impact on concentrations at SWHS. Indeed, considering the high frequency ofexceedances 

### in 2010 according to U.S. Steel's reasoning, one would infer that the emissionreductions at Momoe Station have minimal effect and the resumption of emissions at U.S. Steelhas significant effect, a conclusionthat is diametricallythe opposite ofU.S. Steel's conclusion from examining 2011 and 2012 data. EPAfinds a more plausible conclusionto be that U.S. Steel's conm1ents, and the Lebeis presentation that theyrelyon, are simplyunreliable evidence as to the contribution ofMomoe Station EPA agrees that southwinds are common on days with elevated concentrations at the SWHS monitor. However, EPAmust evaluate further whether Momoe Station, located approximately 54kilometers from the monitor, shouldbe considered tobe a nearby source that contributes to the violations recorded at the monitor. U.S. Steel conceded that Momoe Station would not be considered a source that is "local" to the SWHS monitor. Under Clean Air Act section I07, nonattainment areas, in addition to including the areas violating the standard, are to include thenearby sources that contribute to the violation. U.S. Steel does not address criteria forjudging a sourceto be nearby, but U.S. Steel implicitlyconcedes that Momoe Station could reasonably be considerednotto be nearbythe SWHS monitor.

Page 27 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

U.S. Steel also does not address the significance ofthe data showing monitored design values below the S02 standard at the AllenParkmonitor, a monitor which is somewhat to the southwest ofthe SWHS monitor, closer to Monroe Station. While these data do not answer the question ofwhether Momoe Station contributes to concentrations at either location, these data do indicate that most ofthe S02 monitored at the SWHS monitor 

### is being contributed from more local sources. Based onthe analysis described in the TSD, EPA continues to believe that Monroe Station is not a nearby source that conttibutes to the violation at the SWHS monitor. 

### 3.2.5.4 Terre Haute, IN Area Comment: Indiana agrees withthe inclusion ofFayette Township in the TeneHaute nonattainment area, but disagrees with the inclusion ofOtter Creek Township because the population for that township is low and there are no sources ofS02. 

### EPA'sResponse: See TetTe Haute, IN p01tion ofthe Indiana TSD. 

### 3.2.5.5 Richmond, IN Area Comment: Indiana submitted a reconunendationthat Wayne County, IN should be excluded from this round ofdesignations because the monitor in Wayne Countyhas certified, quality assured data showing that it 

### is not violation the 2010 S02 Standard based onthe 2010-2012 designperiod with a design value of66 ppb. 

### EPA'sResponse: Becausethere are no monitored violations for the Riclumnd, Indiana area, no action is currently beingtaken onthis area. 

### 3.2.5.6 Oneida County, WI Area Comment: EPA proposed one S02 nonattainrnent area for the State ofWisconsin. This is the area that was initially recormnended in a letterto EPA Region 5 onMay26, 2011. OnJanuary 23, 2013, however, the source responsible for the elevated S02 concentrations submitted an application withthe WDNRto install a natural gas boiler at their facility. Giventhis development, EPA should delay fmalization ofthe one nonattainment designation in Wisconsin at this time. This is the major source ofS02 in the area and the WDNR believes the area will achieve attainment when the source reduces its emissions. Consequently, attainment status should be granted once the cause ofthe nonattainrnent is removed or reduced. Regardless ofthe U.S. EPA's action regarding finalization ofthe nonattainment designation, the remainder ofOneida County should be designated attainment. U.S. EPA should also designate other areas in Wisconsin attainment now, based on emissions and monitoring data.

Page 28 of63

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

EPA'sResponse: EPA is currently acting on designations for areas currently monitoring violations ofthe S02 NAAQS. See the Wisconsin TSD for further discussion ofthis comment. 3.2.5.7 Marshall, WV Area (previously called Wheeling, WV-OH) Comments regarding this area are addressed in section 3.2.9.3 3.2.6. EPA Region 6 3.2.6.1 St. Barnard Parish, LA 

### Comment: One commenter described the communities around the plants and refineries in St. Bernard Parish as under-served and over-burdened with rising sulfur levels, and generally expresses suppmt for a nonattainment designation for St. Bernard Parish. 

### EPA'sRe,po11se: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for a nonattainment designation for St. Bemard Parish. 

### Comment: One commenter believes that the rising sulfur levels inSt. Bernard Parish are a result ofthe pollution allowed byTitle V air permits issued to stationary sources, emissions from plants and refineries that have been "grandfathered," and from unpermitted sulfur emissions. The commenter also states that expansions, modifications, and variance exemptions that have been approved bythe Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) for theRain CII facility and other plants and refmeries without appropriate review or withoutproviding public notice have also resulted in increased pollution and unacceptable and unhealthy air quality. 

### EPA's Respom·e: EPA agrees with the commenter that stationary sources in the area appearto be responsible for much ofthe elevated S02 levels in St. Bernard Parish (see ourTSD found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-2033). The determination of whether it will be necessary to establish federally enforceable emission lin1its more stringent than those currently in place for stationary sources in the area to achieve attainment ofthe standard in St. Bernard Parishwill be made through the nonattainment State Implementation Plan (SIP) process. The requirement to develop a nonattainment SIP 

### is triggered by the nonattairm1ent designation. Thenonattainment SIP, itself, is outside the scope ofthe designations process. LDEQ will have to develop this SIP in accordance with CAA sections 172 and 191-192, adopting the necessary controls so that the area will attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no laterthan the statutory attainment date. Underthe CAA, the State must provide the public the opportunityto comment onthe plan revision and the State must respond to those comments before adopting the SIP and submitting it to EPA for approval. While we acknowledge the commenter's concern withthepotential increase in S02 emissions resulting from previously approved orproposed source modifications or expansions and previously approved variances, we notethat this is also outside the scope Page 29 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013

ofthe designations process. These permitted and potential permitted increases, however, are required to be evaluated by LDEQ and taken into account during the development of the nonattaimnent SIP. Specific petmitting and variance concerns, however, should be raised directlyto LDEQ on a permit bypermit basis, during the public comment period for the proposed permit revision, as LDEQ's air permitting program has been approved byEPA into the Louisiana SIP. Concerns related to public pmticipationwith regard to proposed source modifications and variance requests should also beraised to LDEQ. 

### Comment: The commenter states that the SIP should address the potential increase in S02 emissions resulting fi·om petmit applications currentlyunder administrative review, and from compliance withEPA's expected Tier 3 mandates and other future regulations. The commenter believes that modifications ofsources in the area and new regulatory mandates expected in the near future should not cost the communitywhat little good air 

### is remaining. EPA's Response: We acknowledgethe cormnenter's concerns related to the impact of future construction and/or modifications ofsources in the area. The federal CleanAirAct requires that the new nonattainment SIP include a nonattainment New Source Review permitting program that would apply in the St. Bernard Parish nonattainment area. All new major stationary sources and major modifications in the nonattainment area must offsettheir new emissions so there is no net increase in S02emissions in St. Bemard Parish. However, evaluation ofpotential S02emissions increasesresulting from applications underthe New Source Review permitting program is outside the scope ofthe designations process. Furthennore, withrespect to the cornrrienter's concernwiththe potential impactofsource compliance with future federal air pollutionregulations, wenote that this is also outside the scopeofthe designations process and the nonattainment SIP development process. If compliance with any existing or future federal regulations will cause increases ofS02in the future, the LDEQ must takethese increases into consideration while developing the nonattainment SIP and adopt control measures as needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment date. However, we note that before promulgating any new federal air pollution regulations, EPA develops technical, economic, and environmental analyses that are available for review and comment during a public notice and comment period ofat least 30 days after a new federal regulation is proposed. This mayprovide an appropriate venue for the commenter to raise concerns regarding potential increases in S02emissions resulting fi·om compliance withthose regulations. 

### Comment: One commenter believes that the communities in St. Bernard Parish should have an opp011unityto attend public information sessions and provide input before any SIP decisions aremade. 1heconm<enter believesthat approp1i.ate contm\s arenecessary to maintain the balance between residential neighborhoods and heavy industrial land use. The connnenter states that the SIP should: protect public health and safety in St. Bemard Parishbyrequiring all major sources to install technologythat results in the lowest achievable emissionrates; require emission reductions beyond what may akeady be
Page 30 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013

scheduled; require the operation ofair monitors along the perimeter/fence-line ofsources since monitored violations at fixed ambient air monitors can be dependent on wind direction; require the operation ofcunent ambient air monitors beyond SIP and EPA consent decree timelines (in particular for the Valero Energy air monitor); and require operation ofadditional ambient air monitors (in patticular along the west bank ofthe Mississippi River) where residents have repmted experiencing adverse health effects when the wind blows opposite the Chahnette Vista monitor and canies emissions from sources in St. Bemard Parish to Orleans Parish. The commenter believes that other solutions at all major sources, docks, and terminals in St. Bernar·d Par-ish include more stringent pollution controls, meaningful enforcement and surveillance, a residents-based community benefits agreement with each industry, and the dedication ofany penalties toward localprojects that suppmt public health, localjobs, and communityresettlement. 

### EPA'sResponse: While issues related to the development ofnonattainment SIPs for the !-hour SO:! NAAQS are outside the scope ofthe designationsprocess, we note that CAA section 172(c) desct"ibes the general requirements for nonattainment SIPs. Nonattainment SIPs generallycontainrequirements such as (but not limited to): reasonably available control measures (including reductions in emissions fi·om existing sources in the area) and provide for attainment ofthe NAAQS, enforceable emission limitations, and means or techniques as necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment ofthe 1-hour S02 standar·d. All new major sources and major modifications will be required to install technologythat results in the lowest achievable emissionrate. As the state airpollution control agency in Louisiana, LDEQ will have the responsibilityto develop this SIP and submit it to EPA for approval. Federal regulations require states to provide reasonable notice and hold a public hearing on a draft SIP and respond to all public comments received before the SIP is submitted to EPA for approval. In addition, EPA provides public notice and an oppmtunityfor public comment before fmalizing its action to approve or disapprove a SIP. As such, we expect that the communities in St. Bernar·d Parish will have sufficient oppmtunity to provide input before EPAtakes final action on the nonattainment SIP. With respect to the commenter's monitoring concerns, theEPA requirements for the !- hour S02National Ambient Air Quality Standar·d revised on June 2, 2010, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/actions.html. The fmall-hour S02 NAAQS rule requires a minimum ofthree S02 monitors for any Core-based Statistical Area (CBSA) with a calculated Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) value equalto or greaterthan 

### 1,000,000. A PWEI uses population and emissions inventory data at the CBSA levelto assignrequired monitm"ing for a given CBSA, withpopulation and emissions being obvious relevant factors in prioritizing numbers ofrequired monitors. The fmall-hour S02NAAQS rule also requires a minimum oftwo S02monitors for any CBSA with a calculated PWEI value equalto or greater than 

### 100,000, but less than 

### 1,000,000. For any CBSAwith a calculated PWEI value equalto or greater than 

### 5,000, but less than I

### 00,000, a minimum ofone S02monitor is required withinthat CBSA. In the fmal S02 NAAQS rule, EPA stated that the monitors required within these breakpoints would provide a reasonable minimum number ofmonitors in a CBSAthat considers the combination ofpopulation and emissions that exist in a CBSA. Based on Page 31 of63

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/05/2013

the S02 monitoring networkrequirements in the final !-hour S02 NAAQS rule, no additional S02 monitors are required onthe west bank ofthe Mississippi River in Orleans Parish nor along the fence-line ofstationa1ysources in St. Bernard Parish. We note at this time, separate fi:om the designations process, the EPA is evaluating the overall implementation strategy for the 

### SOz standard, including evaluation ofregulatmy air monitoring requirements. Oppo1tunities for additional public input will be available as necessary changes to existing rules, 

### ifany, and guidance are developed. Additional information on EPA's S02 in1plementationplans can be found at: http://www.epa.cmv/oaqpsOOl/sulfurdioxide/implement.html and http://www.epa.gov/oagps001/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20130207S02StrategyPaper.pdf. Furthermore, whenever a state's rumual monitoring network plan proposes monitoring networkmodifications, a public comment opp01tunity is fumished by either the State or EPA. As further explained in a separate response, the Valero air monitor the commenter references was required by a 2010 consent decreebetweenthe facility and EPA to settle CAA violations. This monitor is operated and maintained bythe facility, and is not a regulatmy air monitor. The requirements for operation ofthe Valero air monitor were established bythe consent decree and because it is a non-regulatory monitor, the requirements for its operation are outside the scope ofthe designations processes. 

### Comment: The commenter expresses concern that the "SIP timeline of2018" may be too late for St. Bernard Parish's residents who report having anegative quality oflife and health effects as a result offlaring events. 

### EPA'sResponse: While issues related to the deadline for attainment are outside the scope ofthe designations process, the commenter appears to be refeiTing to the statutory deadline for areas designated nonattainment for the !-hourS02NAAQS to attain the standard. CAA section 19l(a) requires states to develop and submit nonattainment SIPs to EPA within 18 months ofthe effective date ofan area's nonattainment designation, demonstrating that the affected area will attain the standard bythe applicable statutory attainment date. Under CAA section 192(a), areas designated nonattainment withrespect to the primary S02 NAAQS must attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date the area was designated nonattainment. We anticipate working withLDEQ in the development ofthe SIP to identify the most expeditious practicable attainment date and ensure this requirement is met. Comment: The commenter expresses support for a nonattainment designation for St. BemardParish, noting that all three major sources in St. Bernard Parish contribute S0 2 emissions and both the "Chalmette Vista" and the "Valero" air monitors have multiple violations ofthe 1-hour S02 standard. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for a nonattainment designation for St. Bernard Pa1ish.

Page 32 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Comment: The commenter expresses suppmt for a nonattainment designation for St. Bemard Parish, noting that the health ofpeople in the community is being negatively affected by high concentrations ofS02• The commenterbelieves that industryhas caused a disasterthatwas avoidable, but it will now take a long time for the community to recover and the "label" ofnonattainment will have a deterring effect on the community's resettlement programs. The commenter statesthat both Valero Energyand ExxonMobil operate several otherrefineries in other areas using better control technologyresulting in lower S02 emissions, and suggests that these companies should be required to make the same investment at their facilities in St. Bemard Parish. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA aclmowledges the commenter's support for a nonattainment designation for St. Bemard Parish. However, development ofthenonattainment SIP and decisions on what control technology sources inthe area must install are outside the scope ofthe designations process. LDEQ is responsible for developing a SIP that includes controls for sources in the area and contains an attainment demonstration showing St. Bemard Parishwill attainthe standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no laterthan the statutory attainment date. 

### Comment: The commenter states that control technologythat would reduce emissions resulting from plant startup/shutdown due to planned maintenance, unplanned malfunctions, and hurricane and other weatherrelated events is available and should be required for sources in the area. The commenter states that in August 2012 inpreparation for Hurricane Isaac, the ExxonMobil Chalmette plant and the Valero EnergyMeraux plant had planned shutdowns and repmted emitting over 46 tons ofS02 and 1,102 pounds ofS02 (respectively) from stmtup and shutdownprocedures. The commenter adds that while huiTicane related events mayresult in a violation ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS, this goes undocumented because monitoring sites are taken down during hun-icanes for safety reasons. The commenter believes that industryin St. Bemm·d Parish should plan ahead and be properly equipped for weather related events. 

### EPA'sResponse: We acknowledge the commenter's concern with emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, and malfunction; however, we note that the detennination of what control technologies should be required for sources inthe area is outside the scope ofthe designations process. As stated in a previous response, LDEQ inthe SIP development processwill determinewhich sources must install what pollutioncontrols to meet applicable emissionlimits to attainthe !-hour S02 standm·d. We encourage the commenter to pmticipate during the development ofthe SIP. Although out ofthe scope of the designations process, we also notethat on Febmary22, 2013, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register proposing to take action on a petition for mlemaking filed bythe Sien-a Club onJune 30, 2011 (see 78 FR 12460). The petition included inten·elated requests concerningthe treatment ofexcess emissions in 39 states' existing SIP rules by stationary sources duringperiods ofstartup, shutdown, or malfunction. Inthat proposed mJemaking, EPA specifically proposed to determinethat Louisiana's existing SIP includes a number ofprovisions regarding the treatment ofexcess emissions during periods ofstartup, shutdown, and malfunction that are inconsistent withthe CAA. The EPA also simultaneouslyproposed a SIP callwhichupon finalization would give
Page 33 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

Louisiana 18 months to correct and submit its revised SIP to EPA. The EPA's February 22, 2013 proposed rule intends to ensure states have SIP provisions in place that require industrial facilities across the countryto follow air pollutionrules during times whenthe facility is sta1ting up or shutting down, orwhen a malfunction occurs. More information onEPA's proposed SIP call on startup, shutdown, and malfunction can be found at: http://www.epa.£Ov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.htrnl. With regard to the commenter's concern with potential violations ofthe !-hour S02 NAAQS that may go undetected during hurricane events when ambient air monitors are taken down, we note that taking down monitors is routine practice during hunicane events in order to prevent damage to expensive monitoring equipment. The monitors are onlytaken down temporarily and usuallyresume operations promptly following the hunicane event. We also notethat during and following emergencies, EPA may deploy mobile air monitoring equipment to monitor and sample for substances that maybe present in the environment. The decision whether to deploythese mobile air monitors is usually based onthe emergency and determined on a case bycase basis. Therefore, we expect that any major accidental releases ofchemicals or emissions into the atmosphere that could potentiallypose a serious threatto humanhealth would not go undetected. Comment: The commenter states that emergency flaring resulting from unplanned malfunctions and shutdowns can cause chronic and acute health risks and may violate the !-hour S02 NAAQS. The commenter argues that the ExxonMobil Chalmette refmery and the Valero EnergyMeraux refmery are major contributors to nonattainment in St. Bernard Parish, stating that both the ChalmetteVista and Valero monitoring sites have many violations ofthe !-hour 

### SOz NAAQS. The commenter states that the ExxonMobil Chalmette refinery in2010 and 2011, and the Valero Energy Meraux refmery in 2011 and 2012, emitted more S02 emissions thanwhat each is permitted to emit. The cmmnenter also provides information on unpla1med flaring events at boththe ExxonMobil Chalmetterefinery and the Valero Energy Merauxrefinery, noting that there were monitored violations at the Chalmette Vista and the Valero monitoring sites during these events when the wind was blowing away from the sources and towardthe monitors. 

### EPA'sResponse: We agree with the commenter that stationary sources in the area appear to be responsible for elevated S02 levels in St. Bernard Parish, as measured in particular at the Chalmette Vista monitor (see ourTechnical Suppmt Document found in Docket ID Nb. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-2033). Inmaking our decision to designate St. Bernard Parish nonattainment, we considered the three most recent years ofcertified data from regulatmy ambient air monitors, as well as certain other factors. However, in detennining that the St. Bernard Parish area was in violation oftheNAAQS for purposes ofdesignations, we did nottake into consideration any data fi·om the Valero air monitor referenced by the commenter, as it 

### is not a regulatory monitor. Although we believe the data from the Valero monitor is informational in manyrespects, the data does not meet the requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendices A, C, and E. Because ambient air quality data used bythe EPA for establishing violations ofthe NAAQS must meetthe requirements in 40 CFRPart 58 Appendices A, C, and E, EPA cannot consider data from

Page 34of63

# Electronic Filing - Racived, Clark's Offica: 09/0512013

the Valero monitor for purposes ofestablishing NAAQS violations for designation purposes. 

### Comment: The commenter states that the Chalmette Vista monitor, located nmth of ExxonMobil and Rain CII, demonsh·ates violations ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS and shows that both sources are major contributors to nonattairunent. The commenternotes that LDEQ's 2011 designation recommendations to EPA were based on 2008-2010 air monitor data, and states that there have been no significant improvements in monitored S02 concenh·ations in 2011 and 2012 at the Chalmette Vista air monitor while there has been an increase in 

### SOz concentrations at boththe Meraux and Valero air monitors, with violations at the Valero air monitor. 

### EPA'sResponse: As canbe seen in the analysis presented in ourTSD, which can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-2033, we agree with the commenterthat Rain CII and ExxonMobil appear to conttibute to the violations recorded at the Chalmette Vista monitor. EPA established the !-hour S02standard at a level of75 patts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average ofthe annual99 1 h percentile of !-hour daily maximum concentrations. In making its designation decisions, EPA must consider the three most recent years ofcertified data fr·om regulatory ambient air monitors, as well as certain other factors. Louisiana based its 2011 designation reconunendations on 2008-2010 air monitoring data because at the time those were the three most recent years for which certified air monitoring data was available. Since certified 20II air monitoring data became available bythe time EPAproposed its designations in February2013, EPA proposed and is now finalizing its S02 designation decision for St. Bernard Patish based on a violation oftheNAAQS established by 2009-2011 data from regulatory air monitors. Although in recent years there has been some improvement in the monitored S02 concenh·ations at the Chalmette Vista monitor, we agree withthe commenterthatthe monitor's 2009-2011 designvalue of287parts perbillion (ppb) is significantly above the standard of?5 ppb. Although EPA is designating St. Bernard Parish nonattainment, we notethat in malting that decision EPA did not take into consideration for purposes ofestablishing NAAQS violations any data from the Valero air monitor referenced bythe commenter, as it is not a regulatorymonitor. The Valero monitor is a community air monitoring station that was installed bythe facility as part ofa 2010 consent decree withEPAto settle CAA violations, and is operated and maintained bythe facility. Althoughwebelievethe data fr·om the Valero monitor is informational in manyrespects, the data does not meet the requirements in40 CFRPart 58 Appendices A, C, and E. We discuss the Meraux air monitor in the next response. 

### Comment: The commenter states that air monitoring data for the years 2008-2012 at the Meraux air monitor demonstratethat recent plant modifications atthe Valero Energy Meraux refinery have resulted in increased 

### SOz concentrations. The commenternotes that the 2012 highest annuall-hour 

### SOz concentration of59 ppb at the Meraux air monitor, as well as four consecutive 5-minute readings above 75 ppb, tookplace around the same time as theValero EnergyMeraux refmeryreported flaring. The commenternotes that Page 35 of63

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's Offic8: 

# 08/05/2013

there is a public health concem at the elementary school where the Meraux air monitor is located, as school children were exposed to these high S02 levels and studies have linked short-tem1 exposure to adverse respiratory effects, especially when children are exercising orplaying. The commenter contends that air monitoring data fi:om the Meraux and Valero air monitors demonstrate that the Valero Energy Meraux refinery is the major contributorto violations ofthe !-hour S02 NAAQS at boththe Valero and Meraux air monitors as well as at the elementmy school, that there is a need to implement long-term solutions, and thatthe Valero air monitor could potentially in the future demonstrate nonattairnnent ifthere are no further emissions reductions at the Valero Energy Meraux refmery. 

### EPA'sResponse: As stated in a previous response, EPA is basing its decisionto designate St. Bernm·d Parish nonattainment on the three most recent years ofcertified data from regulat01y air monitors in the m·ea. As discussed in ourTechnical Supp01t Document, we considered 2009-2011 data from the three regulatorymonitors inthe m·ea: the Chahnette Vista, Chahnette High School, and Meraux monitors. Although we acknowledge the comrnenter's concerns regarding exceedances ofthe !-hour S02 standard at the Meraux air monitor, out ofthe three monitors onlythe Chalmette Vista monitor is violating the !-hour S02 standard based on 2009-2011 air monitoring data. The TSD explains in further detail what sources appearto be contributing to violations at the Chalmette Vista monitor. As stated in a previous response, as part ofthe SIP development process, LDEQ must detennine which sources inthe area must install what controls to attainthe standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no laterthan the statuto1y attainment date. EPA anticipates working with LDEQ inthis process. Withrespect to the Valero 

### air monitor, although we believethe data fromthe Valero monitor is infonnational in manyrespects, the data does not meet therequirements in 40 CPRPart 58 AppendicesA, C, and E. Because ambient air quality data usedby the EPA for establishing violations oftheNAAQS must meet the requirements in40 CPR Pmt 58 Appendices A, C, and E, EPA cannot consider data from the Valero monitor for purposes ofestablishingNAAQS violations for designation purposes. 

### Comment: The conm1enter states that high S02levels were also monitored at LDEQ's former air monitoring sites, and provides info1mation onthe highest annual !-hour S02 concentrations and 99th percentile data from specific years for these air monitors: the Mehle site (located in Arabi); the Algiers "Entergy" site (located in Orleans); the Chalmette High site (located in St. Bernard's only high school). The conm1enter states that high monitored S02 concentrations at the former Chahnette High site demonstrates that student health should be protected, while high monitored S02 concentrations at the former Algiers Entergy air monitor in Orleans Parishdemonstrates the need for deploying monitors onthe west bank ofthe Mississippi River. 

### EPA'sResponse: As explained in a previous response, current Federal air monitoring requirements do not require that an S02monitorbe located onthe west bank ofthe Mississippi River in Orleans Parish.

Page 36 of63

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: 

# 08/0512013

However, we note that the EPA is separately evaluating implementation ofthe S02 standard, including evaluation ofair monitoring requirements. Opportunities for additional public input will be available as necessary changes to existing rules, ifany, and guidance are developed. Additional information on EPA's S02 implementationplans can be found at the following websites: Sulfur Dioxide Implementation- Programs and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide http://www.epa.gov/oagpsOOJ!sulfurdioxidelimplement.html and at Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation ofthe Sulfur DioxideNational Ambient Air Quality Standard http://www.epa.,;tov/ oaqpsOOI/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20 !30207S02StrategyPaper.pdf. Fmthermore, EPA conducts a comprehensive annual review to ensure that the state has a monitoring network inplace that meets the technical requirements of40 CFRPart 58 and its appendices. The public "'ill be able find the public notice for LDEQ's Ambient Air Monitoring NetworkPlan by June I, 2013, at http://www.deq.Jouisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/default.asp. Part 58 provides at aminimum a 30-day public inspection oppmtunity for every annual monitoring network plan presented by the States and local agencies that develop theplans; moreover, whenever a planproposes networkmodifications, a public comment opportunity is furnished by either the State orEPA. We invite future public pmticipation from this commenter and others whenthese opportunities are provided. 

### Commeut: The commenter argues that Louisiana law prohibits LDEQ fi:om issuing a permit that maintains a nuisance or a danger to public health and safety, and notes that air quality in St. Bernard 

### is very poor sometimes. The commenter statesthat as the public trusteeunderthe State Constitution, LDEQ has a duty to require state-of-the-ait technology and additional monitoting to ensure thatthe air permit lintits ofthe three major sources in the area are maintained. 

### EPA'sResponse: We acknowledge the commenter's concerns related to high monitored S02 concentrations in St. Bernard Parish, however, wenotethat LDEQ's duties under state statute are outside the scope ofthe designations process. 

### A nonattainment designation triggers a federal requirement for LDEQ to develop a SIP that must adopt the necessary controls for the area to attain the standar·d as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment date. We anticipate the SIP will result in intproved air quality and will safeguard public health in St. Bernar·d Parish. 

### Comment: Two commenters statetheyare residents ofSt. Bernard Parish and express suppmt for a nonattainment designation for the Parish. One commenter states that residences in the ar·ea are constantly exposed to S02 and H2S emissions, with the resulting odors often forcing residents to shelter indoors and making outside ventilation not an option. The commenter states that pollutant emissions have caused damagebothto people's health andto residences in the area. The corrunenter believes it is time for industryto address this issue. 

### EPA'sResponse: We acknowledge the commenters' support for a nonattainment designation for St. Bernard Parish. We also acknowledge the commenter's concern '1\ith
Page 37 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

the impact high S02 concentrations have on the conununities in the area. LDEQ is responsible for developing a SIPthat includes controls for sources in the area and contains an attainment demonstration showing St. BemardParishwill attain the standard by the statut01y attainment date. 

### Comment: The commenter believes that when EPA mandates gasoline sulfur reduction, this mayresult in lowertailpipe emissions but it also results inhigh levels ofsulfur emissions at centralized locations sunounding the refineries. The conunenter arguesthat this places the burden on the communities sunounding the refineries. The commenter believes that before mandating gasoline sulfur reduction, EPA should require the latest pollution control technologythat will provide the intended goalofsulfur emissions reductions. 

### EPA'sResponse: As stated in a previous response, issues related to the potential impact ofsource compliance with new federal air pollution regulations are outside the scope of the designations process. Ifcompliance withthe EPA gasoline sulfurreduction requirements results inhigher levels ofsulfur emissions at refineries in St. Bernard Parish, in the development ofthe nonattainment SIP the LDEQ must take these increases into consideration and ensure thatthe control measures inthe SIP wiU put the Parish into attainment bythe deadline. However, ·we note that before promulgating a new federal air pollution regulation, EPA develops technical, economic, and environmental analyses that are available for review and conunent during the public notice and cormnent period ofat least 30 days after a new federal regulation is proposed. 

### Comment: While the commenter agrees with the designation ofSt. Bemard Parish as nonattainment, the commenter disagrees withhowEPAreferredto that area asthe "New Orleans Area." The commenter statesthat labeling the "New Orleans Area" as nonattainmentwithout the inclusion ofa specific political boundary or definitionwill cause confusion. The commenter asks EPA to eitherremove its label ofSt. Bernard Parish as the "New Orleans Area," or change the label to "New Orleans Metropolitan Statistical Area" 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA apologizes for any confusion, ourreference to the "New Orleans Area" may have made with respect to designations, and we are clarifyingthat we are initially designating only St. BemardParish nonattainment. References to the "New Orleans Area" have been conected accordingly. 3.2.6.2 General Comments on Texas 

### Comment: The commenterreinforces the 2012 recommendation for anattainment designation for ten counties and anunclassifiable designation for all remaining counties 

### i.n 1"exas. 1"he commenter believesthat EPA should designate areas 

### in1"exas 

### i.n accordance with Governor Rick Perry's 2012 recommendations. In supportofthis position, the commenter provides 2009-2011 designvalues and prelirninmy 2010-2012

.designvalues for these ten counties, stating that the data demonstratethe design values continue to trend downward. The conunenter also expresses appreciation for EPA's
Page 38 of63

# EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

willingness to work with states regarding implementation ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS and for the flexibility being provided onthe implementation schedule for tllis NAAQS. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA acknowledges the supp011 the conunenter expresses regarding our approach to developing an implementation strategy for the 1-hour S01 NAAQS. In proposing designations and making fmal designation decisions, EPA has taken into considerationthe designation recommendations provided by the commenter. However, EPA is proceeding at this time with initially designating as nonattainment most areas in locations where existing monitoring data fi·om 2009-2011 indicate violations ofthe 1- hour S02 standard. We are not yet prepared to issue final designations for othertypes of areas, and will designate them in future final designations actions. This includes areas in Texas and areas in other states where monitored air quality data from 2009-2011 does not show violations ofthe 1-hour S02 standard. The EPA expects to be able to proceed with designation actions in these areas once additional data are gathered. Additional information on EPA's still developing S01implementation strategy can be found at the following websites: Sulfur Dioxide Implementation -Programs and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide http://www.epa.gov/oaqpsOOlfsulfi.!rdioxide/implement.htm1 and at Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation ofthe Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001fsulfurdioxide/pdfs/20130207S02StrategvPaper.pdf. 3.2.7. EPARegion 7 3.2.7.1. Muscatine CountyArea 

### Comment: One commenter supports EPA's proposed designation ofMuscatine County, Iowa as nonattainment for sulfur dioxide (S02), as described in the EPA Responses to State and Tribal 20 10 SOzDesignationRecommendations. The commenter supports the designation ofthe entire county as nonattainment, rather than some subset ofthe county. In addition, the Council suppmts a consideration ofa portion ofLouisa Countyas nonattainment because an area ofLouisa County is likely contributing to the violation ofair quality standards in Muscatine County. The MidAmerican Louisa coalplant is locatedjust south ofMuscatine County in Louisa County. According to Iowa DNR, this coalplant enlitted 7,075 tons ofsulfur dioxide in 2010. Itis likely necessary fur EPAto designate as nonattainment the portionofLouisa Countythat includes this large source ofsulfur dioxide emissions in the final nonattainment designation in order to ensure the NAAQS for Muscatine County is met in future years. The Commenterurges EPA to designate a pmtion ofLouisa County as in nonattainment for contributing to air quality violations in Muscatine County. There is a small section of Louisa Countythat is adjacent to andjust south ofMuscatine Countythat includes a large source ofsulfur dioxide emissions. The source is MidAmericanEnergy's Louisa Generating Station, located less than 2 nliles fromthe Muscatine Countyboundary. In fact, a portion ofthe contiguous property associated withthis coal plant, which stores dry coal ash, appears to be inMuscatine County. The Louisa Generating Station is a major
Page 39 of63

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013 ·

emitter ofS02 emissions and contributes to Muscatine County's violation ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS. Accordingly, the commenterrecommends that the recommended nonattainment area boundaryofMuscatine Countybe expanded as to include the po1tion ofLouisa Countywith the Louisa Generating Station. The commenter indicates that while the Louisa Plant is primarily located outside Muscatine County, it still contributes to the poor air quality in Muscatine County. EPA's guidance on designations indicates that states should provide information showing that "violations are not occurring in nearbypmtions that are excluded fi:om the recommended nonattainment area" and that "excludedpmtions do not contain emission sources that contributeto the monitored ormodeled violation." Sincethe Louisa Generating Station is a major sourceofS02 emissions that contributes to Muscatine County's nonattainment, it would be inappropriate not to include it in a nonattainmentdesignation. 

### EPA'sRe•p<mse: TheEPA's proposal to include all ofMuscatine County as the presumptive nonattaimnent area boundarywas based onthe EPA's determination that the Musser Park monitor was reporting nonattainment with the NAAQS. Following the EPA's proposal, IDNRperformed a technical analysis suppmting a revised nonattainmentboundaty and provided EPAthis analysis as a comment to ourproposal. EPA's proposed default nonattainment boundary did not include the Louisa Generating Station (LGS) in neighboring Louisa County; however IDNR's analysis included an evaluation ofthe LGS facility for its contribution at the violating monitor. The LGS facility is located south ofthe violating monitor, which is the general direction ofthe sources implicated by IDNR's wind rose analysis as causing orcontributing to the violations detected at the Musser Park monitor. However, since EPA'sFebruary 2013 letter(our "120-day letter") to Iowa indicating that EPAplarmed to modify Iowa's 2011 recommendation did not address this source, we m·e not yet prepared to conclude in tllis fmal designation actionthat the emissions fi·om the LGS facility contributeto the monitored violation orto other possible violations, and wewill make fmal designations decisions for areas outside Muscatine County in a subsequent round offinal designations. CAA section 107(d)(l)(B)(ii) requires that before issuing a final designation that includes a modificationto a state's recommendation, EPA must give the state at least 120 days notice ofsuch a modification. As we have not yet provided suchnotice to Iowa regarding the LGS facility, we carmot yet include the LGS source in this final designation action. In.addition, the EPA is not yet reaching a conclusion concerning areas and sources that are not included in the initial Muscatine area nonattainmentboundary, and will address final designations for these areas and their sources in the future. 

### Comment: IfEPA chooses not to include the m·ea ofLouisa Countythat encompasses the Louisa Generating Station in its nonattaimnent designation, EPA must at the minimum require the stateto include controls for the LouisaGenerating Station in the State ImplementationPlan (SIP). The CleanAir Act requires thatnonattainmentplanprovisions must "provide for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in ernissions from 

### existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available controlteclmology) and shall provide for attainment ofthenationalprimary ambient air quality standards." The Louisa Generating Station should qualify as one of Page 40 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 

# 09/0512013

the "existing sources in the area" even though it is not directly in the designated nonattainment area. The previouslycited section ofthe Clean Air Act refers to the general area that could affect air quality in the designated nonattainment area. IfSIPs were only required to place controls solely on sources within the designated nonattainment area, the CleanAir Act would not specificallyrefer to "nonattainment area" later in the same section. 

### EPA'sResponse: The CAA allows states the discretion to implement specific control strategies that demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS in each nonattainment area. The EPA will reviewIowa's future StateImplementation Plan (SIP), submitted in response to the EPA's 20l0 S02 PrimaryNAAQS initial boundary designation, and detemline whetherthe SIP adequately demonstratesthat the nonattainment area will attainthe NAAQS in an expeditious manner, in accordance with Sections 110, 172 and 192 ofthe Clean 

### Air Act and relevant guidance. The issue ofthe adequacy ofthe SIP for the initial Muscatine nonattainment area is not yet ripe, as the SIP has not yet beendevelopedby Iowaor submitted to EPAfor review for approval. The EPA also notes that areas not cuiTently included in the initial Muscatine nonattainment area will be addressed in a subsequent round ofdesignations, and Iowa will be responsible for the development of control strategies for those areas as necessary in future State Implementation Plans. 

### Comme11t: Commenters are "supportive ofeffective regulatory action, based on sound public health and scientific research aimed to clean our air.

..While the S02 readings are highest in neighborhoods SUITounding the worst offenders ofour air quality laws, air is not stagnant and moves to cover all citizens who reside in ourcounty

... Clean Air Muscatine (CLAM) therefore suppmis such designation and, and sees no viable alternative to a county-wide designation." 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA acknowledges the concems ofthis commenter, but finds that the technical analysis performed bythe IDNR that included an analysis ofmonitoring data, meteorological data, wind roses, proximity ofsources to the violating monitor and the sources' magnitude ofemissions supports a smaller initial nonattainment area boundary. This boundary includes the Muscatine County sources that EPAhas sufficient information to conclude are impacting the Musser Park monitor. EPA is not yet reaching a conclusion concerning areas and sources not included in the initial nonattainment boundary, and will address these areas in a future fmal designations action. 

### Comment: Nonattainment boundary needs to include the area ofMuscatine Countythat Mid AmericanCorporationhas proposed for the constmction ofa new nuclear power plant ornatural gas power plant. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPAbases its nonattainment boundary designations upon sources contributing to a violation oftheNAAQS and not upon futnre sonrces ofemissions. Additionally, following receipt of

### this comment, the 

### Mid American Corporation voluntarily withdrew its peiTnit request for a new Muscatine County, Iowa nuclear or natural gas powerplant. Therefore, the comment is moot, and it is not necessary for EPA to further respond to it. Page 41 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

3.2.8. EPARegion 8 3.2.8.1. General Comments 

### Comment: One commenter says EPA should move forward with the revocation ofthe older 802 standards (annual and 24-hour). However, since the revocationhas been tied to the designationprocess, which has been pushed outto 2020, it appears that states are asked to implement tln·ee separate 802 NAAQS for the next eight years. This causes a burden for collecting and processing monitoring data, detennining compliance, and conducting modeling and perrnit analysis for tln·ee separate standards. 

### EPA'sResponse: The 2010 S02NAAQS mlemaking established how EPA would move forward withthe revocation ofthe prior annual and 24-hour standards after designating areas for the new 2010 ]-hour S02 NAAQS. EPA's rules provide that for most areas the 24-hour and atmual standards will remain in effect in each area for one year following the effective date ofits initial area designationunder section 107(d)(l) for the new !-hour S02 NAAQS. (See 75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010.) However, for areas that were designated nonattainment under the plior NAAQS at the time ofthe 2010 NAAQS' promulgation, orthat were still subjectto a SIP Callunder the priorNAAQS, revocation ofthe p1ior NAAQS will not occmuntil suchareas develop and submit, under CAA section 191, and EPA approves, a SIP showing attainment ofthe 1-hourNAAQS. 40 CFR50.4(e). Several Region 8 areas are subject to this regulatory exception, which was not challenged in the recent litigation concerning the 2010 802 NAAQS, and which no one timely petitioned the agency to reconsider. See 75 FRat 35581, n.41. Moreover, it is outsidethe scope ofthis limited designations action to consider any amendment to the NAAQS provisions that established how revocation ofthe priorNAAQS would occur. We ceiiainly did not, in our proposed designations, indicate anyintent to reopen section 50.4(e) orto reconsiderthe fmal decisions reached onthis issue in the 2010 NAAQS mlemaking. However, regardless ofwhen and whether revocation ofthe p1iorNAAQS occurs, we note that in the preamble tothe final20 10 NAAQS we explained that any existing SIP provisions under CAA sections 110, 191, and 192 associated with the annual and 24-hour S02 NAAQS will remain in effect, including all cun·ently implemented planning and emissions control obligations, including boththose inthe State's SIP and thosethat have beenpromulgated byEPA in FIPs. This will ensure thatboththe new nonattainmentNSRrequirements and the general confonnity requirements for a revised standard are in place so that there will be no gap inthepublic health protections provided by these two programs. It will also ensure that all nonattainment areas under the annual and/or 24-hourNAAQS and all areas for which SIP calls have been issued will continue to beprotected by currentlyrequired control measures. See 75 FRat 35580-82. As mentioned above, EPA'srules provide that the annual and 24-hourNAAQS remainin place for any areas that were designated nonattainment under those NAAQS when the 2010 NAAQS was promulgated, or any area for which a State has not fulfilled the requirements ofa SIP call, until the affected area submits, and EPA approves, a SIP with an attainment, implementation, maintenance and enforcement SIP which fully addresses Page 42 of63

## EIBctronic Filing - RBciVBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

the attainment and maintenance requirements ofthe new S02 NAAQS. This, we explained inthe fmal2010 802 NAAQS preamble, in combination with the CAA mechanisms provided in section II0(1), 193, and 172(e) will help to ensure that continued progress is made toward timely attainment ofthe S02 NAAQS. No one timely challengedEPA's conclusions regarding this approach, and we are not revisiting them in this initial designations action. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that in the past, EPAhas indicated it would seek to use dispersion modeling to make attainment designations for the !-hour S02 NAAQS. (see EPA's proposed "Guidance for !-Hour S02NAAQS SIP Submissions.") The conunenter continues that dispersion modeling ofemissions can greatly overpredict the pollutant concentrations. Several commenters state that dispersion modeling is a tool that would be best used for planning decisions and notfor area designations. 

### EPA'sResponse: Inthis final designations actionregarding areas with monitored violations ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS, we are not reaching any conclusions about liow to use dispersion modeling as a tool for either designations orplanning decisions. However, we do not agree that it is appropriate to now conclude that modeling is not atool to be used for area designations. In addition to using any valid data generated by existing monitors, refined dispersion modeling may appropriately inform specific designation and implementation decisions regarding sources that may have the potential to cause or contribute to aNAAQS violation. Ourhistorical approachto S02 designations and implementationthrough pemuts and emission limitations has involved a combination of both monitoring and modeling. Ifcommenters have objections regarding any future use ofdispersion modeling in a future proposed designations action, they should raise those concerns at that time. Such issues are outside the scope ofthis final designations action. 

### 3.2.8.2. Yellowstone County Area (Billings, MT) 

### Comment: Multiple commenters support a designation of'unclassifiable' for the Crow Reservation. 

### EPA'sResponse: The CrowTribe ofMontana's Reservation is located adjacent to the Yellowstone County (partial) nonattainment area (Billings, MT area) that we are initially designating as nonattainment. As discussed in the Billings, MT TSD, this area oflndian country does not contain 802emissions sources that we are currentlyprepared, based on monitoring data, to conclude are**contl~buting** to the design value atthe violating monitor in Billings. Therefore, EPA is not includingthe CrowTribe ofMontana's areas ofIndian country inthe initial Billings, MT nonattainment area. The EPA is not designating any areas as unclassifiable in the current round ofdesignations. EPA will designate these areas in a future round offinal designations. 

### Comment: Multiple commenters discuss that a 'nonattainment' designation would have serious current and future economic impacts onbusinesses and the community in Yellowstone County.

Page 43 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

EPA'sResponse: The EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment based on CAA section 107(d). The EPA is revising its proposed nonattainment bounda1y fi:om the entire countyofYellowstone to a smaller area in Billings. This infonnationcanbe found in Region 8's technical support document (TSD) that is included in the docket for this action. Withrespect to impacts on the local economy and businesses, such issues are not relevant for designations actions, but the State has flexibility underthe CAAto consider such impacts as it develops the control strategyto bring the area into attainment ofthe air quality standard. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses the uncertainty and accuracy/precision issue of monitoring ambient data for the new !-hour S02 standard. They conclude that it is not defmitive, confident, oreven certain ifthe standard was exceeded at the Coburn Monitor. Another comment is that the EPA has not beenable to articulate its own quality assurance guidance for adequate accmacy, precision, and reliability for the new !-hour standard. Additionally, the EPA has not specified the criteria necessruy for an attainment demonstration and is plarming to defer this matter. Since this has not been defmed it would appear unnecessmy and prematureto rush a nonattainment designation for Yellowstone County. Thus the law provides a clear and available alternative to nonattainment, unclassifiable. Another commenter discusses the failure to observe the basic scientific ideals ofreproducibility and repeatability when using carefully collected "one ofa kind" data can have significant unintended consequences. A parallel analyzer operating atthe same location could readilyprovide a running plausibilitycheck onthe measurements and it would be under identical conditions, as to acknowledge causes of en·or. Replication is not infeasible temporally or spatially. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPAhas quality assmance regulations that canbe found in40 CFRpart 58 Appendices A- G. Additional infmmation and references can also be found in the document titled "Quality Assmance Handbook for PollutionMeasurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality MonitoringProgram." Montana DEQ has an approved QualityManagement Progr=and EPAroutinely conducts Technical Systems Audits ofMontana's monitoring program. The State hasprovided all the necessary information to show that the data that has been repmted, including the data it decided to invalidate, follows the guidelines specified above. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses anadditional concernregarding Coburn Road data for a nonattainment designationregarding the lack ofa reliable method to detect and address cases oftransient monitor malfunction orthe influence ofother extraneous variables. The commenter continues that invalid data ru·ising from shor!-te1m malfunction (high concentration outliers) can go undetected and appear 'validated' in the record. The checks inplace are specifically designed with the 500 ppb standard in mind; values near 75 ppb are not automatically considered extreme values. The previously satisfactmy range ofI,000 ppb was too high inrelation to the 75 ppb standru·d, since it would be in the lowest 10% ofthat range. The lower and upper extremes ofthe range are most susceptibleto precision errors, and analyzers generallyperfmm most reliably in the middle ofthe range. The commenter discusses that ifan analyzer cannot provide an appropriate rangefor the regulatory concentrations then another one should be added. Page 44 of63

# Elactronic Filing- Racivad. Clark's OfficE!: 08/0512013

MDEQ had several cases oftransient problems detected before 2011. The commenter discusses an occurrence ofa smoke event by the monitor found in Laurel and which subsequently showed a spike in S02. The monitor did not repmt or flag tins data because the monitor was not "looking" for this or any otl1er common events but interpreted vegetative smoke as significant S02 relative to the standard. Except for this chance repmt, the data would likely have been recorded and validated as an "unquestioned" or "unexplained" high reading. The commenter discusses that this issue is not discussed or considered in EPA's "February 2002 Development ofEmissions Inventory Methods for Wildland Fire". The commenter provides another 'unexplained' transient reading at the Coburn Road monitor. This 'unexplained' reading occurred after an auto-calibration run. The monitor showed an umemarkablereading before the calibration. Anhour afterthe calibration, the monitor showed the highest value for the entire 2012 year, but then the following hour read close to the valuetaken one hour before the calibration. The commenter concludes thatthe reading taken I hour inlmediatelyfollowing the calibration was an outlier, which could have been caused by anundetected transient event, but was retained and validated. The commenter discusses that including this highest**readin~**results in a 99th percentile value for 2012 of70 ppb. Withoutthe high reading, the 99 percentile value would drop to 55 ppb. If55 ppb wereused instead of70 ppb, the 2010-2012 design value would be below 75 ppb. The commenter concludes that the cmTently accepted systems are not equipped to discem these possible false data points. Another commenter concludes that data collected priorto August 23, 2010, when monitors were operated and configured to evaluate a higher standard, should not be used to detennine compliancewith the new !- hour standard. Calculation ofa defensible design value based on 2010-2012 is impossible and determination should be done with 2011-2013 data. 

### EPA ·'s**Re~ponse:** EPA disagrees withthe commenter. Montana DEQ has conducted audits at the CobmnRoadmonitor at levels low enough for the data to be reliable for a 75 ppb NAAQS compliance detemlination. The monitor located in Laurel is an industrial monitor in the area and not underthe management ofMontana DEQ. The data pointthat the commenter described in2012 as an outlier is outsidethe designations years of2009-2011. However, this data point was reviewed byboth the State and EPA. It was detern1ined that thls exceedance was coincidentally after an hourly calibration check and that the exceedance was not caused bythe calibration check. Montana DEQ did lower its audit levels over the three year period, but all audits had levels encompassing the 75 ppb level. Because ofthis, EPA fmds that the 2009-2011 data is robust enough to be reliable for a 75 ppb standard. See Table I below for the State's historical audit levels for 2009-2011. Additionally, the commentpertaining tothe "February 2002 Development ofEmissions Inventory Methods for Wildland Fire" is outside the scope ofthis designation action. Table I Page 45 of63

# Eh:!ctronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Montana DEQ'sHistorical Audit Information
Date Audit levels (ppb)

2/25/2009 7.5 82 146 820 5/19/2009 36 147 358 819 8/12/2009 48 !53 357 685 I11l8t2oo9 

## I 50 186 424 418

3/23/2010 7 73 259 688 6/22/2010 8 74 270 710 9/21/2010 39 181 351 483 12/1/2010 58 228 338 449 3/24/2011 15.5 36.8 90.6 149.7 5/25/2011 29 72.4 126.7 250.5 11/17/2011 41.5 70.1 103.7 206.7

Comment: Onecommenter discusses that the CAA does not contemplate classifying areas nonattainment on a countywide or statewide basis, only for areas which are known to be presently "notmeeting the standard," not areas demonstrating compliance. The EPA's 'default' county boundary approach is only in the 2011 guidance memo that was never subject to external review, where many entities would have expressed significant concems. The commenter continues that Yellowstone County is very large and comparable in size to two eastem states, which contain multiple counties. The EPA would not designate one ofthese small states nonattainrnent ifonly onemonitor showed a violation when others showed attainment. Additionally, the EPA should show equal consideration to the rest ofYellowstone County as they show to the Crow Reservation, where there are no contributing S02 sources and no ambient monitoring data. The· boundary should be grounded in reality, thus smallerthan the entire county, and based on available infonnation, such as prevailing winds, similar local tenain, etc. 

### EPA

### '.1·Response: EPA disagrees that the CAA does not provide for EPAto propose a countywide nonattainment boundary, but the commenter's objection has been rendered mootbythe fmal designation covering a smaller area ofYellowstone County. As a proposal, the EPA was requesting additional inf01mation fi·om the State/local/tribal air agencies, stakeholders, and the public onwhat a nonattainment areaboundary should be inYellowstone County. On April3, 2013, the State ofMontanaprovided additional inf01mation, which included a five-fuctor analysis, onthe entire countyproposal in response to EPA's preliminary decision. Based on an analysis ofthe dataprovided by the State and commenters, in conjunction with the five-factor analysis, EPA determined that a partial county initial designation was approp1iate instead ofthe entire county. EPA madethe fmal designations for the 2010 !-hourS02 NAAQS using an evaluation ofthe recommended five-factors described in designations guidancethat was issued byEPA through a March 24, 2011, memorandum fi·om Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA, Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, U.S. EPA Regions I-X (Designations Guidance), as well as other relevant information in Page 46 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

detennining an appropriate initial nonattainment area boundary for Yellowstone County. Please refer to Region 8's TSD. 

### Comment: One cmmnenter discusses that the March 2011 Designations Guidance memo only gave states and tribes two months to complete a complex analysis. The designation strategy did not give state orlocal regulators, or affected indusl!y, the chance to address the issues proactively. Even given this shmt time period, MDEQ prepared acompelling TSD. However, EPA did not adequately considerMDEQ's analysis or statutory context ofa nonattainment area when proposing the entire Yellowstone County (excluding the Crow Reservation) nonattainment. The COI1ll11enter concludes thatthis is a direct contradiction ofthe intent ofthe March 2011 memo and intended statutory approach to designations where EPA and a state anive at dissimilar conclusions. Additionally, the commenter discusses that the memo omits mention ofarea-specific analyses conducted byother entities that would be impacted by anonattainment designation, although statute allows input 11-om others to a certain extent. 

### EPA'sResponse: The March 2011 Designations Guidance memo identifies that CAA section 1 07(d) provides EPAthe authorityto make modifications that it deems necessary to the recommended designations ofareas submitted by states. The designations process is prin1arily between EPA and the state, which is discussed in the CAA section 107(d). CAA section 107(d)(2)(B) further discusses publication ofdesignations where "Promulgation or announcement ofa designation underparagraph (1), (4) or (5) shall not be subject to the provisions ofsections 553 throngh 557 ofTitle 5 (related to notice and comment), except nothing herein shall be constmed as precluding suchpublic notice and comment whenever possible." Therefore, EPA can provide a public conunent period for interested parties but is not required to do so. TheEPA encourages impacted stakeholders to work with their state officials to coordinate an appropriate recommendation or response to any EPAproposed boundary modifications during the designations process. 

### Comment: Commenters discuss current and historical data, which are showing compliance withthe new 1-hour standard and carmot be part ofa nonattainment ar·ea. Five ofthe six monitors inthe Billings/Laurel area show compliance and they are located within close proximityto major 

### S02 sources. The CobumRoad monitor was in compliance in 2007-2009, but only indicated a violation in 2010. Evaluation ofother monitoring sites that were in operation since 2000-2006, but are no longer in service, were all disconnected due to low 

### S02 concentrations. Allthese sites had 99'h percentile values and 3-year averages below the standard. The commenterpoints out that the emissions were about 75% higher during 2000-2006. The commenter further discusses monitoring conducted in the early to mid-1990s. The sites that were operating in the '90s had large emissions, but, when normalized for cunent emission levels, the 99th percentile values for these sites werebelow the new 1-hour standar·d. These old monitoring areas, west and southwest ofPPL, should be an attainment area. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA agrees that the initial nonattainment area should be revised to be smaller than a countywide boundary. However, historical data canonly be used for
Page 47 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

inf01mational purposes and non-regulato1ymonitors cannot be used for purposes of establishing a NAAQS violation for designations. The June 22, 2010 final NAAQS rule (75 FR35520) discusses that the standard should use a "concentration-based f01m averaged over three years in order to give due weight to years when I-hour S02 concentrations are well above the level ofthe standard, thanto years when !-hour S02 concentrations arejust above the level ofthe standard." Thus the three-year average provides more stability for fluctuations when certain years are high compared to a noexceedance based form. The data years that EPA is using for this first initial round ofS02 designations are 2009-2011. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that the State ofMontana and industry have taken a proactive approachto S02 issues in Yellowstone County and now it appears they are being punished with immediate, retroactive nonattainment designation for diligently monitoring S02 concentrations inthe area. Montana was not specificallyrequired to operate any S02 monitors in Yellowstone County during the 2009-2010 period and the data was never collected to demonstrate compliance with the new standard. However, the EPA 

### is proposing to extend the statutory designation years into the future for other areas that did not monitor, allowing those areas to address potentialproblems in the meantime and avoid a nonattainment designation. 

### EPA'sResponse: The CAA requires EPAto complete area designations withintwo years afterpromulgation ofanew orrevised NAAQS, with apossible one year extension. Further, the form ofthe 20I0 !-hourNAAQS is a three year average. Therefore, designation decisions based onthe most recent three years ofS02 monitoring data necessitate using data collectedpriorto the standard being fmalized in June 2010. Based onvalid S02 monitoring data from 2009-20I 1a nonattainment area designation is waiTanted for partofBillings, Montana pe1taining to the CobumRoad monitor. The Coburn Road monitor is appropriate to be used for this designations process because it is an approved regulatOiy monitorbyboththe State and EPA. The State 

### is under an approved Quality Management Program, where EPA routinely conducts aTeclmical SystemAudit for Montana's monitoring program, and the State has provided all necessary information to show that the data and the monitor follow all guidelines set out bythe EPA. The EPA expects to be able to proceed with designation actions inthese areas withoutviolating monitors once additional data are gathered. Additional information on EPA's still developing S02 implementation strategycanbe found at the following websites: SulfurDioxide Implementation- Programs and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide http:/ /www.epa.gov/oaqpsOOI/sulfurdioxide/implement.html and at Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation ofthe Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard http://www.epa.gov/ oagpsOOI/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20130207SO2StrategyPaper.pdf. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that since the standard did notbecome effective until August 23,2010, all of2009 and the majority of2010 data are non-representative as these were collected before the new !-hour standard went into effect. Thus it does not meet EPA's own regulations to use monitoring data for designations only ifit meets strict technical and quality standards. Because the standard was not inplace until after August
Page 48 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

23, 2010, three ofthe four quarters (and thus 2010) are incomplete by defmitionin40 CFRPart 50, Appendix T. The first three quar1ers were designed and operated for the regulatmypurpose ofmeasuring an older, substantially higher NAAQ8 of500 ppb and thus use ofthe data is inappropriate for designations with the new 75 ppb standard. There is insufficient data to consider 2010 a valid year for determining the design value. Also, by denying data collected in 2013, the EPA is effectively and unnecessarily giving more weight to this non-representative data. The EPA even acknowledged that the monitming network in the country overall was inadequate to address the new standard since the network had been shrinking for many years. The commenter concludes that in the majority ofthe 2009-2011 period, the standard did not exist and that this clearly defeats ordinmy due process protections. Additionally, the commenter discusses this 'look-back' practice as termed "expost facto" application oflaw and the lack ofeffective notice is a selective and arbitrary denial ofeffective due process. The commenter quotes "It is a commonplace ofadministrative lawthat '[a]n agency may not promulgate retroactive rules absent express congressional authority."' (Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 643 F.3d 958 (DC Cir. 20ll)(quoting Nat'lMin. Ass'nv. Dep't ofLabor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (DC Cir. 2002))). The language ofthe NAAQ8 statute does notprovide for retroactive application. Instead, the statute provides additional time if needed to make determinations and allows an unclassifiable designation when insufficient data are available. ThusEPA's nonattainment designation determines compliance with anew rule based onpast behavior that was not subject to therule for which compliance is being measured. The commenter concludes that EPA cannot apply the 802 rule retroactivelyto emissions that complied withthe previous standm·d and must instead use data gathered whenthe new rule is in effect to determine compliance. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA disagrees withthis commenter. There were no specific changes made in the QualityAssurance requirements for 802 monitoring in 40 CFRPart 58 Appendix A for the new 1-hour S02NAAQS. Thus data collected priorto June 2010 when the new 1-hour 802NAAQS was finalized meet the same 802 Quality Assurance requirements as S02 data collected after the !-hourNAAQ8 was finalized. Montana DEQ conducted audits atthe CoburnRoad monitor at levels low enough for the data to be reliable for a 75 ppb NAAQS determination. See Table 1 above for the State's historical audit levels for 2009-2011. The 75 ppb design level falls within the range ofaudit values Montana DEQ used, and therefore, EPA finds the 2009-2011 data robust enough to bereliable for a 75 ppb standm·d.
EPA also disagrees**v.~th** the commenter's suggestion that using valid data thatpredates the new NAAQS for purposes ofsubsequent designations under theNAAQS somehow renders the NAAQ8 retroactive in its effect. Designations bytheir very nature have only prospective effect under a new NAAQS, and those are limited to triggering a state's duty to develop a prospective attainment planthat may (or maynot) include new futureapplicable emissions limitations. And those limits will not be established orimpose binding obligations on air pollution sources before separate state and federal action is takento adopt them In no reasonable sense can this statutory structure, in Page 49 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

implementation, be viewed as constituting any retroactively applicable requirement that injures any one in anyway. Moreover, adopting the commenter's view on this issue would render it in1possible for either states or EPAto ever meet their statutory obligations under CAA section 107, as those duties impose deadlines on state govemors and on EPA that fall before any post-NAAQS 3-year period ofmonitoring could mn and generate certified and submitted data. Such a reading cannot bereasonable. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that the designations for the Uinta Basin in Utah are proposed as unclassifiable for the 2008 ozone NAAQS even though monitors were showing a violation. EPAfound the data Ji'omthe non-regulatorymonitors in the Uinta Basinwere inadequate to make a nonattainment designation, although theywere following the strict requirements set out in 40 CFR Part 58. The same is tme for the Cobll!n Road monitor since it did not meet the quality assurance requirements to measure the lower emissions ofthe new standard. Additionally, to achieve "regulatory" status, monitors should be subject to adequate govemment oversight, follow an approved quality assurance project plan (QAPP), and provide satisfactmy, quality-assured data. Ifthe monitoring system does not strictly comply with EPA's regulatory requirements, then the data should not be used to determine NAAQS violations. The required checks under a QAPP would not have detected outliers fromthe 75 ppb standard as extreme values. The CobumRoad monitor was not designed oroperated for the regulatmypurpose of measuring compliance withthe 7 5 ppb standard. Thethree-year average 99th percentile value for 2009-2011 is 79 ppb, only4 ppb above the 75 ppb standard. The potential bias range for the CobumRoad monitor was -10 ppb to 

### + 7 ppb, where 4 ppb is within this range. One commenter concludes that since the data is within this bias and errorrange, it is not known whether the area is exceeding the standard. Thus this data is insufficient to designatethe area nonattainment. Another commenter further discusses that corrective action is needed when quality assurance etTors are found and the monitor must be specifically designed to collect the con·ect data for the specific NAAQS ifthe data is to be used for nonattainment designations. The commenter concludes that since the data Ji-om2008-2010 do not meet EPA's high quality standards and were gathered beforethe effective date ofthe new NAAQS, EPA must designate Yellowstone County as unclassifiable. 

### EPA'sResponse: Thespecific circumstances leading to the EPA's conclusions that data fromthe Uinta Basin monitors were non-regulatory were unique to those monitors, and included the lack ofapproval ofa monitoring QAPP by the EPA and a lack ofcomplete quality assured data showing an ozoneNAAQS violation. The Uinta Basin ozone monitors referred to in this comment did not have an approved Quality l\.ssurance oversight program at the time ofdesignations for the 2008 ozone standard. In addition, ozone monitors in the Uinta Basin did not have three years ofdata available at the time of designations. The monitor at CobumRoad is operated under a Quality Management Plan bythe State ofMontana, and has generated three calendar years ofdata. Montana's historical audit levels are discussed ina separate response and summarized inTable 1 above.

Page 50 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Comment: One conunenter discusses that S02 monitors in the Billings/Laurel area, including the CobumRoad monitor, have shown compliance with the previous 500 ppb standard since 2001. 

### EPA·'sResponse: The comment is outside the scope ofthis designation action. We are not reaching conclusions with respect to whether the area is meeting the 500 ppb standard. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that Coburn Road monitor was onlymarginally in violation, is in an atypical location, and it will virtnally be in compliance from 20 II forward. 

### EPA'sRe5ponse: The EPA disagrees that there was a 'marginal' violation ofthe !-hour S02 standard. Perthe CAA section l07(d)(l)(A)(i) a nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the nationalpriroary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant orthat contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the standard. The design value for designations for the period 2009-20II is 79 ppb, which exceeds the 7 5 ppb !- hour S02 standard. EPA also disagrees that the Coburn Road monitor is located at an atypical location. The monitor was sited to represent the maximumconcentrationofS02 for the area, which would betterprotect public health, and approved byEPA into the State's monitoring network. The 79 ppb design value for the CobumRoad exceeds the 75 ppb NAAQS for 2009-2011, and the design value for 2010-2012 of78 ppb also exceeds the NAAQS. Therefore the area associated with this monitor is appropriately designated nonattainment. 

### Comment: Multiple conm1enters request that EPA defer classification ofYellowstone County, as EPA intends to do for other areas lacking representative, or any, monitoring data. Since these other areas are being given the opportnnityto demonstrate or achieve compliance in the future, the State ofMontana and.Yellowstone County should be afforded the same opportunity. 

### EPA'sResponse: TheEPA disagrees that parts ofY ellowstone County should not be designated during this initial designationsprocess. For this initial designation rulemaking, EPA is designating areas as nonattainment that have monitored violations for the 2009- 2011 design value years. Since the Coburn Road monitor has a design value greaterthan the new !-hour S02 standard, in accordance with CAA section l07(d)(l)(A)(i), this area should be designated as nonattainment. We are notprepared to reach designations conclusions about other areas, which will be addressed in futnre final designations actions. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that a 'nonattainment' designation ignores the balance that should beconsidered and that such a decision needs to be data-driven and defensible. Some commenters discuss that EPA's proposed designation ofnonattainment is premature, inappropriate, unnecessary, and should be reconsidered. Another commenter discusses that the statnte does not suggest that nonattainment was easily determined, while attainment could only be defined in the futnre. This is two sides ofthe
Page 51 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

same coin. The commenter goes on to discuss that an attainment area would be those areas that affirmatively meet the standard and for all other areas, the statute expressly contemplates designation ofunclassifiable as satisfYing all requirements ofthe initial designation, with fmal attainment or nonattaimnent designation to be identified at a later date, based on additional monitoring data and analysis. The CAA does notrequire EPA to designate nonattairunent, nor is there anything that requires EPA to modifY state recommendations. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. The CAA section 107(d)(l) provides definitions for the te1ms attainment, nonattaimnent, and unclassifiable. The definition ofnonattainment is any area that does not meet the nationalprimary or seconda1y ambient air quality standard for thepollutant orthat contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the standard. The defmition ofunclassifiable is any area that carmot be classified onthe basis ofavailable information as meeting the NAAQS. EPA's review ofthe available info1mation concludes that there is no lack ofinformation that wouldjustifY any action, in accordance with CAA section 107, for the area around the violating CoburnRoad monitor otherthan a nonattainment designation. OurTSD suppo1is this designation. Additionally, CAA section 107(d)(l)(B)(ii) provides the Administrator the option to make modifications to the recommendations provided by states as deemed necessary. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that EPA did not address 2012 emissions or monitoring data in their analysis. This year is more representative ofcurrent air quality and with the lower emissions, reduced compared to 2010 emissions, the area would be attaining. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA disagrees that it did not review 2012 data during the oneyear extension. However, the 2010-2012 design value was still above the standard at 78 ppb. Since 2012 data did notprovide any new info1mation, the EPA based its designation ofnonattainment on2009-2011 design value that is in violation ofthe NAAQS, consistent with the other areas that EPA is designating as nonattaimnent atthis time. 

### Comment: Multiple commenters state that 2011-2013 data would provide the EPA a clearer picture ofemissions in Yellowstone County. This would show Yellowstone County as currently attaining. Another conrmenter states that 2011-2013 would be the first period inwhich the 2010 standard was actually in effect for the entire period. Years 2011 and 2012, evaluated individually, do not show an exceedance at the 99lh percentile level, nor would it suggest a violation. 

### EPA's**Re~ponse:** The EPA agrees that 2011, as an individual year, does not have a 99'h percentile 1-hourvalue above 75 ppb. However, compliance determinations for the!- hour 

### S02 NAAQS are based on a 3-year average of991 h percentile values, not on a single year. The 2011 design value (based onthethree years 2009-20II) for the Coburn Road monitor in Yellowstone Countyviolates that standard at 79 ppb. Forthis initial designation mlemaking, EPAis designating areas as nonattainment that have a monitored Page 52 of63

# EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 09/05/2013

violation for the design value for the years 2009-201 I. Note also that the 2012 design value (based onthe threeyears 2010-20I2) also violates the standard at 78 ppb. Since the CobumRoad monitor has a design value greater thanthenew !-hour S02 standard, in accordance with CAA section 107(d)( 1 )(A)(i), this area is appropriately designated as nonattainment. The State's Quality Assurance measures, as discussed elsewhere inthese responses, also support EPA's finding that the 2009-2011 data are complete, quality assured, reliable for a 75 ppb standard, and show a regulatory violation ofthe new !-hour S02NAAQS. 

### Comment: Multiple conunenters question the reliability and representativeness of2010 data, and the data set of2009-2011 used byEPA, at the CobumRoad monitor in Yellowstone County for cunent and future conditions. Another commenter discusses that 2009, 2011, and 2012, represent similar and consistent operating conditions and reflect future operations, which are enforceable, permanent, and quantifiable emission reductions. Other comments discuss that since 201 0 is the one year that is the basis of EPA's recommendation ofnonattainment, it should be reliable and representative. Another conunenter discusses that the majority ofthe exceedances for 2009-2011 were in 2010. From 2008-2012, 70% ofhighest monitored concentrations were in 2010 and fi·om this same period thatthe average for 2010 was 13 ppb higher than the other four-year averages. This same cornmenter discusses that the standard deviation of99th percentile overthe past six years ranges from 63.2 ppb- 88.1 ppb, whichrepresents reasonable values and any data outside ofthisrange should be considered outliers. Fromthis 2007, 2008, and 2010 are questionable. Therefore, the 2010 monitoring data from Cobum Road monitor should not be used for the designations process. 

### EPA'sRespome: The EPA disagrees. While the numbers ofexceedances in 2010 are higher than in other years, neither EPA nor the State has found any reason to believe that the values read by the Coburn Road monitor are not valid readings. Quality assurance checks done bythe State show thatthe monitor was reading correctly and that the data are valid. Thepotential for inter-annual variability in data is a key reasonthat NAAQS compliance is detennined by using a three-year average form ofthe standard (using consecutive years), so it is inappropriate to further account for variability by selecting specific years to use orto discard. 

### Comment: Multiple cornmenters discuss that S02 values for 2010 were influenced by the requirement under anEPA, State ofMontana and ExxonMobil consent decree for catalyst testing at ExxonMobil and that the data is not representative ofcunent orfuture concentrations. A commenter also discusses that 2008 is not representative due to early catalyst testing at ExxonMobilunder the consent decree. Another cornmenter discusses that the consent decree driven emissions increase in 2010 cotTesponds directly to a majority ofthe documented NAAQS exceedances, 10 of 16, for the 2009-2011 timeperiod. 

### EPA'sRespome: The EPA disagrees that 2008 and 2010 are not representative. Found within Region 8's TSD, catalyst testing performed at ExxonMobil in 2008 and 2010 did not correlate with the days ofexceedances. The exceedances were primarily fi·om the
Page 53 of63

# Eh:Jctronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

west-southwest wind direction, which would make Ex.xonMobil upwind ofthe monitor during the exceedances. EPA's response to this comment can be found in the "Air Quality," "Emissions and Emissions Related Data," and "Meteorology" sections of Region 8's TSD. Comment: Multiple commenters support recommendations for an "unclassifiable" designation for Yellowstone Countyuntil full, reliable data is collected. Another commenter asse11s that the EPAimproperly concluded in their TSD that the 2009-2011 dataset provides adequate evidence ofemissions ofcun·ent and future years and is not indicative ofcurrent and future nonattainment ofthe NAAQS. Thus available data does not support this conclusions and the county should be designated unclassifiable. The commenter further discusses that the unclassifiable designation was developed in pmtto avoid a needless rush tojudgment on a nonattainment or attainment area. Therefore, EPA should agree v..>ith Montana's unclassifiable designation and then work vliith MDEQ to ensure that the standard continues to be met. This approach would avoid unwa1ranted costs for unnecessm-y emissionreductions. Another commenter discusses that it would be reasonable to presume thatthe CAAdoes not expect a stateto revise their SIP when federal requirements in a consent decree interfere with attainment ( 42 USC 

### § 741O(a)(3)(C)). 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA is not designating any m·eas ofthe counl!-y as unclassifiab]e withthis initial designation rulemaking. Areas that do not have monitored violations will be designated in future final actions. However, EPA is designating, as "nonattainment," areas that have a monitored violation for the 2009-2011 designvalue years. InRegion 8's TSD, EPA discusses that the consent decree between ExxonMobil, the State of Montana, and EPA was not the cause ofexceedances in 2010. Since the CoburnRoad monitor has a design value for 2009-2011 greaterthan thenew !-hour S02 standard, in accordance with CAA section I07(d)(l)(A)(i), this area is appropriately designated as nonattainment. Comment: Multiple commenters discuss PPL-Montana's planto mothball the Corette powerplant in April2015 because ofupcoming regulations. It would take a significant amount oftime to resume operations due to pennitting, equipment installation, etc. The commenters discuss that in 2010-2012, there were no exceedances ofthe !-hour standard when PPL was offline or even when winds were from otherdirections other than from the southwest. Therefore, the monitor data will decrease drastically and remain low indefinitely as a direct result ofPPL's powerplant being mothballed. The commenters further discuss that ifPPL were to decide to resume operations, they would frrst need to demonstrate compliance with the new MercuryAir Toxics (MATS) rule, and thus installation ofa baghouse would be necessary. The commenters discuss that the baghouse will incidentallyreduce S02 emissions, ontop ofthe captw·e achieved bythe current Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP), bycapturing particles and ash material, and perhaps I0% ofS02 could be captured onthis material. They conclude that I0% is very significant since PPL accounted for about 90% ofemissions to the Coburn Road monitor site during 20!0. Reductions ofS02 necessaryto achieve demonstrated compliance are not very large and a small tonnage reduction can bevery significant.
Page 54 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

EPA'sRe.1ponse: The EPA agrees that ifthe Corette power plant were to be mothballed that the overall emissions in the area would be reduced. However, PPL does not planto mothball or add controls until April2015, orApril2016 ifthe extension is granted for compliance with the MATS mle. The State has flexibility under the CAA for a nonattainment area to consider impacts, such as these, as it develops the control strategy for the SIP to bring the area into attainment ofthe air quality standard. 

### Comment: Some commenters discuss working to reduce S02 at Corette before the 2018 NAAQS compliance date in order to preclude a nonattainment designation. EPA should take into account this potential commitment onthe part ofPPL and MDEQ with respect to the designations decision. Other areas are being granted this deferral undertheNext Steps policy statement byEPA. Another commenter discusses that, ifprovided more time, the State and PPL would use the time to establish an hourly emission limit for certain sources and evaluate where additional reductions need to be made. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA agrees that PPL and MDEQ should be working to reduce S02 emissions from the Corette powerplant, however, we do not agree with deferring designation for this area that has a monitored violation. Other areas for which we are not yet prepared to reach fmal designations decisions are areas for which additional monitoring data or other information are needed. Concerns about how those areas, which are outside the scope ofthis final action, are to be treated should be raised inresponse to our future proposed designations for those areas. The CoburnRoad monitor is violating the !-hourS02 standard for 2009-2011 based on valid data and is appropriately designated nonattainmentwith this mlemaking. 

### Comment: One commenter discusses that the nonattainment area should extend only a few thousand feet nmtheast ofCoburnRoad monitor, stopping short ofthe elevation contour oflower Cobummonitor, Brickyard monitor, Lockwood Parkmonitor, Johnson Lane monitor, and Pine Hills monitor, where all these monitors and their representative areas show attainment. These areas show compliance and demonstrate that Lockwood facilities do not contribute to exceedances orviolations at CobumRoad monitor. The commenter went further to discuss that whenPhillips66 orCHS were online but not PPL Corette, there were no exceedances. The commenter also noted thatthere were still exceedances when Westem Sugarwas offline but only when PPL was online. Thus the nonattainment area should extend out from contributing source, PPL Corette, not significantly farther than CoburnRoads distance from PPL Corette, and exclude all areas below the elevation ofLower Cobum station. Another commenter discusses that ifEPA would designate a portion ofthe county nonattairunent thenEPA should be sure to include all sources contributing to the nonattainment designation within theboundary. The commenter continues that it would be inappropriate to set a designation boundary that failed to capture areas that are potentially influencedbythe other sources. 

### EPA'sResponse: TheEPA agrees that the initial nonattainment area should be revised from the entire county to a smaller boundary. The EPAreviewed the State's five-factor analysis and new nonattainment boundary recommendation, which only included the
Page 55 of63

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

violating monitor (CoburnRoad monitor) and PPL Corette, and agrees with the State's analysis and revised boundary. The EPA's detailed response to this comment can be found in Region 8's TSD. We are not at this time prepared to reach fmal designations conclusions regarding any other areas or sources outside the boundary ofthe initial nonattainment area. 

### Comment: Two conunenters submitted a five-factor analysis for a smaller nonattainment areaboundary for Yellowstone County. 

### EPA'sRespouse: The EPA agrees with the commenters on establishing a smaller initial nonattairunent area boundary. Our detailed response can be found in Region 8's TSD. 

### Comment: Some conunenters discuss current and future regulations and possible impacts on reducing S02 in the Billings/Laurel area. The commenters included: EPA's refmery initiative and associated consent decrees, existing FIP implementation, MATS/utility MACT in1plementation, regional haze/BART implementation, NSPS Subpart 

### Ja, EPA's flare initiative, and boiler l\1ACT implementation. One commenter discusses that all these regulations will have some S02 reductions at certain facilities in the Billings/Laurel area and that the county would demonstrate compliance solely throughthe actions ah·eady required by existing and enforceable programs. However, another commenterdiscusses that all but two will ha:ve little to no impact onreducing S02 emission, which are the EPA's refinery initiative/associated consent decree and EPA'sFIP. The following discusses comments on each ofthe regulations listed above and EPA's responses. -EPA's refinery initiative and associated consent decree, and S02 FIP Implementation: One conunenter discusses that between 2002 and 2005, Billings/Laurel refmeries and representative parent companies each entered into a consent decree with EPA and the StateofMontana. Phillips66 and CHS have largely completed their consent decrees and had emission reductions. ExxonMobil was implementing their consent decree, completing catalyst testing, and inlplementing fmdings during and after the 2008- 2010 pe1iod that EPA describes as "representative ofnormal emissions." In2010, ExxonMobilhad morethan a 1,600 tonsperyear increase over 2009 and 2011 years, which EPA noted as "normal." Years 2011 and 2012 show dramatic decreases in emissions at ExxonMobil. These additional emissions that resulted fi·om the consent decree required catalyst testing contributedto the high values in 2010 and since the controls have been added, emissions are unlikely to retumto 2010 levels. Thus 2010 is an anomaly. The commenteralso discusses that even though the FIP has been delayed by recently completed unsuccessful litigation, it has not rendered the FIP moot and it will still applyto those facilities. TheFIP prin1ru·ily applies to flaring events at refmeries (CHS, ExxonMobil, and Phillips66) and MSCC, wherethese facilities ru·e required to develop and submitto EPA for approval flare monitoring plans. These pl8!1s were possiblyheld up by the recent litigation.

Page 56 of63

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

EPA'sResponse: The EPA has revised the initial nonattainmem area to include onlythe Corette powerplant and the violating monitor (see Region 8's TSD). Thus the other sources and the areas thai will showreductions from the EPA's refinery initiative and fromthe FIP's implementation are not addressed in this final action, and will be addressed in a future fmal designations action and are outside the scope ofthis initial nonattainment designation. cRegional Haze FIP: One commenter discusses that for the Corette powerplant the Regional Haze FlP revised the 

### SOz emission standard, whichrepresents a 19% reduction inthe previously allowable standard. This would effectively eliminate previously allowable excursions ofhigh emissions that would cause Corette to exceed the standard. Additionally, the FIP would have effectively shaved offabout 30% fl-om the allowable high-end emissions that Corette would emit. The commenter concludesthat to ensure the standard is met, Corette would implement fuel blending to address high sulfur coal that is shipped to the plant. Another commenter discusses that otherthan the S02 limit, which is averaged over a rolling 30-dayperiod, no additional emissions reductions would result in the Billings/Laurel area. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPA agrees that the Regional Haze FIP pe1taining to Corette had set a lower allowable S02 limit. However, this lower limit is what the Corettepower plant is allowed to emit and is based on Corette's actual emissions with an added margin ofcompliance. Corette's actual emissions would notnecessarily be reduced by the lower allowable limit under the Regional Haze FIP. -MATS/UtilityMACT Implementation. One commenter discusses thatthe facilities affected by this mle would be Corette and YELP. Another commenter discusses that for the implementation ofthis mle, Corette would need substantial controls to lower air taxies and S02 emissions ormothball the plant in April2015. The options included for this mle would be for the facilities to take a**hydrochlm~c** acid limit or a S02 limit and it is assumed that Corette wouldtake the hydrochlmic acid limit. Any controls installed for this mle associated with PM ormetal limits willprovide co-benefit ofadditional S02 control. 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPAhas revisedthe initial nonattainment area to include only the Corette powerplant and the violating monitor (see Region 8'sTSD). Thus the other sources and the areas that will show reductions from ofthe MATS/UtilityMACT mle (except for PPL Corette) are outside the scope ofthis initial nonattainment designation and will be addressed in a future fmal designations action. EPA agrees that ifthe Corette powerplant were to be mothballed, the overall emissions in the area would bereduced. However, PPL does not planto mothball or add controls to Coretteuntil April2015, or April2016 ifan extensionunder the MATS mle is granted. The State has flexibility under the CAA for a nonattainment area to consider impacts, such as these, as it develops the control strategy for the SIP to bring the area into attainment ofthe air quality standard.

Page 57 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

-Boiler MACT Implementation. One commenter discusses that Montana DEQ in 2011 made a case that the implementation ofthis rule would significantly reduce S02 at major sources. However, EPA dismissed this and stated that since the rule has been indefinitely delayed, anticipated reductions could not be factored into this initial designation and that the rule would not have a significant effect onthe area. The reconsideration ofEPA's Boiler MACT standard for major sources was finalized and published as 40 CFR 63, subpart DDDDD onJanuary 31, 2013. The commenter futther discusses that even though exact reductions is still unknown, the assumption catmot be that S02 reductions will be insignificant. Another commenter discusses that for subpart DDDDD, MSCC, PPL, ExxonMobil, CHS, and Phillips66 appear to meet the applicability requirements ofthe rule. The commenter continues that reduction in S02 is not quantifiable at this early stage, but improvements in efficiency and tune-up will likely leadto slightly lower emissions. Additionally, the reconsideration ofEPA's Boiler MACT standard for area sources was finalized and published as 40 CFR 63, subpart JJJJJ onFebruary 1, 2013. The commenter discusses subpatt JJJJJ, where Westem Sugar's coal-fu·ed boilers would be subject to Hg and CO limits. However, it is stillunclearwhat steps Western Sugar may take to meet the Hg emission limits. Ifscrubberupgrades are considered for Hg control at Western Sugar, a co-benefit ofS02 emissions reductions will berealized. 

### EPA'sResponse: TheEPA agrees that exact S02 emission reductions for the Boiler MACT implementation rule cannot be known attllis time. However, theEPAhas revised the initial nonattainment area to include onlythe Corettepowerplant and the violating monitor (see Region 8's TSD). Thus the other sources and the areas that will show reductions from subpart JJJJJ and subpa1t DDDDD (except for PPL Corette) ofthe Boiler MACT rule are outside the scopeofthis initial nonattainment designation and will be addressed in a future final designations action. For PPL's Corette powerplant, the State has flexibility under the CAA for a nonattainment areato consider impacts, such as these, as it develops the control strategy for the SIP to bring the area into attainment ofthe air quality standard. 

### Comment: MEIC and Sierra Club suppmt designation ofall or a pmtion ofYellowstone County as a nonattainment area for the SOz NAAQS, but believe that EPAmust also designate all or a portion ofRosebud County as a nonattainment area for the S02 NAAQS. The largest source in Rosebud County is Colstrip, and evenwith future reductions from the regional haze plan, violations ofthe !-hour S02 standard still occur. The commenters agree with EPA that ExxonMobil testing in 2010 is unavailing and since ExxonMobil is downwind ofthe monitor they areunlikelythe sole cause ofthe violations. Additionally, MDEQ's five-factor analysis proposal for only Corette in the nonattainment area (NAA) does not follow CAArequirements that all contributing sources to the violationbeincluded intheNAA. Notone source is solely responsible for S02 violations and in addition, other sources in the area emit the same or even more S02 than Corette. From themodeling analysis, where conservative assumptions about the other sources emissions were assumed, Corette would need to reduce its S02 emissions by morethan 88%. In support ofthese comments, MEIC and Sierra Club submit modeling ofS02 NAAQS violations in Yellowstone and Rosebud Counties, where the
Page 58 of63

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

modeling predicted that exceedances would extend tbmughout the region and up to a distance of50krn from the sources (but excluding the Crow Reservation). This modeling is appropriate because Yellowstone County contains only one S02 monitor and Rosebud County contains none. EPA is required to consider all evidence before it-including submitted modeling-in making attainment and nonattairunent designations. 

### EPA'sResponse: TheEPA agrees with the commenter that aportion ofYellowstone County should initially be designated nonattairunent. However, EPA is not yet prepared to conclude whether Rosebud County should be designated in whole orin part nonattainment based on a modeling analysis. In this initial round offinal nonattairunent designations, the EPA is not addressing modeling either in the initial nonattainment areas orin other areas, whichwill be addressed in a future round offinal designations. Thus Rosebud Countyand the remaining p01tion ofYellowstone County are outside the scope ofthis initial nonattainment designation, and will be addressed ina future final action, which could'include determining whether initial nonattainment boundaries need to be extended, new nonattainment boundaries need to be designated, or ifthe areas should be designated attainment or unclassifiable. Region 8'sTSD provides a more detailed analysis ofrevising Yellowstone County's nonattainment boundary under sections 

### "Air Quality Data" and "Emissions and Emissions-Related Data" based on monitoring data. 

### 3.2.9. Multi-Region Areas 3.2.9.1. Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH Area Comment: In a March 6, 2013, letter, the Commonwealth ofKentucky submitted a response to EPA's February 6, 2013, intended nonattainment designation and boundary detenninations for areas in relationto the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Kentucky expressed strong oppositionto anyportion ofCampbell County, Kentucky being designated nonattainment. Specifically, the Commonwealth stated"

... Kentucky strongly opposes theproposed nonattainment designation ofCampbell County dueto overwhehning supporting data indicating that there is no environmentalbenefit to designating the Kentuckyportion as nonattainment." Kentucky cited to EPA's TSD which e;;:plained that the source causing the violation at the Campbell County, Kentucky monitor is in Clermont County, Ohio. The Commonwealthprovided some general technicalpoints implicating the source in Clem1ont County as causing theviolation at the monitor in Kentucky, and mentioned that the nonattainment designation for Campbell Countywould causemore stringent permitting requirements and would not result inany additional programs in Campbell County, Kentuckyto reduce S02 emissions. Also, Kentucky notedthat"

... the 

### total area in Kentucky designated nonattainment 

### is ironically larger thanthe total area designated nonattainment in Ohio, the locationofthe source causing the violation." 

### EPA'sResponse: The EPAhas made the detenninationthat Campbell County, Kentucky has a violating monitor for the !-hour S02 NAAQS, and thus 

### is designating a portion ofthis county as nonattainment. Additionally, and in association with the violating monitor in Campbell County, Kentucky, the EPAis also designating a portion
Page 59 of63

# Electronic Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013

ofC!ennont County, Ohio as nonattainment for the !-hour S02 NAAQS. Because ofthe nonattaimnent designation, the Commonwealth ofKentucky is obligated underthe CAA to submit a State Implementation Plan for the Campbell County area. However, the EPA understands that for the Campbell County, Kentucky nonattairunent area, the emissions source associated withthe violation monitored in Campbell County is located in Ohio. Accordingly, we expect Ohio will address this source as part oftheir state implementationpla!Uling. The EPAwill work with Ohio to ensure the required nonattainment ar·ea SIP addresses the air qualityimpact onthe citizens ofKentucky. Withregard to size ofthe boundaryfor the Kentuckyp01tion ofthis ar·ea, the EPAhas reevaluated its intended boundary determination, and has revised tllis boundary. More information onEPA's technical analysis for this area and revised boundary determination for Campbell County, Kentucky canbe found in EPA's TSD for Kentucky. 3.2.9.2. Steubenville, OH-'W"V Area Commeut: The WV Division ofAir Quality (DAQ) has perfotmed additional technical analysis and refmed therelated nonattainment areaboundaries. Therefore, we are now recommending that EPArevise its initialNonattainment Area Designations for West Virginia. Our recommendations are priruar·ily based upon the five-factor analysis detailed in EPA's Mar·ch 2011 guidance. Inthe Steubenville OH-WV area, all ofthe violating monitors in BrookeCounty WV and all significant sources ofS02 einissions in Brooke County WV ar·e located in the Cross CreekTaxDistrict portion ofBrooke County, WV. The West Virginiaportion ofthe Steubenville, OH-WV non attainment area should be confmed to the Cross CreekTax District (within Brooke County). 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA concurs with this recommendation from DAQ. The additional informationregarding monitor locations and emissions information (Tables 5 and 6 ofthe DAQ Five factor analysis document and related discussion in this document) was confnmed byEPA and supports a revised boundary for the WVp01tion ofthis nonattainment area specificallyusing a partial countyboundary of Brooke County consisting ofthe Cross Creek Tax District. See the WV TSD for additional information. 3.2.9.3. Marshall, WV Area (previously called Wheeling, WV-OH) Commeut: The WV Division of

### Air Quality (DAQ) has perfonned additional technical analysis and refmed the related nonattainment area boundar·ies. Therefore, we are now recommending that EPArevise its initial Nonattainment Area Designations for the West Virginia portion ofthis ar·ea. Our recommendations are primarilybased upon the fivefactor analysis detailed in EPA's Mar·ch 2011 guidance. The West Virginiap01tion ofthe Wheeling, WV-OH nonattairunent area should be confmed to the Clay, Franklin and Washington Tax Districts all within Marshall County. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA concurs withthis recommendation from DAQ. The additional information from DAQ indicates that the violating monitor inMarshall county is located in the WashingtonTaxDistrict and all significant S02 einission sources are located in Franklin Tax District (Tables 7 and 8 ofthe DAQ five factor analysis and related Page 60 of63

# Eh:Jctronic Filing

- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

discussion in this document). Claytax distlict is located directly betweenFranklin and WashingtonTax Districts. This information supports a revised boundary for the WV po1tion ofthis nonattainment area specificallyusing a prutial county boundary of Marshall County consisting ofthe Clay, Franklin, and Washington Tax Districts within Marshall County. Seethe WV TSD for additional information. 

### Comment: The DAQ analysis indicates that a neru·by significant source, which likely impacts the above area, seems to have been overlooked. Therefore, we recommend that Ohio Township (Monroe County, OH) be included in the fmal Wheeling, WV-OH nonattainment designation since it contains The Ormet**P1~mary** Aluminum facility. This facility is located less than 5 kilometers fromthe PPG Industlies facility which is located in the recommended nonattainment area. 

### EPA'sResponse: The Ormet S02 source in Ohio Township, Monroe County, Ohio, is located approximately 25 km fi·om the Marshall County, WV, monitor. As discussed by DAQ and confirmed byEPA this source emitted 2,442 tpyofS02in 2008 and 2,471 tpy in20I 1 (2008 NEI and draft 2011 NEI). As discussed in the TSD that accompanied this proposal, PPG Industries emitted 7,693 tpy (2008 NEI). Also while the Onnet facility is in close proxin1ity to the PPG Industries facility, PPG Industlies emits almost three tin1es the amount ofS02 emissions as Ormet and is also located within ajurisdictionalborder that isuseful forbounding the nonattainment area. EPA did not propose to include the Ormet facility in the original nonattainment area wd is not prepared based onthe emissions information wdotherfactors to include this source in the initial nonattairm1ent area. We will make final designation decision for ru·eas outsidethe Mru·shall CountyWV area in a subsequent round ofdesignations. Seethe WV TSD and Ohio TSD for additional information. Comment: The WV Division ofAir Quality (DAQ) has perf01med additional technical analysis and recommends that EPAretainMead Township in Belmont County Ohio in the Wheeling WV-OH Nonattainment Area. Inpa1ticular although R.E. Burgerpower plant has ceased operations, emissions from this plwt appear to have significantly impacted the air quality in Marshall County, WV during three year periods when monitored data showed violations ofthe NAAQS. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA does not concur with this recommendation and is removing Mead Township from the nonattainment area. Additional information that responds to this comment canbe found in ourresponse to comment below which addresses a comment from ScottNally ofthe Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Additional information can be found in the Ohio and WV TSDs. Comment: EPA is proposing to designate a portion ofBelmont County, Ohio, nonattainment as part ofthe Wheeling WV-OH nonattainment area, as a result of violations occurring at a monitor inWest Virginia. Upon further review ofthis recommendation, Ohio EPAurges EPA to designate all ofBelmont County as unclassifiable. As recognized inboththe West Virginia and Ohio technical supp01t documents supplied byEPA, the only source in Ohio that mayhave been a significant
Page 61 of63

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: OB/0512013

somce is the R.E. Burger power plant. As indicated in Table 9 ofOhio's TSD, R.E. Bmgerrepresentedjust over 15,000 tpy out ofover 66,700 tpy in the area in 2008. At that time the monitor in Ohio was at 105 ppb while the monitor in West Virginia was at 113 ppb. Since that time, emissions have decreased atthe R.E. Burgerplant to zero emissions in 2011 and 2012. Tlris is the result ofthe permanent shutdown oftwo larger units (156 MW each) and the cold storage oftwo smallerunits (94 MW each). Since the shutdown and cold storage, the Ohio monitor has shown attainment while the West Virginia monitor has continuedto shownonattainment. It is Ohio's beliefthat any future consideration ofBelmont County sources should be a pati ofthe upcoming unclassifiable planning; therefore, werecommend anunclassifiable designation for all ofBelmont County. 

### EPA'sResponse: EPA has reviewed the S02 emissions data rep01ted to the Clean 

### Air Markets Division (CAMD) for the R.E. Burger plant, 2005-2012. These data confumthe emissions information in Ohio's comment. The First EnergyR.E. Burger power plant, in Shadyside, Ohio, is located two kilometers fiom the Marshall Countymonitor in Moundsville, West Virginia, and about seven kilometers fi·om the Behnont Countymonitor. Giventhis proximity, EPA carefully evaluatedthis source as a potential contributor to the monitored S02 concentrations. On March 13, 2013, Ohio informed EPAthat the R.E. Burgerpower plant had emitted no S02 in 2011 or 2012. Two ofits four units (Units 7 and 8) had shut down permanently and enforceably in 2010. The remaining two smallerunits (Units 5 and 6) are incold storage. Cold storage is not a federally enforceable shutdown; those units currentlyretain the legal right to restatt without obtaining a new permit. However, as discussed below, EPAbelievesthatthese units are unlikelyto resume operation, and furthermore EPA believes thatthese units are unlikely to operate at a level thatwould warranttreating the source as conttibuting to the violation at the Marshall County monitor. In2011, when the R.E. Burger powerplant reported zero S02 emissions to EPA CAMD, the Moundsville monitor still exceeded the 2010 S02NAAQS (79 ppb). The table below shows the S02 emissions for Units 5 and 6 at the R.E. Burger power plant as reported to CAMD for the years struting in 2005. While these utrits had emissions ofseveral hundred tons each in 2005 and 2007, emissions for all other yeru·s since 2005 havebeenunder 100 tons for each unit, with emissions in most years being zero. Bycompru·ison, the larger two units at R.E. Burger (Units 7 and 8) emitted a combinedtotal of14,952 tons in 2008, a level that was closeto average for these units for the years before they shut downbythe beginning of2011. These emissions from these larger units are prohibited from recurring bythe permanent and enforceable shutdownof these units. The only emissions which might hypothetically resume are from Units 5 and 6, the smaller units at theplant, which have.been effectively shut down since 2008, and which historically emitted less thantenpercent, and most recently no morethan about one percent, ofthe larger units' S02emissions. It is unlikelythat the two smaller units will restart, and ifthey do, they are unlikelyto contribute significantly to the nonat!ainment values. Since these units were shut downbefore the larger units were shut down, and since these units havebeenin cold storage for two years after the largerunits Page 62 of63

# Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

were shut down, the shutdown ofthe larger units is not expected to result in load being shifted to the smaller units. The requirements ofthe Clean Air InterstateRule (CAIR), which would make it even more expensive to operate these units, provide added incentive for FirstEnergyto continue keeping theseunits inoperative. Ohio provided fmiher information about this facility in May2013. Ohio staffspoke with representatives of FirstEnergy, who confirmed that theyhave no intention ofrestarting Units 5 and 6. The company is keeping the two units in "cold storage" rather thanpermanently shutting them downin orderto maintain receiving allowances for use in other facilities, and for the income tax advantages ofretaining the units on cold storage status. Units 5 and 6 are 63 years old, the R.E. Burgerpowerplant cun·ently has no coal onsite, and economics dictatethat FirstEnergy is unlikely to restrut these units. Therefore, EPAbelieves that the R.E. Burger powerplant is not cutTently contributing and is not likely to contribute inthe future to the Marshall WV nonattainment area, andEPA agrees with Ohio's recommendation that Mead Township, Behnont County, should notbe designated nonattainment for the 20I0 S02 NAAQS. Table. Annual 

### SOz Emissions for Units 5 and 6 at the R.E. Burger Power Plant (As repo1ied to CAMD) Unit ID Year 

## so2 Heat Input (tons) (MMBtu)
5 2005 433.5 236316.6 6 2005 347.1 190433.0 

## I 5 2006 0 0 6 2006 0 0 5 2007 723.2 506796.2 6 2007 671.2 471102.9
5 2008 81.3 69613.9 6 2008 93.2 79246.6
5 2009 0 0 6 2009 0 0 5 2010 3.0 2483.4 6 2010 2.7 2239.9
5 2011 0 0 6 2011 0 0
5 2012 0 0 6 2012 0 0
Page 63 of63

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Technical SupportDocument (TSD) Illinois Area Designations For the 2010 S02 Primary National AmbientAir Quality Standard

Summarv Pursuantto section 107(d) ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA), EPA must designate areas as either "nonattainment," "attainment," or "unclassifiable" for the 2010 one-hour sulfur dioxide (S02) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAAdefines a nonattainment area as one that does not meet the NAAQS orthat contributes to poor air quality in a nearby area that does not meetthe NAAQS. Table 1 below identifiesthe counties orportions ofcounties (or tribal areas) in Illinois that EPA intends to designate "nonattainment" for theprimary 2010 S02 NAAQS. Illinois submitted recommendations on June 2, 2011. OnFebruary 6, 2013, EPA sent out a letter with intended designations for illinois. Illinois did not respond to EPA's intended designation. Table I below.lists Illinois's June 2, 2011 recommendations and identifies the counties or portions ofcounties in Illinois that EPA is initially designating "nonattainment" based on monitored violations. EPA is not yetprepared to designate other areas in lllinois, and will address them in subsequent rounds ofdesignation. Tabe 1. NonattainmentArea D

.**~** I esignations or llinois Area Illinois Recommended EPA's Designation of Designation ofAreas/ Areas/ Counties Counties Pekin, IL

Tazewell County (pmtial) Nonattainment Nonattainment

-Cincinnati Township, -PekinTownship Peoria County (partial) Unclassifiable Nonattainment

-HollisTownship Lemont, IL

Cook County (pmtial) Nonattainment Nonattainment

- LemontTownship Will County (partial) Nonattainment Nonattainment

- Dupage Township

- Lockport Township

I 

### EXHIBIT 3

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Background On June 3, 20!0, EPA revised the p1imary 802NAAQS (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010) by establishing anew !-hour standard at a level of75 parts perbillion (ppb), whichis met at an ambient air qualitymonitoring site when the 3-year average ofthe annual99tl' percentile ofthe daily maximum !-hour average concentration at each monitor in an area does not exceed 75 ppb, as detennined in accordance withAppendix T of40 CFRpari 50. 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). EPA has detennined that tllis is the level necessaryto provide protection ofpublic health with an adequate mar·gin ofsafety, especially for children, the elderly and those with asthma. These groups are pariicularly susceptible to the health effects associated withbreathing 802
. The Agency is revoking thetwo p1ior p1imary standards of 140 ppb evaluated over 24-hours, and 30 ppb evaluated over an entire year· because the standards will not add additionalpublic health protection given a !-hour standar·d at 75 ppb. Accordingly, EPA is not designating areas inthis process on the basis ofeitherofthese two priorp1imary star1dards. Similarly, the secondary star1dard for S02has not been revised, so EPA is notdesignating areas in this process on the basis ofthe secondary standard.

EPA's 

### SOz Designation Approach Section 107(d) ofthe CAA provides that not laterthan I year after promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS, state Governors may submit theirrecommendations for designations and boundar·ies to EPA. For the 2010 S02 NAAQS, this deadline was June 3, 2011. Section 1 07(d) also requires EPA to provide anotification to states ofno less than 120-days prior to promulgating an initial area designation that is a modification ofa state's recommendation. EPAhas reviewed the State'srecommendations and has notified the State Commissionerthrough letter signed bythe RegionalAdnlinistrator ofany intended modifications. [While lar1guage in section I07 specifically addresses states, we intend to follow the same process for tribes, pursuantto section 301(d) ofthe CAA and Tribal AuthmityRule (40 CFRPart 49). Therefore, we intend to designate tribal areas, in consultation withthetribes, onthe same schedule as state designations.] Ifa State or Tribe did not subnlit designation recommendations, EPA is to promulgate the designations that it deems appropriate. Ifa state or llibal government disagrees with EPA's intended area designations, it had an opportunityto demonstl·ate why anyproposed modificationis inappropriate. Designations guidancewas issuedbyEPA through a March24, 2011, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA, Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standar·ds, to Air DivisionDirectors, U.S. EPA Regions I-X. This memorandumidentifies factors EPA intends to evaluate in dete1mining boundaries for areas designated nonattainment. These 5 factors include: 1) Air quality data; 2) Emissions aild enlissions-related data (location ofsources and potential contributionto ambient S02 concentrations); 3) Meteorology (weather/transportpatterns); 4) Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other 

### air basin boundaries); aild 5) Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, airdistricts, pre-existingnonattainment areas, reservations, metropolitanplanning organization), among any other information deemed relevailt to establishing appropriate area designations and boundaries for the !-hour S02 NAAQ8.

2

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013

The March 24, 20ll, designations guidance memo recommended that area boundmies be defaulted to the county bounda1y unless additional provided infmmationjustifies a larger or smaller boundary than that ofthe county. EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate each potential area on a case-by-case basis, and to recognize that area-specific analyses conducted by states, tribes and/or EPA may suppmt adifferent bounda1y than a default county boundary. Inthis TSD, EPA discusses its review and technical analysis ofthe recommendations submitted by lllinois for designations ofthe !-hour

## so2 standard and any modifications from these recommendations.


### Definition of important terms usedin this document: l) Designated nonattainment area- an area which EPA has determined, based on a state recommendation and/or on the technical analysis included inthis document, has violated the 2010 S02NAAQS, based onthe most recent three yem·s ofair quality monitming data fi·om 2009-2011, or contributes to a violation in a nearby area. 2) Recommended nonattainment area- an area that a state or tribal govemment has recommended to EPA to be designated as nonattainment. 3) Violating monitor- an ambient air monitormeeting all methods, quality assurance and citing criteria and requirements whose valid design value exceeds 75 ppb, as described in Appendix T of40 CFRpart 50. 4) 2010 802 NAAQS- 75 ppb, national ambient air quality standard for S02promulgated in 2010. Based on the 3-year average ofthe 

### 99th percentile ofthe annual distribution ofdaily maximum 1-hour average concentrations 5) Design Value- a statistic computed according to the data handling procedures ofthe NAAQS (in 40 CFR 50 Appendix T) that, by compmison to the level oftheNAAQS, indicates whetherthe area is violating the NAAQS.

Technical analvsis for the Lemont, lL Area Introduction This technical analysis for the Lemont, lL area identifies Cook Countywith a monitor, in Lemont, that violates the 2010 S02 NAAQS, and evaluates nearby counties for cont1ibutions to S02 concentrations in the m·ea. EPA has evaluated this county and nearby counties based on the evidence for the factors recommended in the March 24, 2011 EPA guidance. Figure 1 is a map ofthe area showingthe locations and design values ofair quality monitors in the area, and the counties surrounding anyviolating air quality monitors. Notably, a monitor in

3

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Lemont Township in Cook County recorded a 2009 to 2011 design value of98 ppb. Multiple other monitors in Cook County and a monitor in Will County showed design values below the standard, with values ranging from 18 to 30 ppb. Figure 1. Map ofsources and monitors in the Chicago area and the Lemont, IL nonattainment area 

### Lemont, IL legend EPA designa!i=d whole counl)' as nonaliainment EPA des1gnaEd partial county as nonaltairHnen\ Courliies designated as a difierent 502 nanat!ainm2nt area 

# * Monitor**vio~ati:lg** 2010 S02 NMOS (2009-2011) 0 fl.1 .onilorattaining 2010 S02 NAAQS (2009-2011) Et'Il] EFI>.'s deS1gn<:te\l S02 nonatlainmenl ama

.. Areasor Indian c:mntry

- Nati:mal highway WaterOOdy $02 emissbn scurce (N=t 20J3v3.0)**-~** 10.J ·1,0IKl tons/year 0 1,0QO a·mo!B tonsi}'Sar 0 5 10 20M:Ies

illinois analyzed the sources that might be contributingto the monitored violation in Lemont. Based onthis assessment, Illinois recommended that an area consisting ofDuPage and Lockport Townships inWill Countyand Lemont Township in Cook Countybe designated as nonattairunent. This recommendation reflected illinois' viewthat no significant sources are located in Cook Countynear Lemontbut that three significant sources are located nearby inWill County. Based onEPA's technical analysis described below, EPAis initially designating a Lemont nonattainment area consisting ofLemont Township in Cook County and DuPage and Lockport Townships inWill County as nonattainment for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Areas and sources that we are not yet prepared to conclude are contributing to monitored violations or to otherpossible violations are not included inthis initial nonattainment area. Such sources and areas will be further addressed in a subsequentround offmal designations.

4

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Detailed Assessment Air QualityData Tlris factor considers the S02 air quality monitoring data, including the design values (in ppb) calculated for all air quality monitors in the Chicago metropolitan area based on data for the 2009-2011 period. The 20I0 S02 NAAQS design values for the Chicago area within Illinois are shown in Table 2. 

### Table 2. Air QualityData in the Chicago At·ea County State Recommended Molitor Air Quality Monitor Location Nonattainment? SystemiD Cook No 17-031-0050 41.7076, -87.5686 No 

### I 17-031-0063 41.877, -87.6343 No 17-031-0076 41.7514, -87.7135 Yes 17-031-1601 41.6681,-87.9906 No 17-03 1-4002 41.8552,-87.7525 No 17-031-4201 42.1400,-87.7992 Will No 17-197-0013 41.46,-88.182 "'Data are incomplete. Value is detennined from available data for instrument identified as POC 2. Monitors in Bold have the highest 2009-2011 design value in the respective county. S02 Design Value, 2009-2011 (ppb) 20* 18' 24 

### I 98

30 18* 28*

TheLemontmonitor in Cook County shows a violation ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS. Emissions andEmissions-RelatedData Evidence ofS02 emissions sources in the vicinity ofa violating monitor is an important factor for deternrining whether a nearby area is contributing to a monitored violation. Fortlris factor, EPA evaluated county level e1nission data for S02 and any growth in S02 emitting activities sincethe date represented bythose enrissions data. Emissions The most recent year for which national emissions infonnation was compiled was2008. Illinois did notprovidemore recent emissions infonnation. Therefore, EPArelied onthe2008 National Enrissions Inventory (NEI) emissions data (NEI08V3). Table 3 shows total emissions ofS02 (given in tons per year) for CookCounty and for adjoining Will County. Table 3 also shows pertinent infonnation for sources inthese counties emitting greater than l00 tons per year ofS02 according to the 2008 NEI.

5

# Eh=Jctronic Filing

- Rscivsd. Clsrk's OfficB: OS/0512013

Table 3. 

### 802 Emissions in the Chicago Area (NEI08V3) County Facility in Facility Emissions Facility Location 

### I Distance Total State NEI08V3 to Lemont County SO, Recommen (tons per Monitor Emissions dedN.A. year) (km) (tons per**----~-------** Area?

--·---- 

## _Yeail

____ Cook No Crawford Station 6,627 tpy 41.8278, ·87.7236 28 19,346 No Fisk Station 4,486 tpy 41.8408, -87.6533 34 No Com Products 2,203 tpy 41.7751,-87.8224 18 No Koppers 

### I 823 tpy 41.8206, -87.7487 26 No 0 'Hare Airport 498 tpy 41.9772, -87.9044 35 No Saint-Gobain 1345 tpy 41.6439,-87.6003 32 Containers No Carrneuse Lime 321 tpy 41.7056, -87.5438 37 No Midway Airport 110tpy 41.785, -87.7519 24 Will No :M:\VG Joliet Station 18,281 tpy 41.4947,-88.125 22 63,967 Yes MWGWill County 16,497 tpy 41.6344, -88.0592 7 Station No Exxon Mobil 16,404 tpy 41.4138, -88.1835 33 Yes Oxbow Midwest 6,205 tpy 41.6622,-88.0379 4 Calcinina Yes CITGO Petroleum 6,137 tpy 41.6444, -88.0559 6 The sources in Cook County are at considerable distances from the violating monitor. For example, the closest source is ComProducts Corporation, at about 18 kilometers fi·om the monitor, with emissions ofabout 2,300 tons peryear, and the highest emitting source in Cook County, Midwest Generation's Crawford Station, is about 28 kilometers away, emitting about 6,600 tons per year. Based onthe distance ofthese sources fi·om the violating monitor, EPA is notyet prepared to conclude that these sources contribute to the Lemontmonitor's design value. These sources will be further addressed in a subsequent round ofdesignations. Three ofthe sources in Will County are relatively close to the Lemont monitor and have sufficient emissions that illinois recommended including the townships containing these sources in the Lemontnonattainment area. However, consideringtheir emission levels and based on their distance from the monitor, EPA is not yetprepared to conclude that two otherWill County sources, Midwest Generation's Joliet Station and the Exxon-Mobil refmety, are contributingto the Lemont monitor's design value. These two sources will also be further addressed in subsequent a round ofdesignations. Emissions Controls The emissions data used byEPA in this technical analysis and provided in Table 3 represent emissions levels taking into account any control strategies implemented on stationaty sources in this area up to and including 2008. EPA has not received any additional information on emissions reductions resultingfrom controls put into place after 2008.

6

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Meteorology (weather/transportpattems) Evidence ofsource-receptorrelationshipsbetween specific emissions sources and high S02 values at violating monitors is another important factor in detem1ining the appropriate contlibuting areas and the appropriate extent ofthe nonattainment area. Figure 2 shows the prevalent wind direction for the Lemont, IL area. Figure 2: Wind Rose,--fo"'r'-L_e.:.:m:...o_n_t_,,_I_L

______________ ,

... '·, .... 10%



### ............... 'EA''.sri

-... ____;souTH WIND SPEED (Knots) 0 >=22 • 17-21 IIIII 11-17 B 7·11 D 4-7 D 1-4 Calms: 0.48% Source: IEPA Softwar::: WRPLOT-Lakcs Enviroruncntal Software The wind rose above shows that winds are most likelyto comefromthe south, west, and southwest directions, but also frequently come from all the northeast direction, and occasionally from theother directions. This shows that a source from anydirectioncould conttibute to the violation at the monitor. The three largest nearby emitters, M\VG Will County Station, Oxbow MidwestCalcining, and CITGO Petroleum, are located to the west and southwest ofthe monitor, which are the frequent wind directions. 

### Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other airbasin boundaries) The Lemont area does nothave any geographical ortopographical barriers significantly linliting air pollutiontransport within its airshed. Therefore, this factor did not play a significantrole in determining the nonattainment boundary. 

### Jurisdictional boundaries lllinois does not have any current S02 nonattainment areas under the prior S02 NAAQS. Townships inIllinois have well established boundalies and are a suitable basis for defining nonattainment areas.

7

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

OtherRelevantInformation EPA did not receive additional information relevant to establishing a nonattainment area boundmy for this area. Conclusion Illinois 

### has adequatelyjustified an initial nonattainment area, based on the violating monitorin Cook County, which includes the Lemont Township containing the monitoring site and two townships inWill County, DuPage and LockportTownships, with sources that contribute to the monitored violation. Based on the distance from the violating monitor and wind rose analysis, EPA is not yet prepared to conclude that other sources in Cook County outside Lemont Township, as well as the Midwest Generation Jolietplant and the Exxon-Mobil refineryinWill County, contribute to the Lemont monitor's design value. 

### In a subsequent round ofdesignations, EPA will make fmal designations decisions for areas and sources that are notcmTently included in the initial nonattainment area designation addressed inthis TSD.

Technical analvsis for the Pekin. IL Area

Introduction This technical analysis for the Pekin, IL area identifies aTazewell County monitorthatviolates the 2010 

### SOz NAAQS. EPA has evaluatedthis county and nem·by counties based on the evidence for the factors reconunended in the March24, 2011 EPA guidance. Figure 3 is a map ofthe area showing the location and the design value ofthe air qualitymonitor inthe area, and the counties surrounding this air quality monitor. Themonitor inPekin (Tazewell County) recorded a 2009 to 2011 design value of21I ppb. A monitor in Peoria Countyrecorded a 2009 to 2011 design value of36ppb, based on incomplete data. No other 

### S02 monitoris located in these or anyneighboring counties.

8

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013

Figure 3. Map ofsources, monitors, and nonattaimnent area boundaries in the Pekin, IL area 

### Pekin, IL

Stark Marsha\\

Woodford

Fulton 0

0 Mason
DeWitt

Menard Legend f':CJ**EPA.design~te:l** Whola coun!y as nona\!ainment

___"_**EPAtlesign~te:j** parli:llcnunty as**nonaU:~inn~ent :~.=_:**  Counties designated as adifferent 802 ncnallainment area

¢ MonitorYi-::ll31t..g 2010 S02 NAAQS (2009-2011) ¢ Monitor aaaining 2010 S02 NMOS (20J9-2011) El]]EPA's**designat~d** S02 mmauammen! area

· . Areas cl !nCian co:mtry

--- Nalionath\QirYay Wate-r body S02 emission source {NEI 2008v3.0)**,~** 100·1,000tonslyear 0 1,000ormere !cnsiyeat
C 4 16 Wile:s

Illinois analyzed the sources·that mightbe contlibuting to the monitored violation in Pekin. Based on this assessment, Illinois recommended that an area consisting ofCincinnati and Pekin Townships inTazewell Countybe designated as nonattaimnent. EPA believesthat Hollis Township in Peoria County also contributes to the violation monitored inTazewell County. E.D. Edwards Station, a powerplant operated byAmeren, is located inthis township. This source emits approximately 11,000 tons ofS02 per year, in a location that is about 4.5 kilometers in a direction that is periodicallyupwind ofthe Pekin monitor. Based onEPA's technical analysis described below, and based on a monitored violation, EPA is initially designating a Pekin nonattaimnent area consisting ofCincinnati and Pekin Townships in Tazewell County and Hollis Township in Peolia County. Areas and sources that we are notyet preparedto conclude are contributing to the monitored violations are not included in this initial nonattainment area. Such areas and sources will be addressed in a subsequent round offinal designations. EPA received comments from Ameren and from the Illinois Enviromnental Regulatory Group objecting to the inclusion ofHollisTownship in thenonattaimnent area, as well as comments from Citizens Against Ruining the Enviromnent and the Respiratory HealthAssociation generally supporting the intended designation. These comments are addressed inmore detail in the response to comments document.

9

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office : 08/05/2013

Detailed Assessment 

### Air Quality Data This factor considers the S02 air quality monitoring data, including the design value (in ppb) calculated for the air quality monitorinTazewell County based on data for the 2009-2011 period. The only other monitor in this patt ofIllinois is located in Peoria County. The 2010 S02 NAAQSdesign values for the Tazewell and Peotia County monitors are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Air QualityData in the Pelon Area County 

## I State Recommended Monitor Air Quality MonitorLocation S02 Design Value, Nonattaimnent? System ID 2009-2011 (ppb) Peoria 

### I No 17-143-0024 40.6874, -89.6069 36 Tazewell 

### I Yes 17-I79-0004 40.5565, -89.654 211 The Tazewell Countymonitor shows a violation ofthe 2010 S02 NAAQS. Therefore, some area in tbis county and possibly additional areas in surrounding counties mustbe designated nonattainment. The absence ofa violatingmonitor alone is not a sufficient reason to eliminate nearby counties as candidates for inclusion in a nonattainment area. 

### Emissions andEmissions-RelatedData Evidence ofS02 emissions sources in thevicinityofa violating monitor is an important factor for determining whether a nearby area is contributing to a monitored violation. Forthis factor, EPA evaluated county level emission data for S02 and any growth in 802 emitting activities sincethe date represented bythose emissions data. Emissions The most recent year for whichnational emissions information was compiled was 2008. Illinois reported dataindicating that emissions from pertinent sources in 2007 and 2009 were similarto emissions in 2008. Therefore, EPArelied on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) emissions data (NEI08V3). Table 5 shows total emissions ofS02 (given in tons per year) for Tazewell County and for adjoining Peoria County. Table 

### 5 also shows pettinent information for sources in these counties emitting greaterthan 100 tonsper year ofS02 according to the 2008 NEI.

10

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

Table 5. S02 Emissions in the PekinArea (NEI08V3) County Facility Located Facility- Total SO, Air Facility Location Distance Total County in State Emissions NEI08V3 to Pekin S01 Emissions Recommended (tons peryear) Monitor (tons per year) Nonattainment (km) Area?
Peoria No• Ameren E.D. Edwards 40.5958, -89.6631 4 14,603 Stn -11,224 tpy No J\.DM- 3049 tpy 40.6756, -89.6073 14 No Keystone Steel & Wire- 40.6420, -89.6467 10 1381py Tazewell Yes MWG- Powerton Stn.

- 40.5408, -89.6786 3 34,358 22,355 tpy Yes Aventine Renewable 40.5553, -89.6629 1 Energy- 11,830 tpy *Tlus source ts mcluded m the nonattamment area that EPA IS promulgatmg The two significant sources in Tazewell County are located in Cincinnati and Pekin Townships, respectively, which Illinoishasreconunended including in the Pekin nonattainment area. Illinois did not recommend including any ofPeoria County in this nonattainment area. However, EPA finds that Ameren's E.D. Edwards powerplantis only 4 kilometers from the monitor and has significant emissions withpotential to have significant impact on recorded concentrations at the monitor. This source is located in Hollis Township, and so this township waiTants consideration for its contributions to theviolation measured in Pekin. Based on their distance fi·om the violatingmonitor, EPA is not yet preparedto conclude thatthe other sources in Peoria County contributeto the violating monitor's design value. These sources will be further addressed in a subsequentround ofdesignations. Emissions Controls The emissions data used byEPA in this technical analysis andprovided in Table 5 represent emissions levels taking into account any control strategies implemented on stationaty sources in tins areaup to and including 2008. EPA has not received any additional infom1ation on emissions reductions resulting from controls put into place after 2008. 

### Meteorology (weather/transportpattems)

Evidence ofsource-receptor relationships between specific ernissions sources and high 

### 802 values at violating monitors is another impm1ant factor in detetminingthe appropriate contributing areas and the appropriate extent ofthe nonattainment area. Figure 4 shows the prevalent wind direction for the Lemont, IL area.

11

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Figure4: Wind Rose fro:.::r-=P:...:e:.:.ki=·n::c'c.::I=L:.._

___________ --,

·- ···'·

12%

WEST 15%

WIND SPEED {Kno!sj D >=22 • 17·21 IIIII 11-17 • i-11 Or.-7 CJ 1-4**Ci!lm:~:** 1.26% Source: IEPA Software: ViRPLOT-Lakes Environmental Software The windrose above suggests that winds comemostfrequently from the south, somewhat fi-equently from the northwest, and occasionally from the other directions. Focusing on days when concentrations are above the level ofthe standard, winds from the north (including variable winds that at least inpart include north winds) occurwith sufficientfi·equency to suggest that nearby significant sources located north as well as west and southwest ofthe monitor are contributing to violations measured in Pekin. As discussed inmore detail inthe response to comments document, winds from the north (including variable winds that atleast in prui include north winds) also occur inparticular attimes when the standru·d is exceeded atthe Pekinmonitor. 

### Geograplty/topograp!zy (mountain ranges orother airbasin boundaries) The Pekin area does not have any geographical ortopographical baniers significantly limiting air pollution transport within its airshed. Therefore, this factor did not play a significant role in dete1mining the nonattainment boundary. 

### Jurisdictional boundaries lilinois does not have any cunent S02 nonattainment ru·eas under the prior S02NAAQS. Townships in lllinois have well establishedboundaries and are a suitable basis for defining nonattainment ru·eas. 

### OtherRelevant Information EPA did not receive additional information relevant to establishing a nonattainment area boundaryfor this area.

12

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

Conclusion lllinois' recommendation to define the Pekin, IL nonattainment area to include Cincinnati and Pekin Townships ofTazewell County approp1iately includes the pmtions ofTazewell County that are contributing to the measured violation. However, EPAhas detennined that the initial nonattaimnent area should also include Hollis Township in Peoria County, which includes Ameren's E.D. Edwards Station. This source has substantial emissions relatively close to the monitormeaswing a violation, and analysis ofwind infmmation supports a finding of contribution ofemissions fi:om the direction ofthis source to the violating monitor. Therefore, EPAbelieves that Hollis Township ofPemia County wmnnts inclusion in the initial Pekin nonattaimnent area. Thus, afterconside1ing the factors described above, EPAis initially designating an area that includes Cincinnati and Pekin Townships in Tazewell County andHollis Township in Peoria County as the Pekin, ILnonattaimnent m·ea for the 2010 S02NAAQS. In a subsequent round ofdesignations, we will make final designations decisions for areas and sources that we are not yetprepared to conclude m·e contributing to the monitored violations or to otherpossible violations and that are not cmTently included in the initial nonattaimnent area designation addressed in this TSD.

13

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

Federal RegisterI Vol. 78, No. 150I Monday, August 5, 2013 I Rules and Regulations 47191 (b) The Secretary must provide each agency byJanuary 15 ofeach yearwith the format and guidelines for electronically submitting the agency's occupational injury and illness recordkeeping information.

(c} Each agency must submit to the Secretary by May 1, 2014, a list ofall establishments. The listmust include information aboutthe department/ agency affiliation, NAICS code, a street address, city, state and zip code. Federnl agencies are also responsible for updating their list ofestab1ishments by May 1 ofeach year when they submit the annual report to the Secretary required by § 1960.71 [a)(1 ). * 

### • • • 8. Addnew § 1960.73 to read as follows: §1960.73 Federal agency injury and illness recordkeeping forms.

[a) When filling out the OSHA Form 300 or equivalent, each agency must enter the employee's OPMjob series number and job title in Column (c).

(b) When recording the injuries and illnesses ofuncompensated volunteers, each agency must enter a "V"before the OPMjob series number in Column (c) of the OSH Form 300 log or equivalent.

(c) Each agency musl calculate the total-number ofhours workedby uncompensatedvolunteers. [FR Doc. 2013-18457 Filed 8-2-13: 8:45 amJ BILUNG CODE 4S1D-:26-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-201 3-0687] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Albemarle Sound to Sunset Beach, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), Wrightsville Beach, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Nolice ofdeviation from drawbridge regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the S.R. 74 Bridge, atmile 283.1, over the A!CW, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. The deviation is necessaryto facilitate electrical system and equipment upgrades to the bridge. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on August 19, 2013 to 7p.m. August 27, 2013. ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0667] is available at http://wiYVl.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the "SEARCH" box and click "SEARCH." Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated vdth this deviation. You may also Yisit the DocketManagement Facility inRoomW12-140 on the ground floor ofthe Department of TransportationWest Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, CoastGuard; telephone (757) 398-6557, email James.L.Rousseau2@uscg.mil. Ifyou have questions on reviewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202) 366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Carolina Department ofTransportation, who owns and operates this bascule bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.821 (a)(4), to facilitate electrical system and mechanical equipmentupgrades to the bridge.

Under the regular operating schedule, the draw for the S.R. 74 Bridge, at mile 283.1 over the AICW, at Wrightsville Beach, NC shall open on signal for commercial vessels atall times and on signal for pleasure vessels except between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., need only open onthe hour; and except for annual triathlon events that occur from September through November. The S.R. 74 Bridge has a temporary vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet above mean high water due to additional ongoingmaintenance.

Under this temporary deviation. the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position, beginning at 7 p.m., on Monday, August 19, 2013 until 7 p.m., on Tuesday August 20, 2013. Inthe event of inclementweather, the alternate dates and Limes will begin at 7 p.m., on MondayAugust 26, 2013 ending at 7 p.m., on Tuesday August 27, 2013. The bridge will operate under its normal operating schedule at all other times. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Vessels able to pass under Lhe bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. The bridge will be able to open for emergenciesbut at a slower rate. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels transiting this section ofthe AICW but vessels may pass before and after the closure each dav. The Coast Guard will also inform.additional waterwayusers through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners ofthe closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange theirtransitsto minimize any impacts causedby the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end ofthe designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: July 25, 2013. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., BridgeProgram Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District. IFR Doc. 2013-1874:0 Filed 8-Z-13: 8:4:5 am] BILUNG CODE 9111Hl4-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part81 [EPA-HQ-DAR-2012-0233; FRL 9841-4] RJN 2060-AR18 Air Quality Designations for the 201

### o Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY: EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Pinal rule. SUMMARY: This rule establishes air quality designations for certain areas in the United States for the 2010 primary SulfurDioxide (SO,) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is issuing this ruleto identify areas that, based on recorded air quality monitoring data showingviolations of the NAAQS, do notmeet the 2010 S02 NAAQS and areas that contribute to S02 air pollutionin a nearby area that does not meet the SO, NAAQS. At this time, the EPA is designating as nonattainrnent most areas in locations where existing monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicate violations ofthe 1-hour

### so2 standard. The EPA intendsto address in separate future actions the designations for all other areas for whichthe agency is not yet prepared to issue designations and that arc consequentlynot addressed in this final rule. The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs areas designated nonattainmentby this rule to undertake certain planning and pollution control

EXHIBIT 

### 4

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office 

# OB/0512013

47192 Federal RegisterI Vol. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013/Rules and Regulations
activities to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this rule is October4, 2013. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233. All documents in the docket are listed in the u•1vw.regulaUons.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publidy available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disdosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 't".1illbe publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in t1'"WW.regulations.gotr or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 ConstitutionAvenue NVV., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday Regional offices through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the PublicReading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for this rulernaking at: http:/! www.epa.gov/so2designations. The Web site includes the EPA's final S02 designations, as .... •ell as state and tribal initial recommendation letters, the EPA's modificationletters,technical support documents, responses to comments and otherrelated technical information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this action, please contactRhonda Wright, U.S. EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Air QualityPlanning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541- 1087, email at wright.rhonda@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regional Office Contacts: Region !-DonaldDahl (617) 918- 1657,

Region II-Kennelh Fradkin {212) 637-3702,

Region III-Ruth Knapp (215) 814- 2191,

Region IV-Lynorae Benjamin (404) 562-9040,

Region V-John Summerhays (312) 886-6067,

Region Vf-Dayana Medina (214) 665-7241,

Region VII-Larry Gonzalez (913) 551-7041,

Region VIII-Crystal Ostigaard (303) 312-6602,

Region IX-John Kelly (415) 947- 4151,and

Region X-Stevc Body {206) 553- 0782.

The public may inspect the rule and state-specific technical support information at the follovving locations: States Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA**0211~2023,** {617) 918-1661. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region 1!, 290 Broad·

way, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4014. New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning,

EPA Region Ill, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187, (215) 814-2178. Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wast Virginia. R. Scott Davis, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyrh Streer, SW, 12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9127. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West

Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, {312) 886-6043. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (2'14) 665-7242. Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 11201

Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66129, (913} 551-7606. Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. Gail Fallon, Acting Unit Chief, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region

Vlll, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, (303) 312- 6281. Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Doris La, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3959. American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada and Northam Mariana Islands. Debra Suzuki, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region X,

Office of Air, Waste, and Taxies, Mail Code OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206} 553-0985. Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Table ofContents

The following is an outline ofthe Preamble. I. Preamble Glossary ofTerms and Acronyms II. Whatisthe purpose ofthis document? III. What is sulfur dioxide? IV. What is the 2010 S02NAAQS and what are the health concerns that it addresses? V. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and,...,hat action has the EPA taken to meet these requirements? VI. What guidance did the EPA issue and how did the EPA a.pplythe statutory requirmnents and applicable guidance to determine area designations and botmdaries? VII. What air quality data has theEPA used? VIII. How do**Lh~signations** affec:t Indian Country? IX. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and exchanges between theEPA, states and trib!:ls related to this rule? X. Statutoryand Executive OrderReviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Impro\•ing Regulation and RegulatoryReview B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Govemments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health and SafetyRisks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and

AdvancementAct {NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: FederalActions

To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Incom!:l Populations K. Congressional Review Act L. Judicial Review

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office 

# 08/05/2013

Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations**~7193** I. Preamble Glossary ofTerms and Acronyms

The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble. APA Administr11tive Pror.edure Ar.t CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code ofFederal Regulations DC District ofColumbia EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards NTT AA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office ofManagement and Budget S02 Sulfur Dioxide SOx Sulfur Oxides RFA Regul11tory Flexibility Act SIP State Implementation Plan UMRA UnfundedMandate Reform Act of

1995 TAR Tribal Authoritv Rule TSD Technical SupPort Document U.S. United States VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards II. \Vhat is the purpose ofthis document?

The purpose ofthis action is to announce and promulgate designations andboundaries for certain areas ofthe country not meetingthe 2010 S0 2 NAAQS based on available information, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. The initial list ofareas being designated nonattainment in each state and the boundaries ofeach area appear in the tables within the regulatory text.

This notice identifies the 29 initial areas being designated as nonattainment areas for the 2010 S01 NAAQS. The basis for designating each area as "nonattainment" is monitored air quality data from calendaryears 2009- 2011 indicating a violation ofthe NAAQS in the area. For these areas being designated nonattainmcnt, the CAA directs states to develop State Implementation Plans [SIPs) that meet the requirements of sections 172(c} and 191-192 ofthe CAA and provide for attainment ofthe NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October4, 2018. The CAA directs states to submit these SIPs to the EPA within 18 months ofthe effective date ofthese designations, i.e., by AprilS, 2015. III. \•Vhat is sulfur dioxide?

S02 is one of a group ofhighly reactive gasses known as "oxides of sulfur" [SOx). The largest sources of 

### so2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at powerplants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smallersources ofS02 emissions include industrial processes, such as extracting metal from ore, and theburning ofhigh sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships and non-road equipment. 

### so2 is linked with a number ofadverse effects on the respiratory system. IV. Whatis the 2010 SO, NAAQS and what are the health concerns thatit addresses?

The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary S01 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. The rule was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), and became effective on August 23, 2010. Based on the Administrator's review ofthe air quality criteria for oxides ofsulfur andthe primary NAAQS for oxides ofsulfur as measuredby S02, theEPA revised the primary SO, N!\.AQS to provide requisite protection ofpublic health with an adequate margin ofsafety. Specifically, the EPA established a new 1-hour

### so2 standard at a level of 75 parls perbillion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average ofthe annual 99th percentile of 1-honrdaily maximum concentrations is less than or ·equal to 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of40 CFR part 50.40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). The EPA also established provisions to revoke both the existing 24-hour and annual primary S0 2 standards, subject to certain conditions. 40 CFR 50.4(e).

Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to 

### so2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array ofadverse respiratory effects includingbronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates {e.g., while exercising or playing). Studies also show a connectionbetween shorHerm exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly and asthmatics.

The EPA's NAAQS for S0 2 is designed to protect against exposure to the entire group ofSOx. S01 is the component ofgreatest concern and is used as the indicator for the larger group ofgaseous SOx. Othergaseous SOx (e.g., S03 ) are found in the atmosphere at concentrations much lm

.. rer than 802• Emissions that leadto high concentrations of80 2 generally also lead to the formation of other SOx. Control measuresthatreduce 802 can generallybe expected to reduce people's exposures to all gaseous SOx. This may also have the important co-benefit of reducing the formation offine sulfate particles, which pose significant public health threats. SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death.'l The EPA's NAAQS for particulate matter are designed to provide protection against these health effects. V. What are the CA.'i requirements for air quality designations and what action has the EPA taken to meetthese requirements?

After the promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate areas as "nonallainment," "attainment," or "unclassifiable," pursuant to section 107(d)(1) ofthe CAA.

The process for designating areas following promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107[d) ofthe CAA. The CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within 2 years of promulgating a new or revised standard. Ifthe Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations by that deadline, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing designations by up to 1 year. On July 27, 2012, the EPA announced that it had insufficient information to complete the designations for the 1-hour**SO:~** standard within 2 years and extended the designations deadline to june 3, 2013.

Atthis time, the EPA is initially designating as nonattainment most areas in locations where existing monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicate violations ofthe 1-hour S02 standard. In some cases, we have bad to use data from a differentthree-year period orare still evaluating whether data from 2009- 2011 are influencedby exceptional events. In separate future actions, the EPA intends to address the designations for all other areas for which the agency is not yet prepared to issue designations and that are consequently not addressed in this final rule. VVith input from a diverse group of stakeholders, the EPA has developed a comprehensive implementation strategy for the future 

### so2 designations actions thatfocuses resources on identifying and addressing unhealthy levels ofS02 in areas where people are most likelyto be exposed to violations ofthe standard. For

1 See Fact Sheet Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Monitoring Nelworl:, and Data Reporting Requirement:; for SulfurDioxide at http://wvm-.epa.gov/airqualilyl sulfurdloxide!pd fs/201 00602/s.pdf.

# Elactronic Filing- Racivad, Clark's Offica 

# OS/0512013

47194 Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013/Rules and Regulations
informational purposes, the strategy is available at: http:l!tVT.vw.epa.gov/ airquality/sulfurdioxide/ implement.html. The EPA plans to contin·ue to work closely with state, tribal and local air quality management agencies tu ensure health-protective, commonsense implementation ofthe 1- hour SO, NA.-\QS.

By not later than 1year after the promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 107[d)[1)[A) provides that each state governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA. The EPA reviews those state recommendations and is authorized to make any modifications the Administrator deems necessary. The statute does not define the term "necessary," but the EPA interprets this to authorize the Administrator to modify designations Lhal didnol meet the statutoryrequirements orwere otherwise inconsistentwith the facts or analysis deemed appropriate by the EPA. Ifthe EPA is considering modifications to a state's initial recommendation, the EPA is required to notify the state ofany such intended modifications to its recommendation not less than 120 days prior to the EPA's promulgation ofthe final designation. During this period ofno less than 120 days, ifthe state does not agree with the EPA's modification, ithas an opportunity to respond to the EPA and to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposed by the EPA is inappropriate, as contemplated by section 107[d)[1)[B)[ii). Even ifa state fails to provide any recommendation for an area, in whole or in part, the EPA still must promulgate a designation that the Administrator deems appropriate, pursuant to section 107[d)[1)[B)[ii).

Section 107[d)[l)[A)[i) ofthe CAA defines a nonattainment area as any area that does not meet an ambientair quality standard orthat is contributing to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the standard. Ifan area meets either prong ofthis definition, then the EPA is obligated to designate the area as "nonattainment."

The EPA believes that section 107{d) provides the agency with discretion to determine how best to interpretthe terms in the definition ofa nonattainment area (e.g., "contributes to" and "nearby") for a new or revised NAAQS, given**cons~derations** such as the nature ofa specific polJutant, the types of sources that may contribute to violations, the form ofthe standards for Lhe pollutant, and other relevant information. Inparticular, the EPA believr:s that the statute does notrequire the agency to establishbright line tests or thresholds for what constitutes "contribution" or "nearby" for purposes ofdesignations. 2

Similarly, the EPA believes that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application ofthe term "area" to include geographic areas based upon full orpartial county boundaries, and contiguous ornoncontiguous areas, as maybe appropriate for a particularNAAQS. Forexample, section 107[d)[l)[B)[ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an area "or portions thereof," and under section 107[d)[1)[B)[iv) a designation remains in effect for an area "or portion thereof' until the EPA redesignates it.

Designation activities for federallyrecognized tribal governments are covered under Lhe aulhority of section 301(d) ofthe CAA. This provision ofthe CAA authorizes the EPA to treat eligible tribes in o similar monncr as states. Pursuantto section 301(d)(2), the EPA promulgatedregulations, known as the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), on February 12. 1999. 63 FR 7254, codified al40 CFR parl49. Thalrule specifies those provisions ofthe CAA for which it is appropriate to treat tribes in a similar manner as states. Underthe TAR, tribes may choose to develop and implement their own CAA programs, but nre notrequired to do so. TheTAR also establishes procedures and criteria by which tribes may requestfrom the EPA a determination ofeligibility for such treatment. The designations process contained in section 107(d) of the CAA is included among those provisions determined to be appropriate by the EPA for treatment oftribes in the same manner as states. Underthe TAR, tribes generally are not subjectto the same submission schedules imposed by the CAA on states. As authorizedby the TAR. tribes may seek eligibility to submit designation recommendations to the EPA. In addition, CAA section 301[d)[4) gives the EPA discretionary authority, in cases where it determines thattreatment oftribes as identical to states is "inappropriate or administratively infeasible," to provide for direct administrationby regulation to achieve the appropriate purpose.

To date, sixtribes have applied under the TAR for eligibility to submit its O'Wll recommendations under section 107(d). Nonetheless, the EPA invited all tribes to submit recommendations concerning designations for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. The EPA worked with the tribes that

ZThis view was confirmed in Catawba Couniyv. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 [DC Cir. 2009). requested an opportunity to submit designation recommendations. Tribes were provided an opportunity to submit their ovro recommendations and supporting documentation and could also comment on state recommendations andtheEPA modifications.

Designation recommendations and supporting documentation were submitted by most states and several tribes to the EPA by June 3, 2011. After receiving these recommendations, and after reviewing and evaluating each recommendation, the EP.A.. provided a response to the states and tribes on February 7, 2013. 3 Inthese letter responses, we indicatedwhetherthe EPA intended to make modifications to the initial state or tribal recommendations and explained the EPA's reasons for making any such modifications. Forthemajority ofthe areas, the EPA agreed with the stale's recommendedboundary. The EPA requested that states and tribes respond to any proposed EPA modifications by April a, 2013. The EPA received comments from some states suggesting changes to the EPA's proposed modifications and providing additional information. The EPA evaluated these comments, and all ofthe timely supporting technical information provided. As a result, and based on that input and analysis, some ofthe final designations reflectfurther modifications to the initial state recommendations. The state and tribal lelters, including the initial recommendations, the EPA's February 2013 responses to those letters, any modifications, and the subsequent state comment letters, are in the docket for this action.

Although notrequiredby section 107[d) ofthe CAA, the EPA also provided an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the EPA's February 2013 response letters. In order to gather additional information for the EPA to consider before making final designations, the EPA published a notice on February 15, 2013 (78 FR 1124) which invited the publicto comment on the EPA's intended designations. In thenotice, the EPA stated that public comments must be received on orbeforeMarch 18, 2013. The EPA received several requests from stakeholders for additional time to prepare theircomments. Some ofthe requesters noted thatthe original**30~day** comment period Wfls insufficient time to

3 As indicated in the February 2013 letters, the EPA is not yet prepared to designate anY areas in Indian country.TheEPh intends to address the designations for these**an~as** in !\t!parl'.!e future actions.

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 09/0512013

Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013/Rules and Regulations 47195 review the EPA's responses to states' and tribes'**r~commended** designations and to compile meaningful responses due to the complexity ofthe issues impacting certain areas. Taking that into consideration, the EPA extended the public comment period to April 8, 2013. State and tribal initial recommendations and the EPA's responses, including modifications, were posted on a publically accessibleWeb site (http:// Wlvw.epa.govlso2designations). Timely comments from the publicandthe EPA's responses to significant comments are in the docket for this action. VI. Whatguidance did the EPA issue and how did the EPA apply the statutory requirements and applicable guidance to determine area designations and boundaries?

In the notice ofproposed rulemaking for the revised S02 NAAQS (74 FR 64810; December 8, 2009), the EPA issued proposed guidance on its approach to implementing the standard, including its approach to initial area designations. The EPA solicited comment on thatguidance and, in the notice offinal rulemaking (75 FR 35 520; June 22, 2010), provided further guidc.nce concerning implementation of the standard and how to identify nonatlainmentareas andboundaries for the SO, NAAQS. Subsequently, on March 24, 2011, the EPA provided additional designations guidance to assist states v • .rith making their recommendations for area designations and boundaries.4 In that guidance, the EPA recommended that monitoring data from the most recent three consecutive yearsbe used to identify a violation of the S02 NAAQS. This is appropriate because the form ofthe S02 NAAQS is cakulated as a 3-year average ofLhe 99th percentile ofthe yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 802 concentrations (specifically the most recent 3 consecutive years). 5 The EPA is basing these initial final designations on monitored S0 2 concentrations from Federal Reference Method and Federal Equivalent Method monitors that are sited and operated 'in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58. The EPA notes that data from 2008-2010 were the most recent data available to states and tribes when they made their recommendations to the EPA in June 2011. Accordingly,**'~See,** "Area Designations for lhe 2010 Revised Primary SulfurDioxide National AmbiP.nt Air Quality Standards," memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Stephen D. Page, dated March 24, 2011.

SThisnotice refers to monitoring data for "calendaryears 2009-2011" which includes data from January 2009 through December 2011. although the determination ofwhether an area violates the standard was based on 2009-2011 data, the EPA considered state recommendations and data from 2008-2010, as appropriate, in determining boundaries for nonattainmentareas.

In the guidance, the EPA stated that the perimeter ofa county containing a violating monitorwould be the initial presumptive boundary for nonattainmcnt areas, but also stated that the state, tribe and/or the EPA could conduct additional area-specific analyses that couldjustify establishing either a larger or smaller area. The EPA indicatedthat the following factors should be considered in an analvsis of whether to exclude portions of

### 8' county and whether to include additional nearby areas outside the county as part ofthe designated nonattainment area: (1) Air quality data; (2) emissionsrelated data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography/topography; and {5) jurisdictional boundaries, as well as other available data. States and tribes may identify and evaluate otherrelevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular area.

Mast states and several tribes submitted their designations recommendations inJune 2011. In each case, theEPA reviewed the state recommendations and, where appropriate, the EPA accepted the state's recommendations. However, where the EPA determinedthatchanges were necessary to a state's initial recommendation, we conveyed those preliminary determinalions to the state in February 2013, and have worked with states to further review appropriate boundaries. VII. What airquality data has the EPA used?

The final S0 2 designations contained in this action are based upon violations of the NAAQS determinedbyair quality monitoring data from calendaryears 2009-2011, exceptwhere it ''''as necessary orappropriate to use a different three-yearperiod. The form of the standard requires a calculation of monitoring values from 3 consecutive years. The 1-hour primary standard is violated at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average ofthe annual 99th percenlile ofthe daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of40 CFR part 50. For comparison to the level ofthe standard, ambient air quality shallbe measured by a reference method based onappendix A or A-1, or by a Federal Equivalent Method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. VIII. How do designations affect Indian Country?

All counties, partial counties orAir Quality Control Regions listed in the tables within the regulatory text are designated as indicated. For the first round ofS02 designations, the EPA is only designating certain nonattainment areas shown to be violating the NAAQS based on monitored data. There are no areas in Indian Countrybeing designated nonattainment at this time. All remaining areas, including areas of Indian Country, for which the EPA is not yet prepared to issue final designations will be addressed in a subsequent round ofdesignations. IX. Where can I find information forming the basis for thic; rule and exchanges between the EPA, States and tribes related to this rule?

Information providing the basis for this action are provided in several .technical support documents (TSDs), a response to comments document (RTC) and other information inthe docket. The TSDs, RTC, applicable EPA's guidance memoranda, copies of correspondence regarding this process between the EPA and the states, tribes and other parties, are available for review at the EPA Docket Center listed above in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document and on the agency's

### so2 Designations \N"eb site at http:// www.epa.gov/so2designations. Areaspecific questions can be addressed to the EPA Regional Offices. X. Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

Upon promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas as attaining or not attainingthe NAAQS. The CAA then specifies requirements for areas based on whether such areas are attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In this final rule, the EPA assigns designations to selected areas as required. A.Executive Order 12866:Regulatol]' Planning andReviewand Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and RegulatoryReview

This action responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (67 FR 3821, january 21, 2011).

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: OB/0512013

47196 Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013/Rules and Regulations
B. PaperworkReductionAct

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe PapenvorkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action responds to the requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA section 107 of title 1. This action does not establish any new information collection apart from that already required by law, C. RegulatoryFlexibility.4.ct

This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFAJ, which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule thatwill have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Ac1. (APA) or any other statute. This action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statutebecause the action is not subject to the APA. CAA section 107(d)(2)(E) does not require the EPA to issue a notice ofproposed rulemaking before**is~uing** this final action. D. Unfunded Mandates Heform Act

This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions ofTitle II oflhe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sec..:tor. The actionimposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements ofsections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA.

This action is also not subjectto the requirements ofsection 203 ofUMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements thatmight significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It does not create any additional requirements beyond those ofthe CAA and SO, NAAQS (40 CFR 50.17); therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This action establishes nonattainment designations for certain areas ofthe C<>'>"t'> {n,**tb.~** 2Q1() S00NAAQS.Tb.• CAA requires states to develop plans, including control measures, based on the designations for areas within the state.

The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result ofthis action will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more annually. Thus, this federal action will not impose mandates that will require expenditures of$100 million or more in the aggregate in any 1 year. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final action does not have federalism implications. Itwillnot have substantial direct cffecls on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the process whereby states take primaryresponsibility in developing plans to meetthe so2 NAAQS in areas**de~ignated** nonattainmentby this action. This action wil1 not modify the relationship ofthe states and the EPA for purposes ofdeveloping programs to attain and maintain the S02 NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified_in Executive Order 13175 (55 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action concerns the designation ofcertain areas as nonattainment for the 2010 S02 NAAQS, but no areas ofindian Country are being designated by this action. Because this action does not have tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, theEPA communicatedwith tribal leaders and environmental staffregarding the designations process. The EPA also sent individualized letters to all federally recognized tribes to explain the designation process for the 2010 so2 NAAQS, to provide the EPA designations guidance, andto offer consultation with the EPA. The EPA provided further information to tribes through presentations at theNational Tribal Forum and through participation in National Tribal Air Association conference calls. The EPA also sent individualized letters to all federally recognized tribes that submitted !.:OCC.om.m12:ndat\ons totheEPA abo\\tth12. EPA's intended designations for the S02 standards and offered tribal leaders the opportunity for consultation. These communications provided opportunities for tribes to voice concerns to the EPA aboutthe general designations process for the 2010 SO, NAAQS, as well as concerns specific to a tribe, and informed the EPA about key tribal concerns regarding designations as l.he rule was under development. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From EnvironmentalHealth and SafetyRisks

The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April23, 1997) because it is not an economicallv signiflcant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. While not subject to the Executive Order, this final action may be especially important for asthmatics, including asthmatic children, living in so2 nona1.tainment areas because respiratory effects in asthmatics are among the most sensitive health endpoints for S0 2 exposure. Because asthmatic children are considered a sensitive population, the EPA evaluated the potential health effects of exposure to so2 pollution among asthmatic children as part ofthe EPA's prior action establishing the 2010 SO, NAAQS. These effects andthe size ofthe population affected are summarized in theEPA's final S02 NAAQS rules. See http://wvv1v.epa.gov/ ttn!naaqslstandards!so2/frl 20100622.pdf. H. Executive Order 13211:Actions Tlwt SignificontlyAffectEnergySupply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory actionunderExeculive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transferand AdvoncementAct (NITAA)

Section 12(d) oftheNTTAA of1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulalory activities unless to do so wouldbe inconsistentwith applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures andbusiness practices) that are developed or adoptedby VCS bodies. The NIT AA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through O:MB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consiO.er the use ol any VCS. f. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To AddressEnvironmental justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013/Rules and Regulations 47197
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmentaljustice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheir programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.

The CAA requires that theEPA designate as nonattainment "any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambientairquality standard for the pollutant." By designating as nonattainment areas where available information indicate a violation ofthe 2010 S0 2 NAAQS or a contribution to a nearby violation, this action protects all those residing, working, attending school, or otherv.rise present in those areas regardless of minority or economic status.

The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effeGts on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations withouthaving any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. K. Congressional ReviewAct

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includt:s a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe U.S. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives and the Comptroller General ofthe U.S. prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published inthe Federal Register. This action is not a "majorrule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804[2). This rule will be effective October 4, 2013. L. Judicial Review

Section 307(b)[1) ofthe CAA indicates which Federal Courts ofAppeal have venue for petitions ofreview offinal actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review mustbe filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) VVhen the agency action consists of ''nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator," or (ii) when such action is locally orregionally applicable, if "such action is based on a determination ofnationwide scope or effect and ifin taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''

This final action designating areas for the 2010 SO, NAAQS is "nationally applicable" within the meaning of section307(b)(1). This final action establishes designations for areas across the U.S. for the 2010 SO, NAAQS. At the core oflhis final action is the EPA's interpretation ofthe definition of nonattainmt:ntunder section 107(d)(1) ofthe CAA, and its application ofthat interpretationto areas across the country. For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that the final designations are ofnationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, inthe report on the 1977 Amendments thatrevised section 307(b)[1) ofthe CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of "nationwide scope or effect" would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effectbeyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect ofthis final action extends to numerousjudicial circuits since the designations apply to areas across the country. In these circumstances, section 307[b)[1) and its legislative history <;alls for the Administrator to find the action to be of "nationwide scope or effect" and for venue to be in the DC Circuit.

Thus, any petitions for review offinal designations must be filed in the Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register. List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

Dated:July 25, 2013. Gina McCarthy, EPil. Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows: PART 81-DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
1 1. Theauthoritycitation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart C-Section 107 Attainment Status Designations §81.301 [Amended]

• 2. Section 81.301 is amendedby revising the table heading for ''Alabama-Sulfur Dioxide'' to read ''Alabama-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)". §81.302 [Amended]

• 3. Section 81.302 is amendedby revising the table heading for "AlaskaS02" to read "Alaska-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)".

• 4. Section 81.303 is amendedas follows: • a. Byrevisingthetableheadingfor "Arizona-S02 " to read "Arizona1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary}"; and I b. By adding a newtable entitled "Arizona-2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS [Primary)" following the newly designated table "Arizona-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.303 Arizona. 

### • • ARIZONA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) Designated area Hayden, AZ.1

................................................................................................................................................... Gila County (part) The portions of Gila County that are bounded by: T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E: TSS,

R15E; TSS, R16E Pinal County (part) Designation Date Type 10-4-13 Nonattainment.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

47198 Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations
ARIZONA-201 0 SULFUR DiOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)-Continued
Designated area Designation Date Type The portions of Pinal County that are bounded by; T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; TSS,

R14E;TSS, R15E;TSS, R16E;T6S, R14E;T6S, R15E;T6S,R16E Miami, AZ 1

..................................................................................................................................................... . 10-4-13 Nonattainment. Gila County (part} The portions of Gila County that are bounded by: T2N, R14E; T2N, R15E; T1N, R13E; T1N,

R14E; T1N, R15E; T1S, R14E; T1S, R14 1/2E; T1S, R15E
1 Excludes Indian country located rn each area, if any, unless otherv.rrse specified.



### • 

### ' ' §81.304 [Amended]

• 5. Section81.304 is amendedby revising the table headingfor "Arkansas-502 " to read "Arkansas1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondar)•)". § 81.305 [AmendedJ B 6. Section 81.305 is amendedby revising the table heading for ''California-S02 '' to read ''California- ]971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.306 [Amended]
a 7. Section 81.306 is amended by revising the table heading for "Colorado-802" to read "Colorado1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.307 [Amended]

• 8. Section 81.307 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Connecticut-502 " to read "Connecticut-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.308 [Amended] B 9. Section 81.308 is amendedby revising the table heading for ''Delaware-SOz" to read "Delaware1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.309 [Amended}

• 10. Section 81.309 is amended by revising the table heading for "District ofCoJumbia-502 " to read "Distrkt of Columbia-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)".
B 11. Section 81.310 is amended as follows: B a. By revising thetableheadingfor "Florida-S02 " to read "Florida-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and a b. By addinganewtable entitled "Florida-2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary)'' following the newly designated table "Florida-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.310 Florida. 

### ' * 

### '
FLORIDA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) Designated area Hillsborough County, FL 1

............................................................................................................................... . Hillsborough County (part) That portion of Hillsborough County encompassed by the polygon with the vertices using Universal Traverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 17 with datum NAD83 as follows: (1) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 35881, UTM Northing 3076066; (2) vertices-UTM Easting {m) 355673, UTM Northing 3079275; (3) UTM Easting (m) 360300, UTM Northing 3086380; (4) vertices-uTM Easting (m) 366850, UTM Northing 3086692; (5) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 368364, UTM Northing 3083760; and (6) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 355708, UTM Northing 3079121 Nassau County, FL 1

........................................................................................................................................ Nassau County, (part) That portion of Nassau County encompassing the circular boundary with the center being UTM

Easting 455530 meters, UTM Northing 3391737 meters, UTM zone 17, using the NAD83 datum (the location ofthe violating ambient monitor) and the radius being 2..4 kilometers
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless**otherwi~e** specified. Designation Date Type**~0-4-~3** Nona\tainment.

10-4-i 3 Nonal:'..ainment.



### ' ' * §81.311 [Amended] §81.312 [Amended]

• 13. Section 81.312 isamendedby revising the table heading for "HawaiiSO:!" to read "Hawaii-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". SO,"' to read "ldaho-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)".
a 12. Section 81.311 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Georgia-S02" to read "Georgia-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.313 [Amended]

• 14. Section 81.313 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Idaho- • 15. Section 81.314 is amended as follows: • a. By revising thetableheadingfor "Illinois-802" to read "Illinois-1971 SulfurDioxideNAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and a b. By adding anewtable entitled "lllinois-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations (Primary)'' following the newly designated table "Illinois-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: § 81.314 Illinois. • * ILLINOIS-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area Date 

### • 

### •

Designation Type47199

Lemont, JL 1

...................................................................................................................................................... 10-4-13 Nonattainment. Cook County {part) Lemont Township Will County (part) DuPage Township and Lockport Township Pekin, IL 1

......................................................................................................................................................... Tazewell County (part) Cincinnati Township and Pekin Township Peoria County (part) Hollis Township
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 10--4-13 Nonattainment.



### • • * 

### •
a 16. Section 81.315 is amended as follows: Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding anewtable entitled "!ndiana-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the ne•dy designated table "Indiana-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary]" to read as follows: § 81.315 Indiana. a a. Byrevisingthe tableheadingfor "Indiana-80 2 " to read "Indiana-1971 

### •

INDIANA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) Designated area Indianapolis, IN 1

.............................................................................................................................................. Marion County (part) Wayne Township, Center Township, Perry Township Morgan County, JNl

.................................................................................................................................... .. Morgan County (part) Clay Township, Washington Township Southwest Indiana, IN 1

.................................................................................................................................. Daviess County (part) Veale Township Pike County {part) Washington Township Terre Haute, IN 1

.............................................................................................................................................. Vigo County (part) Fayette Township, Harrison Township
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

### '

Designation Date Type 10--4-"13 Nonattainment.

10-4-13 Nonattainment.

"10-4-13 Nonattainment.

"10--4-13 Nonattainment.



### • * 

### • * * B17.Section81.316isamendedas follows: Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding anew table entitled "Im'\ra-2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Iowa-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: § 81.316 Iowa. • a. Byrevising the tableheadingfor "Iowa-SOz" to read "Iowa-1971 

### •

IDWA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)

Designated area 

### •

Muscatine, lA,

................................................................................................................................................. Muscatine County (part) Sections 1-3, 10--15, 22-27, 34-36 of T77N, R3W (Lake Township) Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, 34-36 of T76N, R3W**{Seventy~six** Township) T77N, R2W (Bloomington Township). T76N, R2W (Fruitland Township) All sections except 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 of T77N, R1W (Sweetland Township)
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

### •

Designation Date Type 10-4-13 Nonattainment.

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

47200 Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations * * * * §81.317 [Amended]
• 18. Section 81.317 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Kansas802" to read "Kansas-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"'. a 19. Section 81.318 is amended as follows: a a. By revising the table headingfor ''Kentucky-S02'' to read ''Kentucky1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table ''Kentucky-1971 Sulf.1r Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.318 Kentucky. a b. Byadding a newtable entitled "Kentucky-2010 Sulfur Dioxide *
KENTUCKY-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH 1

.......................................................................................................... Campbell County (part) That portion of Campbell County which lies south and west of the Ohio River described as follows: Beginning at geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Lalilude, 84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983) on the edge of the Ohio River running southwesterly to KY Highway 1566; thence continuing running southwesterly along KY Highway 1566 to KY Highway 9 (AA Highway); thence running north westerly along KY Highway 9 (AA Highway) from Hwy 1566 to Interstate 275; thence running northeasterly along Interstate 275 to Highway 2345 (John's Hill Road), Hwy 2345 to US-27, US-27 to J-275, 1-275 to the Ohio River; thence running southeasterly along the Ohio River from Interstate 275 to geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983) Jefferson County, KY 1

.................................................................................................................................... Jefferson County (part) That portion of Jefferson County compassed by the polygon with the vertices using Universal

Traverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 16 with datum NAD83 as follows: (1) Ethan Allen Way extended to the Ohio River at UTM Easting {m) 595738, UTM Northing

4214086 and Dixie Highway (US60 and US31W) at UTM Easting (m) 59751, UTM Northing 4212946; (2) Along Dixie Highway from UTM Easting (m) 597515, UTM Northing 4212946 to UTM Easting

(m) 595859, UTM Northing 421 0678; (3) Near the adjacent property lines of Louisville Gas and Electric-Mill Creek Electric Gomerating Station and Kosmos Cement where they join Dixie Highway at UTM Easting (m) 595859, UTM Northing 4210678 and the Ohio River at UTM Easting (m) 595326, UTM Northing 421101-C; (4) Along the Ohio River from UTM Easting (m) 595326, UTM Northing 4211014 to UTM Easting

{m) 595738, UTM Northing 4214086
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. * * *

Designation Date Type 10--4-13 Nonattainment.

10--4-13 NonaHainment.

* * * *
• 20. Section81.319 is a.J.nended as follows: 1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Set:ondary)"; and • b. By adding a newtable entitled "Louisiana-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Louisiana-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows:

• a. By revisingthe table headingfor ''Louisiana-S02'' to read ''Louisiana- § 81.319 Louisiana. 

### • * *
LOUISIANA-2010 SuLFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area
St. Bernard Parish, LA 1 St. Bernard Parish
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. * * * §81.320 [Amended)

• 21. Section 81.320 is amendedby revising the table heading for "MaineS02" to read "Maine-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.321 [Amended]

• 22. Section81.321 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Maryland-S02 " to read "Maryland1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". Designation Date Type 10-4-13 Nonaltainmant.

§81.322 [Amended]

• 23. Section 81.322 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Massachusetts-S02" to read "Massachusotts-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)".

• 24. Section 81.323 is amended as follows:

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

Federal RegisterI Vol. 78, No. 150I Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations 47201

a a. By revising thetableheadingfor "Michigan-502" to read "Michigan1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding a new table entitled "Michigan-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Michigan-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: § 81.323 Michigan. 

### • • • 

### • MICHIGAN-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area Designation Date Type Detroit, tv11 1 VVayne County (part)

................................................................................................................... 10-4--43 Nonattainment. The araa bounded on the east by the Michigan-Ontario border, on the south by the Wayne CountyMonroe County border, on the west by Interstate 75 north to Southfield Road, Southfield Road to Interstate 94, and Interstate 94 north to Michigan Avenue, and on the north by Michigan Avenue to Woodward Avenue and a line on Woodward Avenue extended to the Michigan-Ontario border 1 Excludes lnd1an country located in each area, 1! any, unless otherwiSe specified.



### • §81.324 [Amended]

• 25. Section 81.324 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Minnesota-S02" to read "Minnesota-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.325 [Amended] • 26. Section81.325 is amended by revising the table heading for "Mississippi-SOl" to read ''Mississippi-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)".
• 27. Section 81.326 is amended as follows: • a. By revising thetableheadingfor ''Missouri-S02'' to read ''Missouri1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding anewtable entitled "Missouri-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)"**follo"~ng** the newly designated table ''Missouri-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: § 81.326 Missouri. 

### • 

### • MISSOURI-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area

Jackson County, M0 1 Jackson County {part)

................................................................................................ The portion of Jackson County bounded by 1-70/J-670 and the Missouri River to the north; and, to

the west of 1-435 to the state line separating Missouri and Kansas Jefferson County, MO 1 Jefferson County (part)

............................................................................................. That portion within Jefferson county described by connecting the fol!owing four sets of UTM coordi·

nates moving in a clockwise manner:

(Herculaneum USGS Quadrangle) 718360.283 4250477.056 729301 .869 4250718.415 729704.134 4236840.30 718762.547 4236558.715 (Festus USGS Quadrangle) 718762.547 4236558.715 729704.134 4236840.30 730066.171 4223042.637 719124.585 4222680.6 (Selma USGS Quadrangle) 729704.134 4236840.30 730428.209 4236840.3 741047.984 4223283.996 730066.171 4223042.637 (Valmeyer USGS Quadrangle) 729301.869 4250718.415 731474.096 4250798.868 730428.209 4236840.3 729704.134 4236840.30
1 Excludes lnd1an country located in each area, 1! any, unless otherwise specified. Designation Date Type 10-4-13 Nonattainment.

10--4-13 Nonattainment.



### • • •
• 28. Section81.327 isamended as follows: 1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding a newtable entitled "Montana-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Montana-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary}" to read as follows:

• a. By revisingthetableheadingfor "Montana-S02 " to read "Montana- § 81.327 Montana. 

### • • 

### • •

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013

47202 Federal RegisterI Vol. 78, No. 150 IMonday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations
MONTANA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area Designation Date Type Billings, MT 1 Yellowstone County (part)

........................................................................................................................ 10-4-13 Nonattainment. The area originates at the point defined as the southwest corner of Section 11, Township 1S,

Range 26E From that point the boundary proceeds north along the western section line of Section i 1 to the point of intersection with the midline of Interstate Highway 90. From that point the boundary follows the midline of Interstate Highway 90, across the Yellowstone River, to the point where the highway midline intersects the northern boundary of Section 35, Township 1N, Range 26E. From that point the boundary proceeds east along the northern section line of Sections 35 and 36 to the point where Old US 87/Hardin Road leaves the section line and turns southeast. The boundary follows the midline of Old US 87/Hardin Road southeast to the point where the road intersects the western boundary of the SE**~** of the SE**~** of Section 31, Township 1N, Range 27E. From that point the boundary proceeds south along the i sec- tion line to the southern boundary of Township 1N, then east to the northeast corner of Sec· lion 5, Township 1S, Range 27E. The boundary then proceeds south along the eastern section line of sections 5 and 8 to the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 1S, Range 27E, where it turns west and follows the south section line of Sections 8 and 7, Township 1S, Range 27E; and Sections '12 and i 1, Township 18, Range 26E, back to the point of origin

1 Excludes lnd1an country located in each area, if any, unless other\vise specified.
* * * * §81.328 [Amended] • 29. Seclion 81.328 is amendedby revising the table heading for ''Nebraska-S02 '' to read ''NebraskaS02" to read "Nevada-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". a 31. Section 81.330 is amended as follows: 1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary • a. Byrevisingthetableheadingfor and Secondary)". "NewHampshire-50 2" to read "New • 30. Section81.329 isamendedby Hampshire-1971 Sulfur Dioxide revising the table heading for "Nevada- NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding a newtable entitled "New Hampshire-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table ''New Hampshire1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" La read as follows: §81.330 New Hampshire. * *

NEW HAMPSHIRE-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAA08 (PRIMARY) Designated area Designation Date Type Central New Hampshire, NH 1 Hillsborough County (part)

....................................................................................................................... 10-4-'13 Nonattainment. Goffstown Town Merrimack County (part} Allenstown Town, Bow Town, Chichester Town, Dunbarton Town, Epsom Town, Hooksett Town,

Loudon Town, Pembroke Town, Pittsfield Town, City of Concord Rockingham County (part) Candia Town, Deerfield Town, Northwood Town
1 Excludes Indian country located 1n each area, if any, unless otherwise speCified.

* § 81.331 [Amended]

• 32. Section 81.331 isamendedby revising the table heading for "New Jersey-S02'' to read ''New Tersey-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.332 [Amended]

• 33. Section 81.332 is amendedby revising the table heading for "New Mexico-S0 2 '' toread ''New Mexico1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.333 [Amended]
• 34. Section 81.333 is amendedby revising the table heading for "New York-80 2" to read "New York-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.334 [Amended]
• 35. Section 81.334 is amendedby revising the table heading for "North Carolina-S02" to read "North Carolina-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". § 81.335 [Amended]
• 36. Section81.335 is amendedby revising the table heading for "North Dakota-S0 2" to read "NorthDakota1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". • 37. Section 81.336 is amended as follows: a a. By revisingthetableheading for "Ohio-SO," to read "Ohio-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding a newtable entitled "Ohio-2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Ohio-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: § 81.336 Ohio. * * * *

## EIBctronic Filing

- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

Federal RegisterI Vol. 78, No. 150 IMonday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations 47203
OHIG-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)

Designated area**CampbeH~Ciermont** Counties, KY-OH 1 Clermont County (part)

............................................................................................................................ . Lake County, OH 1 Lake County

............................................................................................................................................. Muskingum River, OH 1

............................................................................................................................ Morgan County (part) Center Township Washington County (part) Waterford Township Steubenville OH-WV1 Jefferson County (part)

............................................................................................................................ Cross Creek Township, Steubenville Township, Warren Township, Wells Township, Steubenville

City
1 Excludes Indian country located 1n each area, if any, unless othei"Nise specified. Designation Date Type

10-4-13 Nonaltainmenl. 10-4-13 Nonattainment. 10-4-13 Nonattainment.

1D-4-13 Nonattainment.

* * * §81.337 [Amended]

• 38. Section 81.337 is amended by revising the table heading for ''Ok.lahoma-S02'' to read "Oklahoma1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.338 [Amended] B 39. Section 81.338 is amended by revising the tnble heading for "OregonS02'' to read ''Oregon-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)". a 40. Section 81.339 is amended as follows: "Pennsylvania-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and B b. By adding a newtable entitled "Pennsylvania-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Pennsylvania-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows:

a a. Byrevisingthe table heading for "Pennsylvanin-S02" lo read § 81.339 Pennsylvania.

PENNSYLVANIA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) Designated area Allegheny, PA1 Allegheny County (part)

............................................................................................................................ The area consisting of: Borough of Braddock Borough of Dravosburg Borough of East McKeesport Borough of East Pittsburgh Borough of Elizabeth Borough of Glassport Borough of Jefferson Hills Borough of Liberty Borough of Lincoln Borough of North Braddock Borough of Pleasant Hills Borough of Port Vue Borough of Versailles Borough of Wall Borough of West Elizabeth Borough of West Mifflin City of Clairton City of Duquesne City of McKeesporl Elizabeth Township Forward Township North Versailles Township Beaver, PA 1 Beaver County (part}

................................................................................................................................ Area consisUng of Industry Borough, Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton**Town~**

ship, Potter Township and Vanport Township Indiana, PAl

..................................................................................................................................................... Indiana County Armstrong County {part) Area consisting of Plumcreek Township, South Bend Township, and Elderton Borough Warren, PA 1 * *

Designation Date Type

1 0-4-"13 Nonattainment.

10-4-13 Nonattainment.

10-4-13 Nonattainment.

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

47204 Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations
PENNSYLVANIA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)-Continued Designated 8.rea Designation Date Type Warren County (part)

............................................................................................................................... . i 0-4-13 Nonattainment Area consisting of Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, ancl the City of

Warren
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified.



### • • §81.340 [Amended] R 41.Section81.340 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Rhode Island-SO," to read "RhodeJsland1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.341 [Amended] • 42. Seclion 81.341 is amendedby revising the table heading for "South Carolina-S02" to read "South Carolina-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". § 81.342 [Amended] • 43. Section 81.342 is amendedby revising the table heading for "South Dakota-S02" to read "South Dakota1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". • 44. Section 81.343 is amended as follows: • a. Byrevising the tableheadingfor ''Tennessee-S02'' to read "Tennessee-1971 Sulfm Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)": and • b. By adding anew table entitled "Tennessee-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table ''Tennessee-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.343 Tennessee. 

### • •

TENNESSEE-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area Designation Date Type Sullivan County, TN, Sullivan County (part)

............................................................................................................................... 10-4-13 Nonallainment. That portion of Sullivan County encompassing a circle having its center at the B-253 power

house coordinates 36.5186 N; 82.5350 W and having a 3-kilomeler radius
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. * • §81.344 [Amended]

• 45. Section 81.344is amendedby revising the table heading for "Texas802'' to read ''Texas-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.345 [Amended]

• 46. Section 81.345 is amendedby revising the table heading for "UtahSO,'' to read "Utah-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". § 81.346 [Amended] • 47. Section 81.346 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Verrnont-S02:" to read "Vermont1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'', § 81.347 [Amended] • 48. Section 81.347 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Virginia-SO:!' to read "ViTginia1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". § 81.348 [Amended] • 49. Section 81.348 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Washington-S02" to read "VVashington-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)".
• 50. Section 61.349 is amended as follows: • a. By revising the tableheadingfor ''VVest Virginia-S02'' to read ''\Vest Virginia-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. By adding a new table entitled "West Virginia-2010 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table ''WestVirginia-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primarv and Secondary)" to read as**follows:~** §81.349 WestVirginia. 

### • 

### • • • WEST VIRGINIA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)
Designated area Steubenville, OH-WV, Brooke County (part)

................................................................................................................................ Area bounded by the Cross Creek Tax District Marshall, WV 1 Marshall County {part)

.............................................................................................................................. Area consisting of Clay Tax: district, Franklin Tax District, and Washington Tax District
1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. Designation Date Type

10-4-13 Nonattainment.

10-4-13 Nonattainment.

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

Federal RegisterI Vol. 78, No. 150/Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations 47205


### • 

### • • 

### •
• 51. Seclion 81.350 is amended as follows: a a. By revising thetable headingfor "Wisconsin-802" to read "Wisconsin-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and • b. Byadding a m:w tableentitled "Wisconsin-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly designated table "Wisconsin-1971 Sulfur.Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: §81.350 Wisconsin. 

### • • 

### • '
WISCONSIN-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) Designation Designated area Date Type Rhinelander, WJ1 Oneida County (part)

................................................................................................................................ 10-4-13 Nonattainment. City of Rhinelander, Crescent Town, Newbold Town, Pine Lake Town, and Pelican Town

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, 1f any, unless otherwise spec1hed.



### • • 

### • § 81.351 [Amended}
a 52. Section 81.351 is amendedby revising the table heading for "''Vyoming-S02" to read "Wyoming1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)", § 81.352 [Amended!
a 53. Section 81.352 is amendedby revising the table heading for "American Samoa-S02" to read ''American Samoa-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.353 [Amendedj
a 54. Section 81.353 is amendedby revising the table heading for "GuamS02" to read "Guam-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". § 81.354 [Amended]
a 55. Section 81.354 isamendedby revising the table heading for "Northern Mariana Islands-S02'' to read ''Northern Mariana Islands-1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". §81.355 [Amended! a 56. Section 81.355 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Pue:rto Rico-S02 " to read "Puerto Rico-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)". §81.356 [Amended]

• 57. Section 81.356 is amendedby revising the table heading for "Virgin Islands-S02 " toread "Virgin Islands1971 SulfurDioxide NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)". !FR Doc. 2013-18835 Filed 8-2-13; 8!45 ami Blt.UNG CODE 655Q-SO-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003; FRL 9842-71 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Direct Deletion of the Imperial Refining Company Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region Gis publishing a direct final Notice ofDeletion ofthe Imperial Refining Co. Superfund Site located in Ardmore, Carter County, Oklahoma, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of1980, as amended, is an appendix ofthe National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published byEPA with the concurrence ofthe State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. DATES: This direct final deletion is effective September 19, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 4, 2013. Ifadverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in theFederal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQSFUND-2000-0003, by one ofthe following methods:

• httpJ/wi">'lV.regulations.gov: Follow internet on-line instructions for submittincr comments.

• Emaif: Brian VV. Mueller, mueller.brian@epa.gov.

• Fax: 214-665-6660. • Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-7167.

• Hand delivezy: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202- 2733; Contact: Brian W. Mueller (214) 665-7167. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours ofoperation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-AFUND-2000- 0003. EPA's policy is thal all comments received willbe included in the public docket without change andmay be made available online at http:! I wvnv.regulalions.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or otherinformation whose disclosure is restrictedby statute. Do not submit information thatyou consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// tvvvw.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gav·web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact informationunless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an email comment directly to EPA withoutgoing through hltp:/1 www.regulations.gov, your email address willbe automatically captured ond included as part ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office : 09/0512013

STATE OF ILLlNOIS COUNTY OF SANGAMON ) ) ) ) ) 

## ss

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, 

### the undersigned, an attorney. state that I have served electronicaliythe attached
ILI INOJS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO:'>l AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO THE ILUNOJS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD'S QUESTIONS upon the following person: Jo]m The:rriault. Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center l00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 

### 6060I and electronically and by mailing it by 

### tirst-class mail from Springfield, lllinois, with sufficient postage at1ixed to the following persons: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LlST

DATED: September 5, 2.013 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 2] 7.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TOO) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTlON AGENCY, 

# cii**~··'** 

# . •bv·. I 

### &v-··

### if

- Gina Roccaforte' Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: OB/05/2013
SERVICE LIST Carol Webb, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, IL 62794-9274 Claire A. 

### Manning William D. Ingerso11 Brown, Hay & 

### Stephens, LLP 205 S. Fifth Street, Snite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459 Renee Cipriano Amy Antoniolli SchiffHardin LLP 233 Sonth Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Faith Bugel Andrew Annstrong Envirorunental Law and Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601