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}JVIRONMENT AL ) 

PROTECTION AGENCY, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

PCB 14-!0 

(Varia nee - 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 of the Pollution Control 

Board the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO THE 

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD'S QUESTIONS. a copy of which 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 of Legal Counsel 

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED 

ON RECYCLED PAPER ATTACHMENT----
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

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 CONTROL BOARD'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 of that Order. The Board's questions for the Illinois EPA 

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

OUESTIONS FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

New 2010 1-hour SO;NAAOS 

3. In the Board's September 20, 2012 order in Ameren Energy Resource.~ v. TEPA, 

PCB 12-126, the Board stated that 

the Agency noted, "{t]he MPS was /tot designed to address the new 2010 

1-hour S02 [NAAQS], which was not proposed at the time the MPS was 

being negotiated." Agency Resp. at 22. The Board notes that the new 1-

hour S02 NAAQS addresses shmt term exposure and sets into motion a 

requirement for the states to assess attainment. 77 Fed. Reg. 46295 

(Aug. 3, 2012). Based on the record at this time, the Board does 1tot 

have enough information to determine if AER 's variance will inte1jere 

with the State's ability to attain or maintain the new 1-fzour S02 NAA QS 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office : 09/0512013 

or the proposed PM NAA QS because the Jl,fPS and current Illinois SIP 

do not yet address these standards. However, the Board finds that 

granting AER 's petition for variance with the conditions in the order 

below would be within the State's current obligation under the lllbwis 

SIP to attain and maintain compliance with the NAA QS. Ameren 

Energy Resources v.IEPA, PCB 12-126, slip op. at 56 (Sept. 20, 2012). 

Since the petition was filed on July 22, 2013, USEPA Administrator, Gina 

McCarthy, signed notice of the Final Rule for the initial one-hour S02 air 

quality designations 011 July 25, 2013, and is submitting it.for publication in the 

Federal Registe1~ See 

http://wJVw. epa. govlso2 desi r:nationslregs. html 

The B.D. Edwards Station is located in one of the designated nonattainment 

areas for the new 1-hourS02NAAQS. USEPA stated that SIPs "would need to 

provide for attainment and maintenance of the new 1-hour S02 NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, which we expect to be 110 later than five years after 

initial designation ... in all areas of the State .... " 75 Fed. Reg. 35553 (June 

22, 2010). Five years later would be July 25, 2018, approximately 17months 

before the end of the requested variance. 

(a) Please address whether the Agency believes granting the 

variance will jeopardize the State's current obligations under the 

Illinois SIP or to attain and maintain the NAA QS. 

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 EPA believes the granting of this variance will not jeopardize the 

State's obligations to attain and maintain the !-hour S02 NAAQS. This variance deals 

only with the requirements in question at the current time. Any new 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 

and maintain the NAAQS will be satisfied by the net 

environmental benefit claimed by petitioners over the term of the 

variance. 

This variance neither increases nor decreases the amount of emissions 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 on the net environmental 

benefit for the meeting of its obligations. hJStead, the Illinois EPA will propose new 

rules to the Board and such rules will require sufficient reductions to allow the attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

2 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 09/05/2013 

(c) Please comment preliminarily Oil how, if the Agellcy proposes 

alld the Board adopts flew rules to address SIP obligatiolls for 

the new 1-hour S02 NAAQS, that actioll would affect (1) the 

requested variallce, (2) the facilities covered by the requested 

variallce, and (3) the B.D. Edwards statioll in pa11icular. 

There would be no impact to any requirements of the variance from any new rule. Any 

affected emission source covered by any new rule proposed by the Illinois EPA and 

adopted by the Board would need to comply with both the new rule and the variance. 

The E. D. Edwards station would likewise need to comply with both the new rule and the 

variance. 

4. Please submit the following documents for inclusion in the record for this variance 

request: 

(a) The signed notice submitted for publication in the Federal Registe~: See 

http://www. epa. govlso 2designationslpdfs/2 013 0725(!~pd( 

(b) The USEPA report entitled "Responses to Significant Comments on the 

State and Tribal Designation Recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)", USEPA, 

July 2013. See 

http://wwlv.epa.gov/so2designations!pd[s/20130725rtc.pd( 

(c) "Technical Support Document (TSD), Illinois Area Designations for the 

2010 S02 Primary National Ambient Air 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) Primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47191 (August 5, 2013), as Exhibit 4. The Illinois EPA also 

points out that the effective date of the Final Rule is October 4, 2013. 

SIP Revision 

5. In PCB 12-126, the Agency stated that after preliminary discussions with 

USEPA Region 5 regarding pending variance request, 110 adverse issues 

were identified. Ameren Ene1·gv Resources, PCB 12-126, slip op. at 55 

(Sept. 20, 2012). Has the Agency discussed the instant variance request 

with USEPA? If so, please elaborate on US EPA's response. 

The Illinois EPA has not specifically discussed the instant variance request with 

USEP A. However, previous discussions with USEPA have indicated that it has 

no adverse issues with the prior variance (PCB 12-126). Additionally, on May 

16, 2013, the Illinois EPA submitted the prior variance to USEP A as a SIP 

revision and USEP A has still not indicated 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 US EPA would find any adverse 

ISSUeS. 

OUESTION FOR PETITIONERS AND THE AGENCY 

Effect on PCB 12-126 Variance 

6. Please address the ongoing legal effect, if any, of the variance granted in Ameren 

Energv Resources, PCB IJ-116 (Sept. JO, JOJJ), if the requested variance in the 

instant case is grallted and the transaction by which IP H would acquire AER 's 

active coal:fi.red power plants goes forward. 

The variance granted to AER in PCB 12-126 is legally in effect as specified by the Board 

in that case. If the Board grants the variance in the instant case, and if the transaction 

involving IPH and the relevant parties is successfully concluded such that ownership of 

rhe affected coal-fired power plants is transferred, then it appears that the new variance 

would effectively supersede the PCB 12-126 variance. Therefore, as a practical matter, 

the regulatory relief and conditions granted by the Board for the seven coal-fired power 

plants that were the subject of PCB 12-126 will remain in effect and unchanged, and 

legally, IPH and Medina Valley will hold ownership of the affected plants. 

DATED: September 5, 2013 

1021 North Grand A venue 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 of Legal 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 of Air 

Pollution Control in the Bureau of Air of the 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 are true 

and cotTect to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

SUBSCRJBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME 

This~ay ofSpkm,,hu , 2013 

ger 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Bureau of Air 

Illinois Envirom11ental Protection Agency 

OFFICIAL SEAL 

VICKY B!OATTY 

NOTARI' PUBLIC, STATE OF ltlJNOIS 

MY COMMISSION 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 of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the 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 of this 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 CFR Part 81 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233; FRL--####-#] 

RIN 2060-ARlS 

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Primary National 

Ambient Air 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 issuing this rule to identify a1·eas that, based 

on recorded air quality monitoring data showing violations of the NAAQS, do not 

meet the 2010 S02 NAAQS and areas that contribute to S02 air pollution in a nearby 

area that does not meet the S02 NAAQS. At this tin1e, the EPA is designating as 

nonattainment most areas in locations where existing monitoring data from 2009-

2011 indicate violations of the 1-hour S02 standard. The EPA 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 Clean Air Act (CAA) directs areas designated nonattainment by 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 of this mle is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS 

FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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 

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 other mate1ial, 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 or in hard copy at the 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 EPA has 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 of 54 

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. 
EIBctrunic Filing - RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 09/0512013 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions conceming 

this action, please contact Rhonda Wlight, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 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-Kenneth 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 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 

EPA New England, I Congress Street, Suite Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. 

1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-

1661. 

Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and 

Page 3 of 54 

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. 
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. 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Delaware, Disttict of Columbia, Maty1and, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 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. 

John Mooney, 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, Air Planning Section, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, 

EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Oklahoma and Texas. 

TX 75202, (214) 665-7242. 

Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs 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, San Francisco, CA Hawaii, Nevada and N orthem Mariana 

94105, (415) 972-3959. Islands. 

Debra Suzuki, Manager, State and Tribal Air Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. 

Programs, EPA Region X, Office of Air, 

Waste, and Taxies, Mail Code OAQ-107, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 

(206) 553-0985. 

Table of Contents 

The following is an outline of the Preamble. 

I. Preamble Glossary ofTe!TI1S and Acronyms 

Page 4 of 54 

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 

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

II. What is the purpose of this document? 

III. What is Sulfur Dioxide? 

IV. What is the 20 I 0 SOz NAAQS and what are the health concerns that it 

addresses? 

V. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and what action 

has the EPA taken to 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 Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatmy Review 

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 Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distdbution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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 of Terms and Acronyms 

The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble. 

APA 

CAA 

CFR 

D.C. 

EO 

EPA 

FR 

NAAQS 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Clean Air Act 

Code of Federal Regulations 

District of Columbia 

Executive Order 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Register 

N a tiona! Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Page 5 of 54 

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: 08/05/2013 

NTTAA 

OMB 

SOz 

SOx 

RFA 

SIP 

UMRA 

TAR 

TSD 

U.S. 

vcs 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Sulfur Oxides 

Regulatoty Flexibility Act 

State Implementation Plan 

Unfunded Mandate Refmm Act of 1995 

Tribal Authority Rule 

Technical Support Document 

United States 

Voluntmy Consensus Standards 

II. What is the purpose of this document? 

The purpose of this action is to announce and promulgate designations and 

boundaries for certain areas of the country not meeting the 201 0 S02 NAAQS based 

on available infonnation, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. The initial 

list of areas being designated nonattainment in each state and the boundaries of each 

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. The basis for designating each area as 

"nonattainment" is monitored air quality data from calendar years 2009-2011 

indicating a violation of the NAAQS in the area. For these areas being designated 

nonattainment, the CAA directs states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

that meet the requirements of sections 172( c) and 191-192 of the CAA and provide 

for attaimnent of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 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 of 54 

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 

within 18 months of the effective date of these designations, i.e., by [INSERT DATE 

18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS FINAL RULE]. 

III. What is Sulfur Dioxide? 

S02 is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as "oxides of sulfur" 

(SOx). The largest sources of S02 emissions are fi"om fossil fuel combustion at power 

plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of S02 

emissions include industrial processes, such as extracting metal fi"om ore, and the 

burning of high sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships and non-road 

equipment. S02 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system. 

IV. What is the 2010 SO, NAAQS and what are the health concerns that it 

addresses? 

The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary S02 NAAQS on 

June 2, 20 I 0. 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 of the air quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and the primary NAAQS for 

oxides of sulfur as measured by S02, the EPA revised the primary S02 NAAQS to 

provide requisite protection of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

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 of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maxinmm concentrations is less 

than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 

50. 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). The EPA also established provisions to revoke both the 

Page 7 of 54 

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 : DB/05/2013 

existing 24-hour and annual primary S02 standards, subject to 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 of adverse 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 of SO,. S02 is the component of greatest concern and is used as the 

indicator for the larger group of gaseous SOx. Other gaseous SOx (e.g., S03) are 

found in the atmosphere at concentrations much lower than S02 . 

Emissions that lead to high concentrations of S02 generally also lead to the 

formation of other SOx. Control measures that reduce S02 can generally be expected 

to reduce people's exposures to all gaseous SOx. This may also have the impmtant 

co-benefit of reducing the formation of fine sulfate particles, which pose significant 

public health threats. SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form 

small pa!ticles. These particles penetrate· deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and 

can cause or worsen respiratmy disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can 

aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and 

Page 8 of 54 

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: 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 the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to 

designate areas as "nonattainment," "attainment," or "unclassifiable," pursuant to 

section l 07(d)(l) of the CAA. 

The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS is contained in section l07(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires the EPA to 

complete the initial designations process within 2 years of promulgating a new or 

revised standard. If the 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 infmmation to complete the designations for the 1-hour so2 standard 

within 2 years and extended the 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 of the 1-

hour S02 standard. In some cases, we have had to use data from a different threeyear period 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 Prinmy National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 

Monitoring Network, and Data Reporting Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide at 

http:/1\~ww. epa.govl airquality/sulfurdioxidelpdfs/2 01 0060 2fs.pdf 

Page 9 of 54 

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

designations for all other areas for which the agency is not yet prepared to issue 

designations and that are consequently not addressed in this fmalmle. With input 

fi·om a diverse group of stakeholders, the EPA has developed a comprehensive 

implementation strategy for the future S02 designations actions that focuses resources 

on identifying and addressing unhealthy levels of S02 in areas where people are most 

likely to be exposed to violations of the standard. For infmmational 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 air quality 

management agencies to ensure health-protective, commonsense implementation of 

the !-hour S02 NAAQS. 

By not later than l year after the promulgation of a 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 Administrator to modify 

designations that did not meet the statutory requirements or were otherwise 

inconsistent with the facts or analysis deemed appropriate by the EPA. If the EPA is 

considering modifications to a state's initial recommendation, the EPA is required to 

notify the state of any such intended modifications to its recommendation not less 

than 120 days prior to the EPA's promulgation of the fmal designation. During this 

period of no less than 120 days, if the state does not agree with the EPA's 

Page 10 of 54 

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: 08/0512013 

modification, it has 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 1 07(d)(l)(B)(ii). Even if a state fails to provide any reconnnendation 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)(l)(B)(ii). 

Section 107(d)(l)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattaimnent area as any area 

that does not meet an ambient air quality standard or that is contributing to ambient 

air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the standard. If an area meets either 

prong of this 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 of a nonattaimnent area 

(e.g., "conttibutes to" and "nearby") for a new or revised NAAQS, given 

considerations such as the nature of a specific pollutant, the types of sources that may 

contt·ibute to violations, the form of the standards for the pollutant, and other relevant 

information. In particular, the EPA believes that the statute does not require the 

agency to establish bright line tests or tln·esholds for what constitutes "contribution" 

or "nearby" for purposes of designations 2 

Similarly, the EPA believes that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the 

appropriate application of the term "area" to include geographic areas based upon 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 of 54 

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 

appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, section I 07(d)(l)(B)(ii) explicitly 

provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an 

area "or pmtions thereof," and under section I 07( d)( I )(B)(iv) a designation remains 

in effect for an area "or pmtion thereof' until the EPA redesignates it. 

Designation activities for federally-recognized tribal governments are covered 

under the authority of section 30l(d) of the CAA. This provision of the CAA 

authmizes the EPA to treat eligible tribes in a similar manner as states. Pursuant to 

section 30l(d)(2), the EPA promulgated regulations, known as the Ttibal Authority 

Rule (TAR), on Febrnary 12, 1999. 63 FR 7254, codified at 40 CFR part 49. That rnle 

specifies those provisions of the CAA for which it is appropriate to treat tribes in a 

similar manner as states. Under the TAR, tribes may choose to develop and 

implement their own CAA programs, but are not required to do so. The TAR also 

establishes procedures and criteria by which tribes may request from the EPA a 

determination of eligibility for such treatment. The designations process contained in 

section I 07( d) of the CAA is included among those provisions determined to be 

approptiate by the EPA for treatment of tribes in the same manner as states. Under the 

TAR, tribes generally ru:e not subject to the same submission schedules imposed by 

the CAA on states. As authotized by the 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 of tribes 

as identical to states is "inappropriate or administratively infeasible," to provide for 

direct administration by regulation to achieve the appropriate purpose. 

Page 12 of 54 

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: 08/0512013 

To date, six tribes 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 submit their own 

recommendations and supporting documentation and could also comment on state 

recommendations and the EPA modifications. 

Designation reconnnendations and supp01ting documentation were submitted 

by most states and several tribes to the EPA by June 3, 2011. After receiving these 

reconnnendations, and after reviewing and evaluating each recommendation, the EPA 

provided a response to the states and tribes on Febmaty 7, 2013.3 In these letter 

responses, we indicated whether the EPA intended to make modifications to the 

initial state or ttibal reconnnendations and explained the EPA's reasons for making 

any such modifications. For the majority of the areas, the EPA agreed with the state's 

recommended boundary. The EPA requested that states and tJihes respond to any 

proposed EPA modifications by AprilS, 2013. The EPA received comments from 

some states suggesting changes to the EPA's proposed modifications and providing 

additional information. The EPA evaluated these conunents, and all of the timely 

supporting technical information provided. As a result, and based on that input and 

analysis, some of the final designations reflect fmther modifications to the initial state 

3 As indicated in the Feb mary 2013 letters, the EPA is not yet prepared to designate 

any areas in Indian country. The EPA intends to address the designations for these 

areas in separate future actions. 

Page 13 of 54 

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 

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. 

Although not required by section I 07(d) of the CAA, the EPA also provided 

an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the EPA's Februmy 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 public to comment on the EPA's intended 

designations. In the notice, the EPA stated that public comments must be received on 

or before Mm·ch 18, 2013. The EPA received several requests from stakeholders for 

additional time to prepare their comments. Some of the requesters noted that the 

original30-day comment period was insufficient time to review the EPA's responses 

to states' and tribes' recommended designations and to compile meaningful responses 

due to the complexity of the 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 the public and the EPA's responses to significant comments 

are in the docket for this action. 

VI. What guidance did the EPA issue and how did the EPA apply the 

statutory requirements and applicable guidance to determine area designations 

and boundaries? 

Page 14 of 54 

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

In the notice of proposed mlemaking 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 conunent on that guidance and, in the notice of final rulemaking (75 

FR 35520; June 22, 2010), provided further guidance conceming implementation of 

the standard and how to identifY nonattainment areas and boundades for the S02 

NAAQS. Subsequently, on March 24, 2011, the EPA provided additional 

designations guidance to assist states with making their recommendations for area 

designations and boundaries 4 In that guidance, the EPA recommended that 

monitoring data from the most recent three consecutive years be used to identify a 

violation of the S02NAAQS. This is appropriate because the fmm of the S02 

NAAQS is calculated as a 3-year average of the 991h percentile of the yearly 

distdbution of 1-hour daily maximum S02 concentrations (specifically the most 

recent 3 consecutive years). 5 The EPA is basing these initial final designations on 

monitored S02 concentrations 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 the most recent data 

available to states and tribes when they made their recommendations to the EPA in 

June 2011. Accordingly, although the determination of whether an area violates the 

4 See, "Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primmy Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards," memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions I-X, from Stephen D. Page, dated March 24, 2011. 

5 This notice refers to monitodng data for "calendar years 2009-2011" which includes 

data from January 2009 through December 2011. 

Page 15 of 54 

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: 09/0512013 

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. 

In the guidance, the EPA stated that the pelimeter of a 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 that could justify establishing either a larger or smaller area. The 

EPA indicated that the following factors should be considered in an analysis of 

whether to exclude portions of a county and whether to include additional nearby 

areas outside the county as pa11 of the designated nonattairunent area: 1) air quality 

data; 2) emissions-related data; 3) meteorology; 4) geography/topography; and 5) 

jurisdictional boundalies, as well as other available data. States and tribes may 

identify and evaluate other relevant factors or circumstances 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 the EPA 

dete1mined that changes were necessary to a state's initial recommendation, we 

conveyed those preliminary 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 of 54 

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. 
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 calendar years 2009-

2011, except where it was necessary or appropriate to use a different three-year 

period. The form of the standard requires a calculation of monitoring values from3 

consecutive years. The !-hour p1immy standard is violated at an mnbient air quality 

monit01ing site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily 

maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. For compmison to the level of the 

standard, ambient air quality shall be measured by a reference method based on 

appendix A or A-1, or by 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 within the regulatory text are designated as indicated. For the first round of S02 

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 Country 

being designated nonattairunent 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 of designations. 

IX. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and 

exchanges between the EPA, states and tribes related to this rule? 

Page 17 of 54 

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: 08/0512013 

Infonnation providing the basis for this action are provided in several 

technical support documents (TSDs), a response to comments document (RTC) and 

other information in the docket. The TSDs, RTC, applicable EPA's guidance 

memoranda, copies of conespondence regarding this process between the EPA and 

the states, tribes and other pa1iies, are available for review at the EPA Docket Center 

listed above in the ADDRESSES section of this document and on the agency's S02 

Designations website at http://www.epa.gov/so2designations. Area-specific questions 

can be addressed to the EPA Regional Offices. 

X. Statntory and Execntive Order Reviews 

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA 

to designate areas as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The CAA then specifies 

requirements for areas based on whether such areas are attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. In this fmal rule, the EPA assigns designations to selected areas as required. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

This action responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality 

designations after promulgation of a 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 21,201 1). 

B. Pape1work Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S. C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined 

Page 18 of 54 

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. 
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 of a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is 

prescribed in the CAA section 107 of title I. This action does not establish any new 

infonnation collection apmi from that already required by law. 

C. Regulat01y Flexibility Act 

This finalmle is not subject to the Regulat01y Flexibility Act (RF A), which 

generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any mle 

that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

The RF A applies only to mles subject to notice-and-comment mlemaking 

requirements nnder the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. 

This action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements nnder the AP A or any 

other statute because the action is not subject to the APA. CAA section I 07(d)(2)(B) 

does not require the EPA to issue a notice of proposed 1ulemaking before issuing this 

fmal action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ofl995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, 

local or tribal govemments or the private 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 of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 ofUMRA 

because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 

Page 19 of 54 

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: OB/0512013 

affect small governments. It does not create any additional requirements beyond those 

of the CAA and SOz NAAQS (40 CFR 50.17); therefore, no UMRA analysis is 

needed. This action establishes nonattainment designations for cetiain areas of the 

country for the 20 I 0 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 of this action will 

not cost in the aggregate S I 00 million or more annually. Thus, this federal action will 

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

aggregate in any 1 year. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This fmal action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 

governn1ent and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 

the various levels of govemment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA 

establishes the process whereby states take primaty responsibility in developing plans 

to meet the S02 NAAQS in areas designated nonattain.ment by this action. This action 

will not modify the relationship ofthe states and the EPA for purposes of developing 

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 

Page 20 of 54 

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: 09/05/2013 

This action does not have ttibal implications, as specified in Executive Order 

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action concems the designation of 

certain areas as nonattainment for the 2010 S02 NAAQS, but no areas of Indian 

Counl!y are being designated by this action. Because this action does not have tribal 

implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply. 

Although Executive Order 1317 5 does not apply to this mle, the EPA 

communicated with tribal leaders and environmental staff regarding 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 consultation with the EPA. The EPA provided 

further infom1ation to tribes through presentations at the National Tribal Forun1 and 

through pat1icipation in National Tribal Air Association conference calls. The EPA 

also sent individualized letters to all federally recognized tlibes that submitted 

recommendations to the EPA about the 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 802 NAAQ8, 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 Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

TI1e action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

Page 21 of 54 

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 of this version, but it is not the 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 action may 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 sensitive population, 

the EPA evaluated the potential health effects of exposure to S02 pollution 

among asthmatic children as prut of the EPA's prior action establishing the 

2010 S02 NAAQS. These effects and the size of the population affected are 

summarized in the EPA's final S02 NAAQS rules. See 

http :l/www. epa.gov!ttnlnaaqs/standardslso2/ji-120 I 00622.pdf 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 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 under Executive Order 12866. 

I National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (N1TAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA ofl995, Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntaty 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. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through 

Page 22 of 54 

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: 09/0512013 

OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable 

VCS. 

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not 

consider the use of any VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice 

pmi of their mission by identifYing and addressing, as approp1~ate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies 

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S. 

The CAA requires that the EPA designate as nonattainment "any m·ea that 

does not meet (or that 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 of the 2010 S02 NAAQS or a contribution to a nearby violation, 

this action protects all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise 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 effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 

Page 23 of 54 

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 

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 Review Act 

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 a mle 

repmt, which includes a copy of the mle, to each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the U.S. The EPA will submit a repott containing this action 

and other required infmmation to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives 

and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to publication of the mle in the Federal 

Register. A major mle cannot take effect until60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a "major mle" as defmed by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This mle will be effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

L. Judicial Review 

Section 307 (b) (I) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal 

have venue for petitions of review of fmal actions by the EPA. This section provides, 

in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Comt of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit: (i) when the agency action consists of"nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator," or (ii) when 

such action is locally or regionally applicable, if "such action is based on a 

Page 24 of 54 

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: 08/05/2013 

detem1ination of nationwide scope or effect and if in 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 of section 307(b )(1 ). This final action establishes 

designations for areas across the U.S. for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. At the core of this 

fmal action is the EPA's interpretation of the definition ofnonattainment under 

section !07(d)(l) of the CAA, and its application of that interpretation to areas across 

the country. For the same reasons, the Administrator also is detennining that the final 

designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 3 07(b )(I). 

This is particularly appropriate because, in the repmt on the 1977 Amendments that 

revised section 307(b)(l) of the 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 effect beyond 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 of this final action extends to numerous judicial circuits since the 

designations apply to areas across the country. In these circumstances, section 

307(b)(l) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the action to be 

of"nationwide scope or effect" and for venue to be in the D.C. Circuit. 

Thus, any petitions for review of final designations must be filed in the Court 

of Appeals for the Distt~ct of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final 

action is published in the Federal Register. 

Page 25 of 54 

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

Page 25 of 51- Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SOz) 

Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 40 CFR PART 81 

Enviromnental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. 

Dated: 

Gina McCarthy, 

EPA Administrator. 

Page 26 of 54 

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 

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 

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 .30 I is amended by revising the table heading for "Alabama--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Alabama--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

3. Section 81.302 is amended by revising the table heading for "Alaska--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Alaska--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (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--201 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)" following the newly designated table "Arizona--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

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 I N onattainment 

Page 27 of 54 

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 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Gila County (part) 

The portions of Gila County that are 

bounded by: T4S, Rl4E; T4S, RISE; 

T4S, R!6E; TSS, RISE; TSS, Rl6E. 

Pinal County (part) 

The portions of Pinal County that are 

bounded by: T4S, R14E; T4S, RISE; 

T4S, R16E; TSS, R14E; TSS,R15E; 

TSS,R16E; T6S,R14E; T6S, RISE; 

T6S,R16E. 

Miami,AZ1 [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Gila County (part) 

The portions of Gila County that are 

bounded by: T2N, RI4E; T2N, RISE; 

TIN, R13E; TIN, RI4E; TIN, RISE; 

TIS, RI4E; Tl S, Rl4 1/2E; TIS, 

RISE. I· Excludes Indian country located m each area, If any, unless otherw1se spec1fied. 

5. Section 81.304 is amended by revising the table heading for "Arkansas--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Arkansas--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

Page 28 of 54 

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: 09/0512013 

6. Section 81.305 is amended by revising the table heading for "Califomia--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Califomia--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondmy)". 

7. Section 81.306 is amended by revising 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 amended by revising the table heading for "Delaware--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Delaware--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAli.QS (Ptimary and 

Secondary)". 

10. Section 81.309 is amended by revising the table heading for "District of Columbia 

-Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Disuict of Columbia--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 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 Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Florida--20 10 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primaty)" following the newly designated table "Florida--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

· NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.310 Florida. 

Page 29 of 54 

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: DB/0512013 

***** 

Florida--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary) 

Designation 

Designated Area Date Type 

Hillsborough County, FL' [INSERT Nonattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Hillsborough County (part) 

That pmtion 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: 

(!)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 N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

Page 30 of 54 

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: DB/0512013 

E.EGISTE 

R] 

Nassau County, (part) 

That portion of Nassau County 

encompassing the circular boundary 

with the center being UTM Basting 

455530 meters, UTM Northing 

3391737 meters, UTMzone 17, 

using the NAD83 datum (the 

location of the violating ambient 

monitor) and the radius being 2.4 

kilometers. 

l Excludes Indian country located m each area, 1f any, unless otheiwJse specified. 

12. Section 81.311 is amended by revising the table heading for "Georgia--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Georgia--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

13. Section 81.312 is amended by revising the table heading for "Hawaii--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Hawaii--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 

14. Section 81.313 is amended by revising the table heading for "Idaho--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Idaho--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (P1immy and Secondary)". 

15. Section 81.314 is 8lllended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Illinois--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Illinois--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Illinois--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(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) 

Page 31 of 54 

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, IL1 [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Cook County (part) 

Will County (part) 

DuPage Township and Lockp01t 

Township 

Pekin, IL' [INSERT N onattainment 

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, 1f any, 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 Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

Page 32 of 54 

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: OB/0512013 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Indiana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)" following the newly designated table "Indiana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.315 Indiana. 

* * * * * 

Indiana--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary) 

Desimation 

Designated .Mea Date Type 

Indianapolis, IN 1 [INSERT N onattainment 

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 N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

Page 33 of 54 

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: 08/05/2013 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

RT 

Daviess County (paii) 

Veale Township 

Pike Counjy (prut) 

Washinoton Township 

Tene Haute, 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, If any, 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 Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Iowa--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primaiy)" following the newly designated table "Iowa--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.316 Iowa. 

* * * * * 

Iowa--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAA 

ation 

Page 34 of 54 

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, 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, 1f any, unless otherwise specrfied. 

18. Section 81.317 is amended by revising the table heading for "Kansas--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Kansas--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

19. Section 81.318 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Kentucky--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Kentucky--1971 Sulfur Dioxide Ni\AQS (Primaty and Secondary)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Kentucky--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)" following the newly designated table "Kentucky--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Prima1y and Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.318 Kentucky. 

Page 35 of 54 

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: 09/0512013 

* * * * * 

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) 

That portion of Campbell County 

which lies south and west of the 

Ohio River described as follows: 

Beginning at geographic coordinates 

38.9735 North Latitude, 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 I275, I-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' [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE 60 

DAYS 

Page 36 of 54 

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 

Jefferson County (part) 

That p011ion 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: 

(I) Ethan Allen Way extended to 

the Ohio River at UTM Basting (m) 

595738, UTMNorthing 4214086 

and Dixie Highway (US60 and 

US31 W) at UTM Basting (m) 

59751, UTM Nm1hing 4212946; 

(2): Along Dixie Highway from 

UTM Basting (m) 597515, UTM 

Northing 4212946 to UTM Basting 

(m) 595859, UTMNorthing 

4210678; 

(3): Near the adjacent property lines 

of Louisville Gas and Electric -Mill 

Creek Electric Generating Station 

and Kosmos Cement where they 

join Dixie 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 of 54 

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. By revising the table heading for "Louisiana--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Louisiana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Louisiana--201 0 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--201 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAOS (Primm-v) 

Designation 

Designated Area Date Type 

St. Bemard Pmish, LA 1 [INSERT Nonattainment 

DATE 60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

Rl 

St. Bemard Parish I. Excludes Ind1an country located m each area, 1f any, 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 of 54 

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 : 08/05/2013 

23. Section 8!.322 is amended by revising the table heading for "Massachusetts--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Massachusetts--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

24. Section 8!.323 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Michigan--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Michigan--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Michigan--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Prima1y)" following the newly designated table "Michigan--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Seconda1y)" to read as follows: 

§81.323 Michigan. 

***** 

Michicran--?010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary) - Desi.gnation 

Designated Area Date Type 

Detroit, MI 1 [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Wayne County (pmi) 

The area bounded on the east by the 

Michigan-Ontario border, on the 

south by the Wayne County-Monroe 

County border, on the west by 

Interstate 75 north to Southfield 

Road, Southfield Road to Interstate 

94, and Interstate 94 north to 

Page 39 of 54 

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: 08/05/2013 

Michigan Avenue, and on the no11h 

by Michigan Avenue to Woodward 

A venue and a line on Woodward 

A venue extended to the MichiganOntario border. 

'Excludes Indtan country located m each area, 1f any, unless otherwtse specified. 

25. Section 81.324 is amended by revising the table heading for "Minnesota--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Minnesota--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty and 

Secondary)". 

26. Section 81.325 is amended by revising the table heading for "Mississippi--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Mississippi--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

27. Section 81.326 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Missouri--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Missouri--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondruy)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Missouri--201 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primaty)" following the newly designated table "Missouri--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primaty and Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.326 lvl.issouri. 

***** 

Missouri--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty) 

Desi a-nation 

Designated Area Date Type 

Jackson County, MO' [INSERT Nonattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

Page 40 of 54 

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: 08/0512013 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

Rl 

Jackson County (part) 

The pmiion of Jackson County 

bounded by I-70/I-670 and the 

Missouri River to the north; and, to 

the west ofi-435 to the state line 

separating Missouri and Kansas. 

Jefferson County, M0 1 [INSERT N onattainrnent 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDER>\L 

REGISTE 

Rl 

Jefferson County (pa11) 

That portion 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 of this 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, 1f any, unless otherw1se spec1fied. 

28. Section 81.327 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Montana--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Montana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Montana--201 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)" following tbe newly designated table "Montana--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.327 Montana. 

* * * * * 

M ontana--2010 Sulfu r D" IOXl "d e NAAQS (P nmarv: . ) 

Desi a-nation 

Designated Area Date Type 

Billings, MT' [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Yellowstone County (part) 

The area originates at tbe point 

defmed as the southwest comer of 

Section 11, Township 1 S, Range 

26E. From that point the boundary 

proceeds north along tbe westem 

Page 42 of 54 

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 of Section II to the 

point of intersection with the 

midline ofinterstate Highway 90. 

From that point the boundaty 

follows the midline oflnterstate 

Highway 90, across the Yell ow stone 

River, to the point where the 

highway midline intersects the 

northem boundary of Section 35, 

Township IN, Range 26E. From 

that point the boundary proceeds 

east along the northem section line 

of Sections 35 and 31 to the point 

where Old US 87/Hm·din Road 

leaves the section line and tums 

southeast. The boundary follows the 

midline of Old US 87/Hardin Road 

southeast to the point where the road 

intersects the western boundary of 

theSE~ of theSE~ of Section 31, 

Township IN, Range 27E. From 

that point the boundmy proceeds 

south along the ~ section line to the 

southem boundmy ofTownship 1N, 

then east to the northeast comer of 

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 of Section 9, Township 1S, 

Range 27E, where it turns 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 of orirrin. 

'Excludes Indmn country located m each area, If any, unless otheiWise specified. 

29. Section 81.328 is an1ended by revising the table heading for "Nebraska--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Nebraska--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prinlmy and 

Secondary)". 

Page 43 of 54 

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: 09/05/2013 

30. Section 81.329 is amended by revising the table heading for "Nevada--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Nevada--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 

31. Section 81.330 is ainended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "New Hampshire--Sulfur Dioxide" 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 the newly designated table ''New Hampshire--1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (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, NH1 [INSERT Nonattainrnent 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Hillsborough County (part) 

Goffstown Town 

Menimack County (pm-r) 

Allenstown Town, Bow Town, 

Chichester Town, 

Dunbarton Town, Epsom Town, 

Hooksett Town, Loudon Town, 

Pembroke Town, Pittsfield Town, 

City of Concord 

Rockingham County (part) 

Page 44 of 54 

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 

Candia Town, Deerfield Town, 

Nmthwood Town 

1

Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

32. Section 81.331 is amended by revising the table heading for "New Jersey--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read ''New Jersey--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

33. Section 81.332 is amended by revising the table heading for "New Mexico--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "New Mexico--1971 Su!fuT Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty and 

Secondary)". 

34. Section 81.333 is amended by revising the table heading for "New York--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "New York--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (PTimary and 

Secondary)". 

35. Section 81.334 is amended by revising 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 ''Nmth Dakota--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "North Dakota--I 971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primaty and 

Secondaty)". 

37. Section 81.336 is atnended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Ohio--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Ohio--

1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondaty)"; and 

Page 45 of 54 

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 a new table entitled "Ohio--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primmy)" following the newly designated table "Ohio--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)" to read as follows: 

§81.336 Ohio. 

***** 

Ohio--201 0 Sulfur Dioxide 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 N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Lake County 

Muskingum River, OH1 [INSERT N onattaimnent 

DATE 60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

Page 46 of 54 

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: 08/05/2013 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

Rl 

Moroan County (patt) 

Center Township 

Washinoton County (pmi) 

Waterford Township 

Steubenville OH-WV' [INSERT N onattainment 

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, tf any, unless otherwtse specified. 

38. Section 81.337 is amended by revising the table heading for "Oklahoma--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Oklahoma--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and 

Secondary)". 

39. Section 81.338 is mnended by revising the table heading for "Oregon--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Oregon--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondary)". 

40. Section 81.339 is mnended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Pennsylvania--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Pennsylvania--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)"; and 

Page 47 of 54 

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: 08/05/2013 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Permsylvania--2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

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 Dioxide NAAQS (Primary) 

Desio-nation 

Designated Area Date Type 

Allegheny, PA' [INSERT N onatta.inment 

DATE 60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Allegheny County (patt) 

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 ofNorth 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 

Page 48 of 54 

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: 09/0512013 

City ofMcKeesp01t 

Elizabeth Township 

Fonvard Township 

North Versailles 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 of Plumcreek 

Township, South Bend Township, 

and Elderton Borough 

WarTen, PA' [INSERT Nonattairunent 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

Page 49 of 54 

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 of Conewago 

Township, Glade Township, 

Pleasant Township, and the City of 

Wan·en 

Excludes lnd1an country located m each m·ea, 1f any, unless otherwlSe spec1fied. 

41. Section 81.340 is amended by revising the table heading for "Rhode Island--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Rhode lsland--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (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 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Plimmy and 

Secondaty)". 

43. Section 81.342 is amended by revising the table heading for "South Dakota--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "South Dakota--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prima1y and 

Secondmy)". 

44. Section 81.343 is mnended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Tennessee--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Tennessee--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondmy)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Tennessee--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Prima1y)" following the newly designated table "Tennessee--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)" to read as follows: 

§81.343 Tennessee. 

***** 

Tennessee--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Plimary) 

Page 50 of 54 

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: 09/05/2013 

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 of Sullivan County 

encompassing a circle having its 

center at the B-253 power house 

coordinates 36.5186 N; 82.5350 W 

and havin<> a 3-kilometer radius. 

I Excludes Ind1an counn-y located m each m·ea, 1f any, unless otherw1se spec1fied. 

45. Section 81.344 is amended by revising the table heading for "Texas--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Texas--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondat-y)". 

46. Section 81.345 is amended by revising the table heading for "Utah--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Utah--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (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 by revising the table heading for "Virginia--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Virginia--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primat-y and Seconda1-y)". 

49. Section 81.348 is amended by revising the table heading for "Washington--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Washington--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primat-y and 

Secondat-y)". 

50. Section 81.349 is amended as follows: 

Page 51 of 54 

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: 08/0512013 

a. By revising the table heading for "West Virginia--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"West Virginia--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (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 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)" to read as follows: 

§81.349 West Virginia. 

***** 

West Virginia--2010 Sulfur Dioxide 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 bounded by the Cross Creek 

Tax District 

Mm·shall, WV' [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Marshall County ( p31t) 

Area consisting of Clay Tax district, 

Franklin Tax District, and 

Page 52 of 54 

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: DB/0512013 

I Washington Tax District I 

1

Excludes Indian counny located in each area, if any, unless othe1wise specified. 

51. Section 8 1.350 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising the table heading for "Wisconsin--Sulfur Dioxide" to read 

"Wisconsin--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)"; and 

b. By adding a new table entitled "Wisconsin--20 I 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primmy)" following the newly designated table "Wisconsin--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primmy and Secondmy)" to read as follows: 

§81.350 Wisconsin. 

***** 

Wisconsin--7 010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primmy) - Desi o-nation 

Designated Area Date TYQe 

Rhinelander, WI' [INSERT N onattainment 

DATE60 

DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICA 

TIONIN 

THE 

FEDERAL 

REGISTE 

R] 

Oneida County (pa1t) 

City of Rhinelander, Crescent 

Town, Newbold Town, Pine Lake 

Town, and Pelican Town 

'Excludes Indmn country located m each area, 1f any, unless othe!W1se specified. 

52. Section 81.351 is amended by revising the table heading for "Wyoming--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Wyoming--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

Page 53 of 54 

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: DB/05/2013 

53. Section 81.352 is amended by revising the table heading for "American Samoa--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Amedcan Samoa--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

54. Section 81.353 is amended by revising the table heading for "Guam--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Guam--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

55. Section 81.354 is amended by revising the table heading for "Northern Mariana 

Islands--Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Northern Mariana Islands--1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primruy and Secondruy)". 

56. Section 81.3 55 is amended by revising the table heading for "Pue110 Rico--Sulfur 

Dioxide" to read "Pue11o Rico--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

57. Section 81.356 is amended by revising the table heading for "Virgin Islands--

Sulfur Dioxide" to read "Virgin Islands--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Prima1y and 

Secondary)". 

Page 54 of 54 

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: 09/05/2013 

Responses to Significant Comments on the State and Tribal Designation 

Recommendations for the 2010 Snlfnr Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) 

Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 2013 

EXHIBIT 2 
Elactronic Filing - Racivad, Clark's Offica: OB/05/2013 

Table of Contents 

1. 0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4 

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

3.0 Responses to Significant Comments on the 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 on Areas With No Monitored Violation ................. 5 

3.1.2. Basing Nonattainment Designations on Modeling ...................................... 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 of Abbreviations 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 of Final Rulemaking 

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Parts Per Billion 

Sulfur Dioxide 

State Implementation P Jan 

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 preamble to the fmal designations action, and 

the Technical Supp01t Documents (TSDs) for the designations, presents the responses of 

EPA to the significant comments we received on our initial designations decisions 

conveyed to states in Feb!uary 2013. The responses presented in this document are 

intended to augment the responses to comments that appear in the preamble to the fmal 

action and the TSDs or to 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 of public 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 of serious respiratory illnesses. The EPA 

retained the secondary 3-hour S02 standard on March 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 closely with the states and tribes, the EPA is implementing the 2010 

S02 standard using a common sense approach that improves air quality and minimizes the 

burden on state and local governments. As prut of this process, the EPA is working with 

the states and tribes to identify ru·eas in the country that 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 Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the Governor of each 

state to submit to the EPA a list of all areas in the state, with recommendations for 

whether each area meets the standard. As a first step in implementing the 20 I 0 S02 

standard, the EPA asked states to submit their designation recol1llllendations, including 

appropriate area boundaries, by June 3, 2011 . The EPA later took steps to extend the 

designation process for the 2010 S02 standard by I year due to having insufficient 

information to make initial area designations at that time. With this extension, the 

statutory deadline to complete designations is June 3, 2013. 

On February 7, 2013, the EPA sent letters (often refened to as "120-day letters") 

to state and tribal representatives responding to some of their recommendations and 

identifying an initial set of areas that do not meet the 2010 S02 standard based on three 

years of monitoring data showing NAAQS violations. For other areas, EPA explained 

that it was not yet prepared to propose or take fmal designations actions. States, tribes, 

and the public had the opportunity to comment on the EPA's preliminary designations 

decisions for the initial set of areas, and to provide new 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 First Round oflnitial Area 

Designations for the 2010 S02 National Ambient Air Qualitv Standards (NAAQS) 

The following sections are summaries of significant comments received on EPA's 

preliminary designation decisions for the areas that EPA is designating nonattainment 

based on monitored violations, and the EPA'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 not yet prepared to 

include in the initial round of proposed designations any areas for the S02 NAAQS which 

had no monitors with 3 years of data 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 of violations in such areas. This 

approach is similar to the one taken by EPA when completing the initial designations for 

the 2010 short-term NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (N02). A designation is required under 

the CAA, and EPA should act to issue one of the three designations provided in the CAA. 

Failure to designate areas by June 2013 for the S02 standard seems to be ignoring the 

statutory duty of EPA under the CAA and opening the door to litigation. This approach 

does not seem to 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) provides that any area that cannot be classified 

on the basis of available infmmation as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS should be 

designated as unclassifiable. The commenters note that EPA has 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, EPA promulgated designations 

approximately two years after the new NOz NAAQS was finalized and that since issuing 

those designations EPA has continued to work on collecting additional air quality data for 

the 2010 N02 NAAQS. 

EPA's Response: These comments do not address, either in suppmt or opposition, 

EPA's specific proposed designations actions for the areas discussed in the agency's 

February 6, 20!3, letters regarding those specific areas. EPA is not yet taking any final 

action regarding other areas. Therefore, the comments are not germane to the specific 

proposed initial designations addressed in this final action, and are outside the scope of 

this action. It is therefore not necessary for EPA to respond to the points raised by these 

comments regarding other areas that are not addressed in this initial action, and EPA has 

neither proposed action for those areas nor taken 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 and past discussions with stakeholders, it has been fi·equently 

acknowledged that the current S02 monitoring network provides relatively limited 

geographic coverage, and many monitors in the existing network are not sited with the 

objective of characterizing source-oriented maximum concentrations. The EPA is moving 

torward at this time with area designations for a set of areas with monitors showing 

violations based on 3 calendar years of data. 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 of proposed designations. In light 

of potential public health impacts that may exist but are not being adequately 

characterized by the existing monitoring network, the EPA believes 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 on the limited information about S02 air quality the agency now has. 

The EPA developed a draft strategy for implementing the S02 NAAQS on the basis of 

several stakeholder discussions that focuses on characterizing air quality in areas with the 

largest sources and then using these data for future designation actions. Under this draft 

strategy, if followed, states would have the flexibility to characterize air quality through 

monitoring or modeling, and, in addition to any case-by-case designations issued based 

on new infonnation, two additional general rounds of designations would provide states 

time to collect this information. In developing 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 EPA hopes to follow 

what it believes is the most common-sense approach for implementing the S02 NAAQS. 

The agency expects that this approach will allow each state to take a primary role in 

deciding how to characterize air quality in its own priority source areas. 

Comment: The commenters state that EPA has not identified a statutory basis to delay 

designations pending planned revisions to the so, monitoring network requirements as 

part of the in1plementation of the 2010 !-hour SO, 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 network requirements to result in the delay of 

designations for any areas in the COW1try. 

EPA's Response: As stated in the Febmary 15, 2013 Federal Register notice of 

availability and public comment period for EPA's responses to state and tribal S02 

designation recommendations (78 FR 11124), the EPA is not yet prepared to respond to 

state and tribal area designation recommendations, or seek public input thereon, for areas 

other than those with monitored violations of the 2010 S02 NAAQS addressed in the 

Febmary 15,2013 notice. EPA intends to address the remaining areas in the country, 

including those areas for which there is currently no S02 air monitoring data, in a 

subsequent rom1d or multiple rom1ds of responses 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 soliciting public comments 

on the 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 !-hour S02 NAAQS and that EPA has approved their monit01ing 

networks and even previous State Implementation Plans (SIPs). This information should 

not be disregarded. Additionally, EPA has acknowledged in the 120-day letters that 

2009-2011 air quality data shows no violations of the 2010 S02 standard in many of 

Region 8 's counties. Thus EPA should proceed with designations for all areas based on 

the information that is presently available and not defer. Fmther, the defen·al ignores 

Section 107 of the 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 extension that 

EPA has already taken. EPA recognized and anticipated at the time of the 1-year 

extension that most areas of the country will be designated unclassifiable. One 

commenter discusses that EPA seems to be contemplating future mlemaking to require 

some level of modeling 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 of deferral which include development of a new 

SIP without having effective designations in place, harm to stakeholders by not providing 

clear designations, unce1tainty for another eight years, state planners do not know where 

to direct resources due to EPA's indecisiveness, and the deferred planning schedule will 

overlap the 2015 designation process. 

EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with the 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 not yet addressing other areas are outside the scope of 

this final action, and all concerns regarding the treatment of such 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-hour N02 

designation process, which met the requirements of the CAA but also allowed for more 

time to collect data. 

EPA's Response: 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 be raised in response to our future proposed 

designations for those areas. 

3.1.2. Basing Nonattainment Designations on Modeling 

Comment: A couple of commenters 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 of ascet1aining attainment; nor 

is reliance on monitors alone effective for detemlining what areas are failing to attain the 

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 on modeling. 

For the foregoing reasons, EPA must designate in June 20 13 as nonattainment all those 

areas modeled to have exceedances of the 1-hour S02 NAAQS in the enclosed analyses. 

Absent such nonattainment findings, the SIPs prepared and subnlitted by the states will 

be inadequate unless they include or reference federally enforceable emission linlitations 

infmmed by modeling sufficient to prevent exceedances of the standard. 

EPA's Response: The majority of these comments, including modeling analyses, do not 

address, either in support or opposition, 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. It is therefore not necessary for the 

EPA to respond to the points raised by these comments regarding other areas that are not 

addressed in this initial action, and the EPA has neither proposed a designation action for 

those areas nor taken fmal action for them in this round of designations. Nor has the EPA 

proposed action or taken 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, if the conunenters still have such concems at 

that time. 

Nine of the SOz enlissions sources identified in these comments are located within the 

boundaries of the nonattainment areas the EPA is fmalizing at this time. The modeling 

and other information provided by the commenters does not appear to conflict with 

EPA's conclusions regarding the areas currently being designated nonattainment, which 

EPA is basing at this time on the available monitoring data. EPA is not at this time 

prepared to reach fmal conclusions based on such modeling information, either to reject 

or accept it as a basis for expanding our first round of nonattainment designations. 

EPA is moving forward at this time with area designations for a set of areas with 3 years 

of monitoring data showing violations. The Federal Re~ister notice announcing the public 

comment period for the proposed designations was specific to those areas we are 

currently designating nonattainment and the commenters did not subnlit any information 

suggesting they object to the proposed nonattainment designations for those specific 

areas. EPA has developed a draft strategy for implementing the S02 NAAQS on the 

basis of meetings with several stakeholders that focuses on characterizing air quality in 

areas with the 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, if followed, states would have the 

flexibility to characterize air quality in these areas through monitoring or modeling, and 

additional rounds of designations (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, 

EPA has taken into consideration the comments we received following the Final S02 

NAAQS Rule, the March 2011 draft designations guidance, the September 2011 draft 

implementation guidance, 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 under the S02 NAAQS. Instead, we are only concluding 

that the initial designations of nonattainment are appropriate for the specific areas where 

3 calendar years of monitoring data support a conclusion that the NAAQS is violated. 

The EPA intends to further address how modeling may be appropriately used in future 

designations for additional areas under the S02 NAAQS in forthcoming rulemaking and 

technical assistance documents. 

3.1.3. Revocation of Old Standard 

Comment: EPA should forward with revocation of the older S02 standards (annual and 

24-hour standards). 

EPA's Response: The fmal S02 NAAQS rulemaking already addressed how and when 

revocation of the prior primary N AAQS would occur, and EPA did not propose to reopen 

that issue in this action. Therefore, it is outside the scope of this final designations 

action, and it is not necessary for EPA to respond to this comment. However, for 

informational purposes, EPA directs the commenter to the fmal NAAQS preamble's 

discussion of this issue, at 75 FR 35549-50, 35580-82, and to the regulatory text adopted 

with the NAAQS at 40 CFR 50.4(e). This regulatory text provides that the prior primary 

S02 NAAQS will remain applicable to an area until! year after the effective date of that 

area's designation under the 1-hour S02 NAAQS, and then no longer apply, except in the 

case of areas that at the time of promulgation of the 1-how- NAAQS were designated 

nonattainment under the prior primary NAAQS or were not meeting the requirements of 

a SIP call under the prior NAAQS; for those areas, the prior NAAQS would not be 

revoked until the area submits under CAA section 191 and EPA approves a SIP providing 

for attaimnent of the new 1-hour NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.4(e). In the preamble discussion 

of this issue, EPA explained that states were directed to continue implementing 

attainment and maintenance SIPs associated with the prior N AAQS until they are 

subsumed by any new planning and control requirements associated with the new 

NAAQS, in order to assure compliance with the Clean Air Act requirements of section 

11 0(1), I 72( e) and 193, as applicable. 75 FRat 35580-82. We note that in none of the 

several petitions for administrative reconsideration of the fmal NAAQS that we received 

did anyone ask us to revisit this issue. Nor did any of the numerous litigants challenging 

Page 9 of63 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

the fmal NAAQS object to our treatment of revocation of the prior NAAQS. We do not 

regard the comments on the proposed designation action as constituting a new 

administrative petition for rulemaking to revise the final NAAQS rulemaking's 

promulgation of 40 CFR 50.4(e), as in our proposed designation action we gave no 

indication of any intention to reopen that issue. Finally, if we 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 such requirements 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 Comment Period 

Comment: Several commenters fi·om industries stated that the 30-day conunent period is 

too short to effectively review the EPA's response to state's recommendations and 

compile meaningful responses; therefore, they requested a 30-day extension to the public 

conunent period. This will allow them time to more thoughtfully consider both the 

policy and technical issues associated with the proposal. Specifically, the S02 issue in the 

Billings/Laurel, MT axea is very complex and EPA's upc01ning designation will have a 

significant impact on the area. There exists much historical and contemporaneous 

information that makes this area unique. Some of this information has already been 

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 the potential and 

severe long-term effects of the proposed determination on Montana, the county, its 

diverse stakeholders and in the proposed rejection of Montana's own 2011 proposal. 

Given EPA has had nearly 2 years to consider Montana's (and others) comments, it seems 

reasonable to allow the public an additional30 days for review. 

EPA's Response: The EPA appreciates the tin1e and effort of the commenters in 

participating in this matter. The EPA invited public comments on its responses to States 

and Tribes through March 18, 2013, and states were asked to comment by AprilS, 2013. 

The EPA was able to accommodate the requests for an extension of the public comment 

period through April8, 2013. Due to the statutory timefi-ame for promulgating 

designations set out in CAA Section 107(d), the EPA was unable to consider any public 

comments past April81h. The April 8th deadline was necessary to allow EPA sufficient 

time to review and respond to all significant comments in advance of promulgating the 

2010 S02 designations in July 2013. 

3.2 Area-Specific Issues 

3.2.1. EPA Region 1 

3.2.1.1. State of Connecticut 

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 of all sources in Connecticut with greater than I 00 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 of the NAAQS. 

EPA's Re5ponse: In this designations action, EPA is limiting its final conclusions to 

those areas with 3 calendar years of data showing violations of the !-hour S02 NAAQS. 

Therefore, this conunent is outside the scope of this 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 

of areas which the Agency proposed to designate nonattainment. We specifically stated 

we were not soliciting comments on or prepaTed to propose designations for other areas 

for which states and tribes have submitted designation recommendations, im)uding any 

areas that may ultimately 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 designation recommendations for these other 

areas, and intends to addTess such areas in a subsequent round or multiple rounds of 

proposed responses and final designations actions. At this time, EPA is not reaching a 

final decision in response to whether Connecticut has shown attainment of the !-hour 

SOzNAAQS. 

3.2.1.2. Central New Hampshire 

Comment: One conm1enter agrees with EPA's proposal to designate a p01iion of New 

Hampshire as nonattainrnent for the S02 NAAQS. The commenter states that, "New 

Hampshire's recommendation correctly reflects the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and its implementing regulations, which compel EPA to designate as S02 nonattainment 

areas the highlighted parts of Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham Counties. In 

addition, the proposed nonattainment 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 New Hampshire S02 

nonattainment area in EPA's Technical Support Document. 

L"'PA's Response: 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 nearby Pmiland Power Plant. The 

commenter requests EPA reconsider its decision to not move forward with a 

nonattainment designation of Warren County and its vicinity. 

Page ll of63 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/0512013 

The commenter states that EPA is without authority under the Clean 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 by NJDEP and EPA, demonstrates that the NRG/GenOn Portland 

Power Plant significantly conn·ibutes to and causes nonattainment of the I -hour S02 

NAAQS in New Jersey. The monitor continues to measw·e exceedances of the health 

standard when the coal units operate and the wind blows fi·om the Portland stacks toward 

the monitor. 

EPA's Response: After considering the reco1Jlll1endation and the additional information 

provided by New Jersey, we are still not prepared at this time to include the Warren 

County, New Jersey area in this initial round of final designations that is based only on 

monitors with 3 calendar years of data showing violations of the I -how· S02 NAAQS. 

Moreover, as explained earlier, EPA is still not prepared at this time to base proposed or 

final nonattainment designations under the !-hour NAAQS on modeling data, whether 

alone or as a supplement to complete or incomplete monitming data. For this first round 

ofS02 designations, only areas with monitored violations of the standard shown by 3 

calendar years of data are being considered, as we explained in the proposal, and the 

Columbia Lake monitor had not at proposal and has still not been in operation at its site 

for 3 calendar years, and has not yet generated the necessary amount of data. Under 

EPA's rules, in order to calculate a valid design value for the area on which to base a 

designation based on monitoring, three complete calendar years of data are required. 

There are cwTently less than three complete calendar years of data for the air monitor 

located in Warren County, which began 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 with 40 CFR Parts 50-Appendix T, "Interpretation of the Primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Sulfur (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, notably the monitor in Muscatine, Iowa, where missing data was 

substituted with zero values to declare the county as not attaining the health standard. 

EPA's Response: Since the monitor in Warren County, New Jersey has not been in 

operation and generating data for the necessary 3 calendar year period in order to support 

a final nonattainment designation based on monitoring, we consider the request to 

designate Wa!Ten County based on a shorter period of monitoring operation as outside 

the scope of this fmal designations action. We disagree with the suggestion that the data 

substitution authority of 40 CFR part 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 data is was expected to provide. 

The data substitution authority presumes that an actually sited monitor had been expected 

to be operating and generating data over the subject 3 year period, but had 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 operating period. 

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 of monitor operation and data where a monitor did not actually exist for 

the assumed 3-year period. See 75 FRat 35582-85, and 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, 

section 3. Such a situation is very different fi·om the Muscatine, Iowa situation, in which 

a monitor has been in place and operation for well over the minimum 3-year period, but 

failed to generate the expected amount of valid data and there is a missing period for 

which to substitute data. In Wan·en County, there is no period in which the monitor 

failed to generate data it was expected to provide, so there is no "gap" for which to 

substitute data. Finally, we note that in Warren County the minimum necessary 3-year 

period of the monitor's operation will soon pass, and after that the EPA will be able to 

work with 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 our mles, does not appear to 

have been contemplated. 

3.2.3. EPA Region 3 

3.2.3.1. State of Delaware 

Comment: On June 13, 201 I Govemor Jack Markell recommended that the EPA 

designate each of Delaware'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 of attainment for the entire 

state. 

EPA's Response: The comment is outside the scope of this final designations action 

based on monitoring data. In this fmal action, EPA is only issuing fmal nonattainment 

area designations for areas with monitors that have 3 calendar years of data showing 

violations of the S02 NAAQS. EPA is not prepared that this time to address or take any 

action on other areas, which we will address in future final designations actions. Once 

EPA starts to address these other areas, the state may wish to provide this infonnation for 

the record at that time. 

3.2.3.2. Allegheny, PA Area 

Comment: NRG Energy agrees with USEPA's proposed nonattainment area for 

Allegheny County. The cornmenter indicates it is appropriate that the Elrama Generating 

Station located in Washington County PA should not be included in the nonattainment 

area. S02 ambient air monitoring exceedances and S02 emissions from Elrama were 

reviewed by the cornmenter and the cornmenter surmises that the analysis suggests that 

exceedances in Allegheny County may occur independent of operations 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's Response: 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, P A in the 

Allegheny P A nonattainment area. EPA does not feel there is sufficient infonnation at 

this time to detennine the designations status of any p01tion of Washington County P A, 

or support including any p01tion of Washington County PAin the initial Allegheny 

nonattainment area. At this time EPA is designating as nonattainment a po1tion of 

Allegheny County. Additional teclnlical information on these topics can be found in the 

Allegheny PA Nonattainment Area section in the TSD that accompanies this action. 

However, EPA is also not yet prepared to reach any fmal decisions regarding whether the 

Eh-ama facility contributes to NAAQS violations on any other basis, 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 ofWashington County 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) are located in close proximity of the Libe1ty morlitor; and their 

location is south/southwest of the Liberty monitor, which EPA acknowledges are in a 

geographic location most likely to impact the Libe1ty monitor. 

2. One source in Washington County is a local source (just over the 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 county lines in nonattainment designations, as it has with the [ndiana 

nonattainment area, which includes Armstrong County. 

For these reasons, the commenter encourages EPA and P ADEP to include portions of 

Washington County with large S02 sources that are located in a geographic area most 

likely to impact the Liberty monitor as part of the nonattainment area. 

EPA's Response: The EPA is not yet prepared, based on current information related to 

the morlitored violation in Allegheny County, to conclude that sources in Washington 

County P A contribute to those morlitored violations. The EPA will fi.nther address the 

Washington County sources in a future final designations action. While the EPA 

acknowledges that in some cases it is appropriate to include nearby sources beyond 

county lines in this initial round of morlitoring-based designations, inclusion of additional 

sources is on a case by case basis, and in many cases we are choosing to limit the scope 

of our initial nonattainment designations while reserving for future analysis in a 

subsequent round of designations whether nearby sources and areas are causing or 

contributing to violations. [n such cases, as in this one, we are not yet reaching fmal 

conclusions regarding initially excluded sources and areas. Regarding items # 1 and #2, 

for now EPA acknowledges that there are sources in Washington County located near 

Allegheny County, but notes that 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 primarily impacted by other 

sources. Additional information and technical analyses for both the Indiana PA 

Nonattainment Area and the Allegheny PA Nonattainment 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 of Allegheny County should 

not be designated as nonattainment. Rather, the commenter proposes the partial county 

"Lower Monongahela Valley S02 Nonattainment Area," which would include the 

following municipalities in Allegheny County: West Mifflin, Dravosburg, McKeespmt, 

Versailles, Pmt Vue, Glassport, Liberty, Lincoln, Clairton, West Elizabeth, Elizabeth 

Township, Borough of Elizabeth, Fmward, Jefferson Hills, and Pleasant Hills. Union 

Township and Finleyville Borough in Washington County should also be included in this 

nonattainment area as a pa1tial county combination of the Monongahela Valley and 

Allegheny County Air Basins within the Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate AQCR. The 

commenter asserts that the remainder of the county should be excluded from the 

nonattainment designation based on the application ofEPA's five factors. 

Based on the results of the commenter's analysis using EPA's five factors for 

dete1mining attainn1ent with the new 1-hour S02 NAAQS, the commenter recommends 

that only the municipalities in Allegheny County and Washington County that were 

identified above be designated as the "Lower Monongahela Valley S02 Nonattainment 

Area."In addition, the commenter recommends that portions of Washington County 

should also be included in the Allegheny County nonattaimnent areas. 

EPA's Re•pmzse: EPA agrees that only a portion of Allegheny County needs to be part 

of the initial nonattainn1ent area, while reserving for finther analysis in a fillure 

designations action how other nearby areas should be designated. However in addition to 

the areas identified by ACHD, EPA is designating a few other portions of the county as 

part of the nonattainment area since a source of significant S02 emissions is located 

within these additional portions of the county .. EPA does not agree that there is yet 

sufficient information to determine that a pmtion ofWashington County P A should also 

be included in the Allegheny P A N onattainment Area. Sources in Washington County 

will be further addressed in a future fmal designations action. Additional information can 

be found on these issues in the P A TSD in the section discussing the Allegheny PA 

N onattainment Area. 

Comment: Reduce the Allegheny County nonattainment area to the municipalities of the 

City of Clailton, the City of McKeesport, 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 of the Allegheny County nonattainment area is outlined in 

Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which can be found in the federal docket 

system. 

Page 15 of 63 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013 

EPA's Response: EPA agrees that only a portion of Allegheny County needs to be part 

of the initial nonattainment area, while rese1ving for further analysis in a future 

designations action how other nearby areas should be designated. However in addition to 

the areas identified by the Commonwealth, EPA is designating some other pmiions of the 

county as part of the nonattainment area since a source of significant S02 emissions is 

located within these additional pmiions of the county . Additional information can be 

found in the TSD in the discussion of the Allegheny PA Nonattainment Area. 

3.2.3.3. Beaver, PA Area 

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 of the Beaver County 

nonattainment area is outlined in Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which 

can be found in the federal docket system. 

EPA's Response: EPA reviewed the information provided by the Commonwealth and 

concurs that the initial Beaver PA Nonattainment Area should be reduced from the 

m~ginal proposal of the entire county to a partial county consisting of the municipalities 

identified by the Cmnmonwealth of Pennsylvania. EPA will designate CU!Tently 

excluded areas in a future round of final designations. Additional information and 

analysis regarding tbis area is contained in the PA TSD that accompanies this action in 

the section of the TSD that discusses the Beaver PA Nonattainment Area. 

3.2.3.4. Indiana, PA Area 

Commellt: EPA responded to the Commonwealth's designation recommendations, 

agreeing with all of Pennsylvania's original designation recommendations, but also 

including a portion of Armstrong County as pmi of a nonattainment area. After 

consideration ofEP A's intention to add a portion of i'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 can be found in the federal docket system. 

EPA's Re;ponse: EPA agrees with the Commonwealth regarding the inclusion of all of 

Indiana County in the nonattainment area. However, EPA does not concur with 

removing the pmiions of Armstrong County that were in the proposed nonattairunent 

m·ea. EPA reviewed the additional information provided by the Commonwealth but did 

not fmd it sufficient to justify removing the po11ions of Armstrong county from the 

nonattainment area. Additional infmmation and analysis regarding this area is contained 

in the P A TSD that accompanies tbis action in the section of the TSD that discusses the 

Indiana P A Nonattainment Area. 

3.2.3.5. Warren, PA Area 

Page 16 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

Comment: Reduce the Warren County nonattainment area to tour municipalities: 

Conewago, Glade and Pleasant Townships and the City ofWanen. The reason for the 

reconunended modification of the Wan·en County nonattainment area is outlined in 

Pennsylvania's revised recommendation letter, which can be found in the federal docket 

system. 

EPA's Re;ponse: EPA reviewed the information provided by the Conunonwealth and 

concurs that the initial Wa!1'en PAN onattainment Area should be reduced fi:om the 

original proposal of the entire county to a partial county consisting of the municipalities 

identified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 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 

of the 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 regarding this area are addressed in section 3.2.9.1 

3.2.4.2. Nassau County, FL Area 

Comment: One conunenter believes the proposed nonattainment designation is not 

appropriate because the commenter believes that the data used to make the detemlination 

is not representative of ambient concentrations of S02. As described below, there are 

technical problems with the location of the ambient monitoring station and the data 

validation process. At this time Nassau County should be designated as "unclassifiable" 

and a more suitable monitoring station should be selected for detennination of the 

county's attainment status. 

Specifically, the comrnenter expresses concerns that S02 e1nissions from a nearby 

wastewater treatment plant and diesel emissions fi:om truck traffic on an adjacent 

driveway impact the Nassau County monitoring site operated by the State of Florida, and 

that it is not representative of ambient air. The conm1enter also comments that tl1e data 

from the Nassau County monitor should not be considered valid because the data from a 

nearby monitor operated by Rayonier "differ substantially" from the Nassau County 

monitor data. 

EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with the 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. In our 

February 6, 2013, letter to the State, EPA did not propose to 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 of Florida's S02 monitoring station in Nassau County, FL, EPA 

disagrees with the commenter that the Nassau County monitoring data should be 

considered invalid. The State of Florida has operated the monitor in accordance with all 

of the requirements of 40 CFR Part 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 of SOz emissions, and 

that the monitor is properly sited and is representative of ambient air. EPA also does not 

agree that the 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 of 40 CFR Part 58. 

Therefore, based upon the 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. See EPA'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 of Sullivan County which consists of a 4.3 

kilometer radius circle centered on a point within the Eastman Chemical Company 

facility. The TSD states that this 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 of the Domtar facility governs the size (4.3 kilometer radius circle) of the 

proposed boundary. Table 3 in the TSD lists 1\FG as emitting 49 tons per year of S02 and 

Domtar emitting 892 tons per year, based on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. 

It is Eastman's understanding that the AFG facility has ceased operation and that the 

Domtar facility does not emit S02• The commenter's review of the 2008 NEI found on 

EPA's website showed no S02 emissions from the Domtar facility. Given that inclusion 

of these facilities results in a larger non-attainment area, Eastman requests the boundary 

be re-defined to be centered on Eastman's predominant sources of S02 (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 at the B-253 power house 

coordinates 36.5186 N; 82.5350 Wand having a 3-kilometer radius. 

The Commenter contends that this boundary will ensure that the only significant source 

of S02 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 ensure that the 

air quality at the location of the violating monitor (Ross N Robinson) as well as the other 

long-term monitor in the area (Meadowview) is predicted to meet the NAAQS. Note that 

the requested boundary encompasses both monitors mentioned above. 

EPA's Response: EPA has evaluated this additional information and considered it for 

the fmal deterrnioation for the initial boundary for this area. Based on this information 

Page 18 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: DS/0512013 

and a revised recommendation fi:om the State ofTennessee (which is consistent with 

Eastman's recommendation), EPA has 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. EPA Region 5 

3.2.5.1. Lemont, IL Area 

Comment: Citizens Against Ruining the Environment (CARE) and the Respiratory 

Health Association (RHA) generally supp01t the preliminruy determinations regarding 

Illinois regions that do not attain the 2010 S02 NAAQS based on monitored air quality 

data. Because of the number of human receptors, there is an urgent public health 

justification for IL EPA and U.S. EPA to plan for and achieve attainment as soon as 

possible, without waiting until20 17. 

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 will trigger nonattainmenr planning requirements that will 

require Illinois to develop a plan to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable but 

no later than five years after the 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 three Townships in the Illinois 

recommendation and the U.S. EPA response. CARE and RHA also concur that the 

stationru·y sources of air emissions conh·ibuting to this non-attainment include at least the 

Will County coal-fired power plant, the Citgo Refinery and Oxbow Calcining, all of 

which are in an industtial conidor immediately to the west and southwest of the Lemont 

monitor. 

EPA's Response: 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 conttibute to non-attainment with 

the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Yet, there is no federally enforceable annual S02 emission limit 

in the Oxbow air permit. 

EPA!s Response: At issue here is what area is violating or conttibuting to 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 planning requirements, and comments regarding the presence or absence 

of acceptable emission limits are more germane to the process of Illinois developing its 

nonattainment plan and EPA rulemaking on that plan. 

Page 19 of63 
Elactronic Filing - Racivad. Clark's Offica: 09/0512013 

Comment: In characterizing the sources that cause or contribute to non-attainment in the 

Lemont area, both U.S. EPA and IL EPA focus on three· contiguous sources in an 

industrial corridor to the west and southwest of the 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's Response: 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 area that EPA is promulgating, based on the contributions of other nearby 

facilities, iuespective of the emission level of this facility. 

Comment: Midwest Generation ("MWG") operates coal-fired power plants in the 

Lemont non-attainment area (the Will County facility) and the Pekin non-attainment area 

(the Powerton facility). These facilities are identified by IL EPA and U.S. EPA as being 

major sources that cause and contribute to S02 non-attainment in the Lemont and Pekin 

areas. Midwest Generation also operates a coal-fired power plant in Joliet, immediately to 

the south of the Lemont non-attainment area, which today is a significantly larger S02 

source than its Will County counterpart. Today, none ofthese coal-burning facilities 

employ flue gas desulfurizationpollution control equipment. None of the fucilities has (or 

ever had) a Title 5/CAAPP operating permit; in fact, the last effective operating pennits 

for these facilities were issued by Illinois in the mid-1990's as federally enforceable state 

operating permits. All·ofthese facilities are subject to an enforcement case initiated by 

the United States of America and the State of Illinois for undertaking major modifications 

without nndergoing new source review (United States of America and the State of Illinois 

and Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Edison 

Mission Energy and Commonwealth Edison Company, No. 09-5277, United States 

District CoU11, Not1hern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; CARE is a PlaintiffIntervener in this case). 

EPA's Resprmse: Again, comments regarding the presence or absence of acceptable 

emission lin1its are more gennane to the process of Illinois developing its nonattainment 

plan and EPA rulemaking on that plan. 

Commeut: Joliet, with a population of 148,402, is downwind of two 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 of regional 802 ambient air 

conditions and contributing sources. 

CARE and RHA question whether the boundaries of the Lemont nonattainment area are 

expansive enough, and whether there are other stationary sources that are significantly 

contributing to nonattainment. To ensure that the 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 of the existing boundary of the proposed 

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 of a 

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 of the 

facility. CARE and RHA state that Sierra Club used modeling to assess the impact of the 

Joliet plant in the absence of monitoring data that precisely delineates conditions 

downwind. CARE and RHA then asse1t that there does not appear to be a basis for a 

southem boundary of the Lemont area that neatly excises the contributions of the Joliet 

facility and excludes Joliet fi:om the nonattainment area. 

EPA's Respo11se: The comments fi·mn CARE and RHA provide no information on 

impacts of the Midwest Generation's Joliet plant on the violation recorded in Lemont. 

The attached material fi·om Sie!Ta Club references maps showing a distribution of 

impacts of the 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 

of the 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 high concentrations ofS02. 

CARE and RHA's comments also do not provide evidence that the Exxon Mobil refmery 

contributes to violations at the Lemont monitor. To the cont!·my, pollution rose 

information provided with Illinois' recommendations indicates that violations 

predominantly occur with west winds. Since these two facilities are considerable 

distance fi·om the Lemont monitor, and since CARE and RHA have provided no evidence 

that these facilities contribute to the violations recorded at the Lemont monitor, EPA 

continues to believe that the proposed nonattainment area boundaries appropriately 

exclude these two facilities. 

The comments of CARE and RHA suggest that EPA take one of three options: 1) 

designate a lm·ger nonattainment area that includes the area of violation and contributing 

sources both in Lemont and in Joliet, 2) designate the Joliet area as well as the Lemont 

areas as separate nonattainment areas, or 3) designate the Lemont area as nonattainment 

and require further monitoring to assess whether the Joliet area is violating the standard. 

For reasons 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 strategy paper on the intemet that 

envisions requiring further analysis of areas like the Joliet area, as CARE and RHA 

suggest. However, action on the Joliet area is not part of this rulemaking, which in 

Northeast Illinois addresses only the Lemont area. 

Comment: RHA and CARE request clarification on the constmction permit standards 

that will be imposed on a new S02 source in the newly designated nonattainment areas 

(which would also apply to major modifications to existing sources). 

RHA and CARE also request S02 emissions information provided by the Cit go 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 confum this 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"om the Citgo Refmery as pmi of it nonattainment planning process. 

(See also a co1nn1ent and response presented below concerning both the Lemont and 

Pekin areas.) 

Commeut: The ExxonMobil Joliet Refmery suppmts the EPA's concun-ence with the 

Illinois EPA's recommendation that Will County be divided, 8.1ld to ask that all 

townships, other than Lockpmi, and DuPage townships be designated as attaimnent or 

unclassifiable as they do not have a significant inlpact on the Cook County SO I monitor 

AQS ID # 17-03!-160llocated at 729 Houston, Lemont, which is located in Cook 

County just across the Will County boundary. 

EPA's Response: EPA appreciates ExxonMobil' s support of the Lemont nonattainment 

area. However, no action is being taken on the remainder of Will Country in this rule 

making, so the remainder of Will Country will not receive an attainlnent or unclassifiable 

designation. 

3.2.5.2. Pekin, IL Area 

Comment: Both the Illinois Environmental Regulatmy Group (IERG) and Ameren 

submitted comments urging EPA to exclude Hollis Township from the nonattainment 

m·ea based on low frequency of winds coming from that direction, particularly during 

hours of violating when S02 concentrations exceeded the standard. IERG states that the 

meteorology analysis submitted by IEPA is not suppmiive of the inclusion of this area. 

They provided two composite photos, one of a wind rose fi:om IEP A layered on a map 

fi·om IEPA of the area showing the locations of the facilities and the other of a pollution 

rose from IEP A layered on that s8.1lle map. IERG agrees with IEPA's assessment that 

sources to the west and southwest most likely contribute to the exceedance. IERG 

compared wind direction to hours ofS02 exceedances from 2007 to 201 I and provided 

percentages of the wind direction during exceedances. They found that the wind 

direction was variable 3.7% of the tinle, 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 of the monitor and 

that wind from the north accounts for less than 5% of the total wind direction occurrences 

and therefore the probability of the facility causing an exceedance is low. Ameren also 

states that 99% of the violating S02 values at that monitor occmTed when winds were 

from the South -Southwest to West-Nmthwest with the majority from the West and 

West-Southwest. Ameren stated that the wind speeds were usually greater that l 0 mph 

during exceedances, which points 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 of a monitor and the actual locations of facilities, stack 

heights, stack flow and temperature, and other relevant operating characteristics of the 

facilities. Ameren also provided a pollution rose in graph form and a table of hourly S02 

exceedance fi·om 2008-20 I 0 with the associated wind direction and speed. 

EPA's Response: EPA believes that winds come fi'om the direction ofE.D. Edwards 

with sufficient fi·equency that the substantial emissions of this facility warrant being 

considered to contribute to the violation in Pekin. Ameren states that the winds fi·om the 

nmih account for less than 5 percent of the total wind occurrences. An even distribution 

of winds among I6 wind directions would mean about 6 percent ofthe winds from each 

direction, so this does not signifY particularly low frequency. As shown in !EPA's initial 

recommendation, of the sixteen wind directions, eleven of the directions occur 3 to 6% of 

the time. Four of the directions occur 6 to 9% of the time with the most fi·equent 

southerly direction occuning less than I5% of the 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 contribute to 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 of the standard. EPA agrees that 

the winds for the Pekiin Nonattainment area are most fi·equently fi·om the south and west 

wind directions during times of exceedances. However, tllis statement does not answer 

the question of whether winds Ji'om the direction of the E.D. Edwards plant occur with 

sufficient fi'equency to conclude that the plant contributes to the violation. 

In response to !ERG's and Ameren's presentation of average wind directions during 

hours ofS02 exceedances for 2008 to 2010, EPA conducted a similar review. EPA 

examined the average of two-minute wind direction samples instead of an hourly sample 

to better evaluate variable winds. From this review, EPA identified numerous occasions 

when exceedances occurred dming times with generally northerly 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 of 4 mph. The 

facility likely cause the greatest impact fi·om this direction is the Ameren E.D. Edwards 

facility. Another example was an exceedance of I 09 ppb on April2I, 20 I 0 at 15:00, 

when the wind was blowing at 5 mph at 3I7 degrees. This exceedance, with no1ihwest 

winds, suggests significant contributions from either or both of the facilities in that 

direction, i.e., either or both of E. 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 hom fi·om 10 to 40 degrees, which 

suggests a significant contribution to the exceedance from the Ameren E.D. Edwards 

facility. Ameren's data also show several instances of variable wind direction and calm 

winds with exceedances associated with the time period. With calm winds, significant 

contiibutions are likely to arise from nearby facilities with significant emissions in 

several directions from the monitor, including in particular 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 the variety of wind 

directions observed dming the pertinent period. For example, on April 9, 2009, an 

exceedance of I !9 ppb was recorded struting at 10:00. The homly wind data showed the 

average wind direction to be 233 degrees. However, in looking at just a twenty minute 

period of the actual two minute rolling averages, from I 0:35 to I 0:55, the wind direction 

shifted quite frequently, as seen in the table below: 

Local Time Wind Direction (Degrees) 

I 0:35 347 

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 of these data points are in the n01therly direction of the facility, suggesting that 

the E.D. Edwards facility was contributing to the exceedance during several portions of 

the hour. 

These two minute data are two minute averages of wind direction and speed that are 

rolling every minute, meaning there are 60 two minute averages every hour. These data 

show a more accurate picture of the wind patterns during a recorded hour. The data 

allow for the change of wind direction during the hour to be observed instead of basing 

the entire hour on one average or one reading. The table below shows that looking 

beyond a single wind direction reading shows several additional instances of possible 

contribution to the exceedances from the direction ofthe Ameren facility. The table 

below looks at the two minute data dming hours of exceedance. The number of 

occmTences is the number of rolling two minute data during the hour that were between 

315 (Northwest) and 11 (North by East), which were used to indicate potential for 

significant contribution from the E.D. Edwards facility. The total possible number of 

occurrences during an hour is 60 due to the average rolling every minute. 

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 

I 0/4/2009 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 

10/1/20 I 0 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 of these occasions, the E.D. Edwards facility was likely contributing to the 

exceedance during at least some portion of the hour. 

This review suggests that, in addition to winds in the direction from the E.D. Edwards 

facility toward the Pekin monitor being common in general, winds in this direction also 

occur periodically on occasions when the Pekin monitor shows 802 concentrations to 

exceed the standard. Furthermore, winds in this area are fi:equently variable, such that a 

significant fi·action of the contribution to exceedances could be arising from the E.D. 

Edwards facility on these occasions as well. Given the quantity of emissions fi·om this 

facility (approximately 11,000 tons per year), EPA believes that winds blow from this 

facility toward the Pekin monitor with sufficient fi·equency, including specifically on 

days with high monitored concentrations, to warrant this facility being considered to 

contribute to violations at the monitor. 

Comment: Midwest Generation (''MWG") operates coal-frred power plants in the 

Lemont non-attainment area (the Will County facility) and the Pekin non-attainment area 

(the Powerton facility). These facilities are identified by IL EPA and U.S. EPA as being 

major sources that cause and contribute to 802 non-attainment in the Lemont and Pekin 

areas. Midwest Generation also operates a coal-fired power plant in Joliet, inrroediately to 

the south of the Lemont non-attainment area, which today is a significantly larger 802 

source than its Will County counterpart. Today, none of these coal-burning facilities 

employ flue gas desulfurization pollution control equipment. None of the 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 by Illinois in the mid-1990's as federally enforceable state 

operating permits. All of these facilities are subject to an enforcement case initiated by 

the United States of America and the State of Illinois for unde1taking major modifications 

without undergoing new source review (United States of America and the State oflllinois 

and Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Edison 

Mission Energy and Conm1onwealth Edison Company, No. 09-5277, United States 

District CoUli, Nmthem District of Illinois, Eastem Division; CARE is a PlaintiffIntervener in this case). 

EP4's Response: This information supports the proposed nonattainment area 

boundaries. Illinois will need to consider the need for further control of these facilities as 

it prepares its nonattainment area plans. 

3.2.5.3 Detroit, MI Area 

Comment: U. S. Steel requested that USEPA include the pmtions ofMomoe County that 

include the DTE Momoe Station in the Detroit nonattainment area. U.S. Steel observed 

that this power plant 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 installation of scrubbers on two 

of the 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 if similar controls were installed on the two remaining units, ... then the [violating 

monitor] would most likely demonstrate attainment." 

U.S. Steel submitted a presentation prepared by Mike Lebeis ofDTE Energy. This 

presentation describes a review of the seasonal frequency of elevated 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 study period, in 

particular the installation of scrubbers on Units 3 and 4 in November and June 2009, 

respectively, and the temporary shutdown of the Detroit area U.S. Steel facility from 

November 2008 to August 2009. The presentation highlights the fact that only seven 

occasions of concentrations above 75 ppb occurred in 2009, during none of which 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 of regional versus local sources. Nevertheless, U.S. Steel 

characterizes the presentation as "clearly [suggesting] that that both 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, there has been a noticeable drop in 

the number ofhoms per year that S02 exceeds 7 5 ppb at the SHWS monitor." According 

to the Lebeis presentation, this would suggest that the lower readings at the SWHS 

monitor are attributable at least in part to the improvements at the Momoe Power Plant. 

This presentation also states that in 2009, the only hours when the 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. 

For these reasons, U. S. Steel encouraged USEPA and MDEQ to include portions of 

Momoe County to include Momoe Station, a large S02 source located upwind of the 

SWHS monitor, as part of the "Wayne County" nonattainment area. 

EPA's Re~JHmse: Neither in its comments nor in its attached presentation did U.S. Steel 

provide any analysis of the impacts ofMonroe Station in relation to the impacts of other 

somces that are closer to the monitor. Instead, the evidence U.S. Steel presents must be 

considered anecdotal, reflecting the frequency of elevated S02 concentrations in 

conjunction with information about variations in emission rates. The presentation itself 

attributes the relatively low number of exceedances of75 ppb recorded in 2009 to the 

relatively cool temperatures recorded that year. Indeed, the variations in the fi:equency of 

exceedances in other years may simply reflect variations in meteorology. Other data in 

the Lebeis presentation, namely the 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 contributor to the exceedances, but the 

influence of meteorological variations is too imp01iant to be able to use these statistics to 

reach either this or U.S. Steel's conclusion. 

The Lebeis presentation repotis that 201 0 has the greatest number of exceedances of the 

75 ppb standard, with moderately low numbers of exceedances occurring in 2011 and 

2012. U.S. Steel asserts that the low numbers of exceedances in 2011 and 2012 reflect 

the impact of controls at Monroe Station, but U.S. Steel offers no explanation as to why 

the high number of exceedances 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 of exceedances in 2010 according to U.S. Steel's reasoning, one would infer 

that the emission reductions at Momoe Station have minimal effect and the resumption of 

emissions at U.S. Steel has significant effect, a conclusion that is diametrically the 

opposite of U.S. Steel's conclusion from examining 2011 and 2012 data. EPA finds a 

more plausible conclusion to be that U.S. Steel's conm1ents, and the Lebeis presentation 

that they rely on, are simply unreliable evidence as to the contribution ofMomoe Station 

EPA agrees that south winds are common on days with elevated concentrations at the 

SWHS monitor. However, EPA must evaluate further whether Momoe Station, located 

approximately 54 kilometers from the monitor, should be considered to be 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 I 07, nonattainment areas, in addition 

to including the areas violating the standard, are to include the nearby sources that 

contribute to the violation. U.S. Steel does not address criteria for judging a source to be 

nearby, but U.S. Steel implicitly concedes that Momoe Station could reasonably be 

considered not to be nearby the SWHS monitor. 

Page 27 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013 

U.S. Steel also does not address the significance of the data showing monitored design 

values below the S02 standard at the Allen Park monitor, a monitor which is somewhat 

to the southwest of the SWHS monitor, closer to Monroe Station. While these data do 

not answer the question of whether Momoe Station contributes to concentrations at either 

location, these data do indicate that most of the S02 monitored at the SWHS monitor is 

being contributed from more local sources. Based on the 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 with the inclusion of Fayette Township in the Tene Haute 

non attainment area, but disagrees with the inclusion of Otter Creek Township because the 

population for that township is low and there are no sources of S02. 

EPA's Response: See TetTe Haute, IN p01tion of the Indiana TSD. 

3.2.5.5 Richmond, IN Area 

Comment: Indiana submitted a reconunendation that Wayne County, IN should be 

excluded from this round of designations because the monitor in Wayne County has 

certified, quality assured data showing that it is not violation the 2010 S02 Standard 

based on the 2010-2012 design period with a design value of66 ppb. 

EPA's Response: Because there are no monitored violations for the Riclumnd, Indiana 

area, no action is currently being taken on this area. 

3.2.5.6 Oneida County, WI Area 

Comment: EPA proposed one S02 nonattainrnent area for the State of Wisconsin. This 

is the area that was initially recormnended in a letter to EPA Region 5 on May 26, 2011. 

On January 23, 2013, however, the source responsible for the elevated S02 

concentrations submitted an application with the WDNR to install a natural gas boiler at 

their facility. Given this development, EPA should delay fmalization of the one 

nonattainment designation in Wisconsin at this time. This is the major source of S02 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 

of the nonattainrnent is removed or reduced. 

Regardless of the U.S. EPA's action regarding finalization of the nonattainment 

designation, the remainder of Oneida 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's Response: EPA is currently acting on designations for areas currently monitoring 

violations of the S02 NAAQS. See the Wisconsin TSD for further discussion of this 

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's Re,po11se: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for a nonattainment 

designation for St. Bemard Parish. 

Comment: One commenter believes that the rising sulfur levels in St. Bernard Parish are 

a result of the pollution allowed by Title 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 by the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) for the Rain CII facility and other plants and refmeries 

without appropriate review or without providing 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 

appear to be responsible for much of the elevated S02 levels in St. Bernard Parish (see 

our TSD 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 of the standard in St. Bernard Parish will be made through the nonattainment 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) process. The requirement to develop a nonattainment 

SIP is triggered by the nonattairm1ent designation. The nonattainment SIP, itself, is 

outside the scope of the 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 later than the 

statutory attainment date. Under the CAA, the State must provide the public the 

opportunity to comment on the 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 with the potential increase in S02 

emissions resulting from previously approved or proposed source modifications or 

expansions and previously approved variances, we note that this is also outside the scope 

Page 29 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013 

of the 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 directly to LDEQ on a permit by permit basis, during the public comment period 

for the proposed permit revision, as LDEQ's air permitting program has been approved 

by EPA into the Louisiana SIP. Concerns related to public pmticipation with regard to 

proposed source modifications and variance requests should also be raised to LDEQ. 

Comment: The commenter states that the SIP should address the potential increase in 

S02 emissions resulting fi·om petmit applications currently under administrative review, 

and from compliance with EPA's expected Tier 3 mandates and other future regulations. 

The commenter believes that modifications of sources in the area and new regulatory 

mandates expected in the near future should not cost the community what little good air 

is remaining. 

EPA's Response: We acknowledge the cormnenter's concerns related to the impact of 

future construction and/or modifications of sources in the area. The federal Clean Air Act 

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 

offset their new emissions so there is no net increase in S02 emissions in St. Bemard 

Parish. However, evaluation of potential S02 emissions increases resulting from 

applications under the New Source Review permitting program is outside the scope of the 

designations process. 

Furthennore, with respect to the cornrrienter's concern with the potential impact of source 

compliance with future federal air pollution regulations, we note that this is also outside 

the scope of the designations process and the nonattainment SIP development process. If 

compliance with any existing or future federal regulations will cause increases of S02 in 

the future, the LDEQ must take these 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 of at least 30 days after a new 

federal regulation is proposed. This may provide an appropriate venue for the commenter 

to raise concerns regarding potential increases in S02 emissions resulting fi·om 

compliance with those regulations. 

Comment: One commenter believes that the communities in St. Bernard Parish should 

have an opp011unity to attend public information sessions and provide input before any 

SIP decisions are made. 1he conm<enter believes that approp1i.ate contm\s are necessary 

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 

Parish by requiring all major sources to install technology that results in the lowest 

achievable emission rates; require emission reductions beyond what may akeady be 

Page 30 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013 

scheduled; require the operation of air monitors along the perimeter/fence-line of sources 

since monitored violations at fixed ambient air monitors can be dependent on wind 

direction; require the operation of cunent ambient air monitors beyond SIP and EPA 

consent decree timelines (in particular for the Valero Energy air monitor); and require 

operation of additional ambient air monitors (in patticular along the west bank of the 

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 of any penalties 

toward local projects that suppmt public health, local jobs, and community resettlement. 

EPA's Response: While issues related to the development ofnonattainment SIPs for the 

!-hour SO:! NAAQS are outside the scope of the designations process, we note that CAA 

section 172( c) desct"ibes the general requirements for nonattainment SIPs. Nonattainment 

SIPs generally contain requirements 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 of the NAAQS, enforceable emission limitations, and means 

or techniques as necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of the 1-hour S02 

standar·d. All new major sources and major modifications will be required to install 

technology that results in the lowest achievable emission rate. As the state air pollution 

control agency in Louisiana, LDEQ will have the responsibility to 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 oppmtunity for 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 EPA takes final action on 

the nonattainment SIP. 

With respect to the commenter' s monitoring concerns, the EPA requirements for the !-

hour S02 National 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 of three S02 monitors for any Core-based Statistical 

Area (CBSA) with a calculated Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI) value 

equal to or greater than 1,000,000. A PWEI uses population and emissions inventory data 

at the CBSA level to assign required monitm"ing for a given CBSA, with population and 

emissions being obvious relevant factors in prioritizing numbers of required monitors. 

The fmall-hour S02 NAAQS rule also requires a minimum of two S02 monitors for any 

CBSA with a calculated PWEI value equal to or greater than 100,000, but less than 

1,000,000. For any CBSA with a calculated PWEI value equal to or greater than 5,000, 

but less than I 00,000, a minimum of one S02 monitor is required within that CBS A. In 

the fmal S02 NAAQS rule, EPA stated that the monitors required within these 

breakpoints would provide a reasonable minimum number of monitors in a CBSA that 

considers the combination of population and emissions that exist in a CBS A. Based on 

Page 31 of63 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 09/05/2013 

the S02 monitoring network requirements in the final !-hour S02 NAAQS rule, no 

additional S02 monitors are required on the west bank of the 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 of regulatmy 

air monitoring requirements. Oppo1tunities for additional public input will be available as 

necessary changes to existing rules, if any, and guidance are developed. Additional 

information on EPA's S02 in1plementation plans 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 

network modifications, 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 decree between the facility and EPA to settle 

CAA violations. This monitor is operated and maintained by the facility, and is not a 

regulatmy air monitor. The requirements for operation of the Valero air monitor were 

established by the consent decree and because it is a non-regulatory monitor, the 

requirements for its operation are outside the scope of the 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 a negative quality oflife and 

health effects as a result of flaring events. 

EPA's Response: While issues related to the deadline for attainment are outside the 

scope of the designations process, the commenter appears to be refeiTing to the statutory 

deadline for areas designated nonattainment for the !-hour S02 NAAQS to attain the 

standard. CAA section 19l(a) requires states to develop and submit nonattainment SIPs 

to EPA within 18 months of the effective date of an area's nonattainment designation, 

demonstrating that the affected area will attain the standard by the applicable statutory 

attainment date. Under CAA section 192(a), areas designated nonattainment with respect 

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 with LDEQ in the development of the 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. 

Bemard Parish, noting that all three major sources in St. Bernard Parish contribute S02 

emissions and both the "Chalmette Vista" and the "Valero" air monitors have multiple 

violations of the 1-hour S02 standard. 

EPA's Response: 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 of people in the community is being negatively 

affected by high concentrations of S02• The commenter believes that industry has caused 

a disaster that was 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 states that both Valero Energy and ExxonMobil 

operate several other refineries in other areas using better control technology resulting 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's Response: EPA aclmowledges the commenter's support for a nonattainment 

designation for St. Bemard Parish. However, development of the nonattainment SIP and 

decisions on what control technology sources in the area must install are outside the 

scope of the 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 Parish will attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than the statutory attainment date. 

Comment: The commenter states that control technology that would reduce emissions 

resulting from plant startup/shutdown due to planned maintenance, unplanned 

malfunctions, and hurricane and other weather related events is available and should be 

required for sources in the area. The commenter states that in August 2012 in preparation 

for Hurricane Isaac, the ExxonMobil Chalmette plant and the Valero Energy Meraux 

plant had planned shutdowns and repmted emitting over 46 tons ofS02 and 1,102 pounds 

of S02 (respectively) from stmtup and shutdown procedures. The commenter adds that 

while huiTicane related events may result in a violation of the 1-hour S02 NAAQS, this 

goes undocumented because monitoring sites are taken down during hun-icanes for safety 

reasons. The commenter believes that industry in St. Bemm·d Parish should plan ahead 

and be properly equipped for weather related events. 

EPA's Response: 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 in the area is outside the scope 

of the designations process. As stated in a previous response, LDEQ in the SIP 

development process will determine which sources must install what pollution controls to 

meet applicable emission limits to attain the !-hour S02 standm·d. We encourage the 

commenter to pmticipate during the development of the SIP. Although out of the scope of 

the designations process, we also note that on Febmary 22, 2013, EPA published a notice 

in the Federal Register proposing to take action on a petition for mlemaking filed by the 

Sien-a Club on June 30, 2011 (see 78 FR 12460). The petition included inten·elated 

requests concerning the treatment of excess emissions in 39 states' existing SIP rules by 

stationary sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. In that proposed 

mJemaking, EPA specifically proposed to determine that Louisiana's existing SIP 

includes a number of provisions regarding the treatment of excess emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are inconsistent with the CAA. The 

EPA also simultaneously proposed a SIP call which upon 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 country to follow air pollution rules during times when the 

facility is sta1ting up or shutting down, or when a malfunction occurs. More information 

on EPA's proposed SIP call on startup, shutdown, and malfunction can be found at: 

http://www. epa. £Ov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/ emissions.htrnl. 

With regard to the commenter's concern with potential violations of the !-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 

only taken down temporarily and usually resume operations promptly following the 

hunicane event. We also note that during and following emergencies, EPA may deploy 

mobile air monitoring equipment to monitor and sample for substances that may be 

present in the environment. The decision whether to deploy these mobile air monitors is 

usually based on the emergency and determined on a case by case basis. Therefore, we 

expect that any major accidental releases of chemicals or emissions into the atmosphere 

that could potentially pose a serious threat to human health 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 Energy Meraux refmery are major contributors to nonattainment in St. 

Bernard Parish, stating that both the Chalmette Vista and Valero monitoring sites have 

many violations of the !-hour SOz NAAQS. The commenter states that the ExxonMobil 

Chalmette refinery in 2010 and 2011, and the Valero Energy Meraux refmery in 2011 

and 2012, emitted more S02 emissions than what each is permitted to emit. The 

cmmnenter also provides information on unpla1med flaring events at both the 

ExxonMobil Chalmette refinery and the Valero Energy Meraux refinery, 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 toward the monitors. 

EPA's Response: 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 our Technical Suppmt Document found in 

Docket ID Nb. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-2033). In making our decision to designate St. 

Bernard Parish nonattainment, we considered the three most recent years of certified data 

from regulatmy ambient air monitors, as well as certain other factors. However, in 

detennining that the St. Bernard Parish area was in violation of the NAAQS for purposes 

of designations, we did not take 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 many respects, the data does not meet 

the requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendices A, C, and E. Because ambient air quality 

data used by the EPA for establishing violations of the NAAQS must meet the 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendices A, C, and E, EPA cannot consider data from 

Page 34 of63 
Electronic Filing - Racived, Clark's Offica: 09/0512013 

the Valero monitor for purposes of establishing NAAQS violations for designation 

purposes. 

Comment: The commenter states that the Chalmette Vista monitor, located nmth of 

ExxonMobil and Rain CII, demonsh·ates violations of the 1-hour S02 NAAQS and shows 

that both sources are major contributors to nonattairunent. The commenter notes 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 both the Meraux and Valero air monitors, with 

violations at the Valero air monitor. 

EPA's Response: As can be seen in the analysis presented in our TSD, which can be 

found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-2033, we agree with the commenter that 

Rain CII and ExxonMobil appear to conttibute to the violations recorded at the Chalmette 

Vista monitor. EPA established the !-hour S02 standard at a level of75 patts per billion 

(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual991

h percentile of !-hour daily maximum 

concentrations. In making its designation decisions, EPA must consider the three most 

recent years of certified data fr·om regulatory ambient air monitors, as well as certain 

other factors. Louisiana based its 2011 designation reconunendations on 2008-201 0 air 

monitoring data because at the time those were the three most recent years for which 

certified air monitoring data was available. Since certified 20 II air monitoring data 

became available by the time EPA proposed its designations in February 2013, EPA 

proposed and is now finalizing its S02 designation decision for St. Bernard Patish based 

on a violation of the NAAQS 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 with the commenter that the 

monitor's 2009-2011 design value of287 parts per billion (ppb) is significantly above the 

standard of? 5 ppb. 

Although EPA is designating St. Bernard Parish nonattainment, we note that in malting 

that decision EPA did not take into consideration for purposes of establishing NAAQS 

violations any data from the Valero air monitor referenced by the commenter, as it is not 

a regulatory monitor. The Valero monitor is a community air monitoring station that was 

installed by the facility as part of a 2010 consent decree with EPA to settle CAA 

violations, and is operated and maintained by the facility. Although we believe the data 

fr·om the Valero monitor is informational in many respects, the data does not meet the 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 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 demonstrate that recent plant modifications at the Valero Energy 

Meraux refinery have resulted in increased SOz concentrations. The commenter notes that 

the 2012 highest annuall-hour SOz concentration of 59 ppb at the Meraux air monitor, as 

well as four consecutive 5-minute readings above 75 ppb, took place around the same 

time as the Valero Energy Meraux refmery reported flaring. The commenter notes 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 or playing. 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 

contributor to violations of the !-hour S02 NAAQS at both the Valero and Meraux air 

monitors as well as at the elementmy school, that there is a need to implement long-term 

solutions, and that the Valero air monitor could potentially in the future demonstrate 

nonattairnnent if there are no further emissions reductions at the Valero Energy Meraux 

refmery. 

EPA's Response: As stated in a previous response, EPA is basing its decision to 

designate St. Bernm·d Parish nonattainment on the three most recent years of certified 

data from regulat01y air monitors in the m·ea. As discussed in our Technical Supp01t 

Document, we considered 2009-2011 data from the three regulatory monitors in the m·ea: 

the Chahnette Vista, Chahnette High School, and Meraux monitors. Although we 

acknowledge the comrnenter's concerns regarding exceedances of the !-hour S02 

standard at the Meraux air monitor, out of the three monitors only the Chalmette Vista 

monitor is violating the !-hour S02 standard based on 2009-2011 air monitoring data. 

The TSD explains in further detail what sources appear to be contributing to violations at 

the Chalmette Vista monitor. As stated in a previous response, as part of the SIP 

development process, LDEQ must detennine which sources in the area must install what 

controls to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the 

statuto1y attainment date. EPA anticipates working with LDEQ in this process. 

With respect to the Valero air monitor, although we believe the data from the Valero 

monitor is infonnational in many respects, the data does not meet the requirements in 40 

CPR Part 58 Appendices A, C, and E. Because ambient air quality data used by the EPA 

for establishing violations of the NAAQS must meet the requirements in 40 CPR Pmt 58 

Appendices A, C, and E, EPA cannot consider data from the Valero monitor for purposes 

of establishing NAAQS violations for designation purposes. 

Comment: The conm1enter states that high S02levels were also monitored at LDEQ's 

former air monitoring sites, and provides info1mation on the 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 Parish demonstrates the need for deploying 

monitors on the west bank of the Mississippi River. 

EPA's Response: As explained in a previous response, current Federal air monitoring 

requirements do not require that an S02 monitor be located on the west bank of the 

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 of the S02 

standard, including evaluation of air monitoring requirements. Opportunities for 

additional public input will be available as necessary changes to existing rules, if any, and 

guidance are developed. Additional information on EPA's S02 implementation plans 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 of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

http://www. epa. ,;tov/ oaqpsOO I /sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20 !30207S02StrategyPaper.pdf. 

Fmthermore, EPA conducts a comprehensive annual review to ensure that the state has a 

monitoring network in place that meets the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 and 

its appendices. The public "'ill be able find the public notice for LDEQ's Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan by June I, 2013, at 

http://www.deq.Jouisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/default.asp. Part 58 provides at a minimum 

a 30-day public inspection oppmtunity for every annual monitoring network plan 

presented by the States and local agencies that develop the plans; moreover, whenever a 

plan proposes network modifications, a public comment opportunity is furnished by 

either the State or EPA. We invite future public pmticipation from this commenter and 

others when these opportunities are provided. 

Comm eu t: 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 states that as the public 

trustee under the State Constitution, LDEQ has a duty to require state-of-the-ait 

technology and additional monitoting to ensure that the air permit lintits of the three 

major sources in the area are maintained. 

EPA's Response: We acknowledge the commenter's concerns related to high monitored 

S02 concentrations in St. Bernard Parish, however, we note that LDEQ's duties under 

state statute are outside the scope of the 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 state they are residents of St. 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 damage both to 

people's health and to residences in the area. The corrunenter believes it is time for 

industry to address this issue. 

EPA's Response: 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 SIP that includes controls for sources in the area and 

contains an attainment demonstration showing St. Bemard Parish will attain the standard 

by the statut01y attainment date. 

Comment: The commenter believes that when EPA mandates gasoline sulfur reduction, 

this may result in lower tailpipe emissions but it also results in high levels of sulfur 

emissions at centralized locations sunounding the refineries. The conunenter argues that 

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 technology that will provide the intended goal of sulfur emissions 

reductions. 

EPA's Response: As stated in a previous response, issues related to the potential impact 

of source compliance with new federal air pollution regulations are outside the scope of 

the designations process. If compliance with the EPA gasoline sulfur reduction 

requirements results in higher levels of sulfur emissions at refineries in St. Bernard 

Parish, in the development of the nonattainment SIP the LDEQ must take these increases 

into consideration and ensure that the control measures in the SIP wiU put the Parish into 

attainment by the 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 of at 

least 30 days after a new federal regulation is proposed. 

Comment: While the commenter agrees with the designation of St. Bemard Parish as 

nonattainment, the commenter disagrees with how EPA referred to that area as the "New 

Orleans Area." The commenter states that labeling the "New Orleans Area" as 

nonattainment without the inclusion of a specific political boundary or definition will 

cause confusion. The commenter asks EPA to either remove its label of St. Bernard 

Parish as the "New Orleans Area," or change the label to "New Orleans Metropolitan 

Statistical Area" 

EPA's Response: EPA apologizes for any confusion, our reference to the "New Orleans 

Area" may have made with respect to designations, and we are clarifying that we are 

initially designating only St. Bemard Parish nonattainment. References to the "New 

Orleans Area" have been conected accordingly. 

3.2.6.2 General Comments on Texas 

Comment: The commenter reinforces the 2012 recommendation for an attainment 

designation for ten counties and an unclassifiable designation for all remaining counties 

i.n 1"exas. 1"he commenter believes that EPA should designate areas in 1"exas i.n 

accordance with Governor Rick Perry's 2012 recommendations. In support of this 

position, the commenter provides 2009-2011 design values and prelirninmy 2010-2012 

. design values for these ten counties, stating that the data demonstrate the design values 

continue to trend downward. The conunenter also expresses appreciation for EPA's 

Page 38 of 63 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 08/0512013 

willingness to work with states regarding implementation of the 1-hour S02 NAAQS and 

for the flexibility being provided on the implementation schedule for tllis NAAQS. 

EPA's Response: 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 

consideration the 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 of the 1-

hour S02 standard. We are not yet prepared to issue final designations for other types 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 of the 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 S01 implementation strategy can be found at the 

following websites: Sulfur Dioxide Implementation -Programs and Requirements for 

Reducing Sulfur Dioxide http://www.epa. gov/oaqpsOO lfsulfi.!rdioxide/implement.htm1 

and at Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001fsulfurdioxide/pdfs/20130207S02StrategvPaper.pdf. 

3.2.7. EPA Region 7 

3.2.7.1. Muscatine County Area 

Comment: One commenter supports EPA's proposed designation of Muscatine County, 

Iowa as nonattainment for sulfur dioxide (S02), as described in the EPA Responses to 

State and Tribal 20 10 SOz Designation Recommendations. 

The commenter supports the designation of the entire county as nonattainment, rather 

than some subset of the county. In addition, the Council suppmts a consideration of a 

portion of Louisa County as nonattainment because an area of Louisa County is likely 

contributing to the violation of air quality standards in Muscatine County. The 

MidAmerican Louisa coal plant is located just south of Muscatine County in Louisa 

County. According to Iowa DNR, this coal plant enlitted 7,075 tons of sulfur dioxide in 

2010. It is likely necessary fur EPA to designate as nonattainment the portion of Louisa 

County that includes this large source of sulfur dioxide emissions in the final 

nonattainment designation in order to ensure the NAAQS for Muscatine County is met in 

future years. 

The Commenter urges EPA to designate a pmtion of Louisa County as in nonattainment 

for contributing to air quality violations in Muscatine County. There is a small section of 

Louisa County that is adjacent to and just south of Muscatine County that includes a large 

source of sulfur dioxide emissions. The source is MidAmerican Energy's Louisa 

Generating Station, located less than 2 nliles from the Muscatine County boundary. In 

fact, a portion of the contiguous property associated with this coal plant, which stores dry 

coal ash, appears to be in Muscatine 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 of the 2010 S02 

NAAQS. Accordingly, the commenter recommends that the recommended nonattainment 

area boundary of Muscatine County be expanded as to include the po1tion of Louisa 

County with 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 nearby pmtions 

that are excluded fi:om the recommended nonattainment area" and that "excluded pmtions 

do not contain emission sources that contribute to the monitored or modeled violation." 

Since the Louisa Generating Station is a major source of S02 emissions that contributes 

to Muscatine County's nonattainment, it would be inappropriate not to include it in a 

nonattainment designation. 

EPA's Re•p<mse: The EPA's proposal to include all of Muscatine County as the 

presumptive nonattaimnent area boundary was based on the EPA's determination that the 

Musser Park monitor was reporting nonattainment with the NAAQS. Following the 

EPA's proposal, IDNR performed a technical analysis suppmting a revised 

nonattainment boundaty and provided EPA this analysis as a comment to our proposal. 

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 of the LGS facility for its contribution at the violating monitor. The LGS 

facility is located south of the violating monitor, which is the general direction of the 

sources implicated by IDNR's wind rose analysis as causing or contributing to the 

violations detected at the Musser Park monitor. However, since EPA's February 2013 

letter (our "120-day letter") to Iowa indicating that EPA plarmed to modify Iowa's 2011 

recommendation did not address this source, we m·e not yet prepared to conclude in tllis 

fmal designation action that the emissions fi·om the LGS facility contribute to the 

monitored violation or to other possible violations, and we will make fmal designations 

decisions for areas outside Muscatine County in a subsequent round of final designations. 

CAA section 107(d)(l)(B)(ii) requires that before issuing a final designation that includes 

a modification to a state's recommendation, EPA must give the state at least 120 days 

notice of such a modification. As we have not yet provided such notice 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 nonattainment boundary, and 

will address final designations for these areas and their sources in the future. 

Comment: If EPA chooses not to include the m·ea of Louisa County that encompasses the 

Louisa Generating Station in its nonattaimnent designation, EPA must at the minimum 

require the state to include controls for the Louisa Generating Station in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The Clean Air Act requires that nonattainment plan provisions 

must "provide for the implementation of all 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, of reasonably 

available control teclmology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary 

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 previously cited section of the Clean Air Act refers to the general 

area that could affect air quality in the designated nonattainment area. If SIPs were only 

required to place controls solely on sources within the designated nonattainment area, the 

Clean Air Act would not specifically refer to "nonattainment area" later in the same 

section. 

EPA's Response: The CAA allows states the discretion to implement specific control 

strategies that demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS in each nonattainment area. The 

EPA will review Iowa's future State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted in response to 

the EPA's 20 l 0 S02 Primary N AAQS initial boundary designation, and detemline 

whether the SIP adequately demonstrates that the nonattainment area will attain the 

NAAQS in an expeditious manner, in accordance with Sections 110, 172 and 192 of the 

Clean Air Act and relevant guidance. The issue of the adequacy of the SIP for the initial 

Muscatine nonattainment area is not yet ripe, as the SIP has not yet been developed by 

Iowa or submitted to EPA for 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 of designations, 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 of effective 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 of our air quality laws, air is 

not stagnant and moves to cover all citizens who reside in our county ... Clean Air 

Muscatine (CLAM) therefore suppmis such designation and, and sees no viable 

alternative to a county-wide designation." 

EPA's Response: The EPA acknowledges the concems of this commenter, but finds that 

the technical analysis performed by the IDNR that included an analysis of monitoring 

data, meteorological data, wind roses, proximity of sources to the violating monitor and 

the sources' magnitude of emissions supports a smaller initial nonattainment area 

boundary. This boundary includes the Muscatine County sources that EPA has 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 of Muscatine County that 

Mid American Corporation has proposed for the constmction of a new nuclear power 

plant or natural gas power plant. 

EPA's Response: The EPA bases its nonattainment boundary designations upon sources 

contributing to a violation ofthe NAAQS and not upon futnre sonrces of emissions. 

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 power plant. 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. EPA Region 8 

3.2.8.1. General Comments 

Comment: One commenter says EPA should move forward with the revocation of the 

older 802 standards (annual and 24-hour). However, since the revocation has been tied 

to the designation process, which has been pushed out to 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's Response: The 2010 S02 NAAQS mlemaking established how EPA would move 

forward with the revocation of the 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 of its initial area designation under 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 of the 2010 NAAQS' 

promulgation, or that were still subject to a SIP Call under the prior NAAQS, revocation 

of the p1ior NAAQS will not occm until such areas develop and submit, under CAA 

section 191, and EPA approves, a SIP showing attainment ofthe 1-hourNAAQS. 40 

CFR 50.4(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 outside the scope of this limited designations action to consider any amendment to the 

NAAQS provisions that established how revocation of the prior NAAQS would occur. 

We ceiiainly did not, in our proposed designations, indicate any intent to reopen section 

50.4(e) or to reconsider the fmal decisions reached on this issue in the 2010 NAAQS 

mlemaking. However, regardless of when and whether revocation of the p1ior NAAQS 

occurs, we note that in the preamble to the 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 both those in the State's SIP and 

those that have been promulgated by EPA in FIPs. This will ensure that both the new 

nonattainment NSR requirements and the general confonnity requirements for a revised 

standard are in place so that there will be no gap in the public health protections provided 

by these two programs. It will also ensure that all nonattainment areas under the annual 

and/or 24-hour NAAQS and all areas for which SIP calls have been issued will continue 

to be protected by currently required control measures. See 75 FRat 35580-82. 

As mentioned above, EPA's rules provide that the annual and 24-hour NAAQS remain in 

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 of a 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 of the new S02 NAAQS. This, we 

explained in the fmal2010 802 NAAQS preamble, in combination with the CAA 

mechanisms provided in section II 0(1), 193, and 172(e) will help to ensure that continued 

progress is made toward timely attainment of the S02 NAAQS. No one timely 

challenged EPA's conclusions regarding this approach, and we are not revisiting them in 

this initial designations action. 

Comment: One commenter discusses that in the past, EPA has indicated it would seek to 

use dispersion modeling to make attainment designations for the !-hour S02 NAAQS. 

(see EPA's proposed "Guidance for !-Hour S02 NAAQS SIP Submissions.") The 

conunenter continues that dispersion modeling of emissions can greatly over predict the 

pollutant concentrations. Several commenters state that dispersion modeling is a tool that 

would be best used for planning decisions and not for area designations. 

EPA's Response: In this final designations action regarding areas with monitored 

violations of the 2010 S02 NAAQS, we are not reaching any conclusions about liow to 

use dispersion modeling as a tool for either designations or planning decisions. However, 

we do not agree that it is appropriate to now conclude that modeling is not a tool 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 a NAAQS violation. Our historical approach to S02 designations and 

implementation through pemuts and emission limitations has involved a combination of 

both monitoring and modeling. If commenters have objections regarding any future use 

of dispersion modeling in a future proposed designations action, they should raise those 

concerns at that time. Such issues are outside the scope of this 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's Response: The Crow Tribe 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 802 emissions sources that we are currently prepared, based on 

monitoring data, to conclude are contl~buting to the design value at the violating monitor 

in Billings. Therefore, EPA is not including the Crow Tribe of Montana's areas of Indian 

country in the initial Billings, MT nonattainment area. The EPA is not designating any 

areas as unclassifiable in the current round of designations. EPA will designate these 

areas in a future round of final designations. 

Comment: Multiple commenters discuss that a 'nonattainment' designation would have 

serious current and future economic impacts on businesses and the community in 

Yellowstone County. 

Page 43 of63 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

EPA's Response: 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 county of Yellowstone to a smaller area in Billings. This infonnation can be found 

in Region 8's technical support document (TSD) that is included in the docket for this 

action. With respect to impacts on the local economy and businesses, such issues are not 

relevant for designations actions, but the State has flexibility under the CAA to consider 

such impacts as it develops the control strategy to bring the area into attainment of the 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, or even certain if the standard was exceeded at the Coburn Monitor. 

Another comment is that the EPA has not been able 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 premature to 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 of reproducibility and repeatability when using carefully collected 

"one of a kind" data can have significant unintended consequences. A parallel analyzer 

operating at the same location could readily provide a running plausibility check on the 

measurements and it would be under identical conditions, as to acknowledge causes of 

en·or. Replication is not infeasible temporally or spatially. 

EPA's Response: The EPA has quality assmance regulations that can be found in 40 

CFRpart 58 Appendices A- G. Additional infmmation and references can also be found 

in the document titled "Quality Assmance Handbook for Pollution Measurement 

Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program." Montana DEQ has an 

approved Quality Management Progr= and EPA routinely conducts Technical Systems 

Audits of Montana's monitoring program. The State has provided 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 an additional concern regarding Coburn Road data 

for a nonattainment designation regarding the lack of a reliable method to detect and 

address cases of transient monitor malfunction or the influence of other 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 in place are specifically designed with the 500 ppb standard in mind; 

values near 75 ppb are not automatically considered extreme values. The previously 

satisfactmy range of I ,000 ppb was too high in relation to the 75 ppb standru·d, since it 

would be in the lowest 10% of that range. The lower and upper extremes of the range are 

most susceptible to precision errors, and analyzers generally perfmm most reliably in the 

middle of the range. The commenter discusses that if an analyzer cannot provide an 

appropriate range for the regulatory concentrations then another one should be added. 

Page 44 of63 
Elactronic Filing- Racivad. Clark's OfficE!: 08/0512013 

MDEQ had several cases of transient problems detected before 2011. The commenter 

discusses an occurrence of a 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 of Emissions 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 umemarkable reading before the calibration. An hour after the calibration, the 

monitor showed the highest value for the entire 2012 year, but then the following hour 

read close to the value taken one hour before the calibration. The commenter concludes 

that the reading taken I hour inlmediately following the calibration was an outlier, which 

could have been caused by an undetected 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. Without the high reading, the 99 percentile value would drop 

to 55 ppb. If 55 ppb were used 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 prior to August 23, 2010, when monitors were operated and configured to 

evaluate a higher standard, should not be used to detennine compliance with the new !-

hour standard. Calculation of a defensible design value based on 2010-2012 is 

impossible and determination should be done with 2011-2013 data. 

EPA ·'s Re~ponse: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Montana DEQ has conducted 

audits at the Cobmn Road monitor 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 under the management of Montana DEQ. 

The data point that the commenter described in 2012 as an outlier is outside the 

designations years of2009-2011. However, this data point was reviewed by both the 

State and EPA. It was detern1ined that thls exceedance was coincidentally after an hourly 

calibration check and that the exceedance was not caused by the 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 of this, 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 comment pertaining to the 

"February 2002 Development of Emissions Inventory Methods for Wildland Fire" is 

outside the scope of this designation action. 

Table I 

Page 45 of63 
Eh:!ctronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013 

Montana DEQ's Historical 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: One commenter 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 "not meeting 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 of these small states nonattainrnent if only one monitor showed a 

violation when others showed attainment. Additionally, the EPA should show equal 

consideration to the rest of Yellowstone 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 smaller than 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 EPA to propose a 

countywide nonattainment boundary, but the commenter' s objection has been rendered 

moot by the 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 on what a nonattainment area boundary should be 

in Yellowstone County. On April3, 2013, the State ofMontana provided additional 

inf01mation, which included a five-fuctor analysis, on the entire county proposal in 

response to EPA's preliminary decision. Based on an analysis of the data provided by the 

State and commenters, in conjunction with the five-factor analysis, EPA determined that 

a partial county initial designation was approp1iate instead of the entire county. EPA 

made the fmal designations for the 2010 !-hour S02 NAAQS using an evaluation of the 

recommended five-factors described in designations guidance that was issued by EPA 

through a March 24, 2011, memorandum fi·om Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA, 

Office of Air Quality Planning 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 or local regulators, or affected indusl!y, the chance to address 

the issues proactively. Even given this shmt time period, MDEQ prepared a compelling 

TSD. However, EPA did not adequately considerMDEQ's analysis or statutory context 

of a nonattainment area when proposing the entire Yellowstone County (excluding the 

Crow Reservation) nonattainment. The COI1ll11enter concludes that this is a direct 

contradiction of the intent of the 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 of area-specific analyses conducted 

by other entities that would be impacted by a nonattainment designation, although statute 

allows input 11-om others to a certain extent. 

EPA's Response: The March 2011 Designations Guidance memo identifies that CAA 

section 1 07( d) provides EPA the authority to make modifications that it deems necessary 

to the recommended designations of areas 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 of designations where 

"Promulgation or announcement of a designation under paragraph (1), (4) or (5) shall not 

be subject to the provisions of sections 553 throngh 557 of Title 5 (related to notice and 

comment), except nothing herein shall be constmed as precluding such public notice and 

comment whenever possible." Therefore, EPA can provide a public conunent period for 

interested parties but is not required to do so. The EPA encourages impacted 

stakeholders to work with their state officials to coordinate an appropriate 

recommendation or response to any EPA proposed boundary modifications during the 

designations process. 

Comment: Commenters discuss current and historical data, which are showing 

compliance with the new 1-hour standard and carmot be part of a nonattainment ar·ea. 

Five of the six monitors in the Billings/Laurel area show compliance and they are located 

within close proximity to major S02 sources. The Co bum Road monitor was in 

compliance in 2007-2009, but only indicated a violation in 2010. Evaluation of other 

monitoring sites that were in operation since 2000-2006, but are no longer in service, 

were all disconnected due to low S02 concentrations. All these sites had 99'h percentile 

values and 3-year averages below the standard. The commenter points 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 were below the new 1-hour standar·d. These old monitoring areas, 

west and southwest ofPPL, should be an attainment area. 

EPA's Response: The EPA agrees that the initial nonattainment area should be revised 

to be smaller than a countywide boundary. However, historical data can only be used for 

Page 47 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

inf01mational purposes and non-regulato1y monitors cannot be used for purposes of 

establishing a NAAQS violation for designations. The June 22, 2010 final NAAQS rule 

(75 FR 35520) 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 of the standard, than to years when !-hour S02 

concentrations are just above the level of the 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 of Montana and industry have taken 

a proactive approach to S02 issues in Yellowstone County and now it appears they are 

being punished with immediate, retroactive nonattainment designation for diligently 

monitoring S02 concentrations in the area. Montana was not specifically required 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 potential problems in the 

meantime and avoid a nonattainment designation. 

EPA's Response: The CAA requires EPA to complete area designations within two 

years after promulgation of anew or revised NAAQS, with a possible one year extension. 

Further, the form of the 20 I 0 !-hour NAAQS is a three year average. Therefore, 

designation decisions based on the most recent three years ofS02 monitoring data 

necessitate using data collected prior to the standard being fmalized in June 2010. Based 

on valid S02 monitoring data from 2009-20 I 1 a nonattainment area designation is 

waiTanted for part of Billings, Montana pe1taining to the Co bum Road monitor. The 

Coburn Road monitor is appropriate to be used for this designations process because it is 

an approved regulatOiy monitor by both the State and EPA. The State is under an 

approved Quality Management Program, where EPA routinely conducts a Teclmical 

System Audit 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 

by the EPA. The EPA expects to be able to proceed with designation actions in these 

areas without violating monitors once additional data are gathered. Additional 

information on EPA's still developing S02 implementation strategy can be found at the 

following websites: Sulfur Dioxide 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 of the Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

http://www .epa. gov/ oagpsOO I /sulfurdioxide/pdfs/2 0 13 0207SO 2StrategyP a per. pdf. 

Comment: One commenter discusses that since the standard did not become 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 if it meets strict 

technical and quality standards. Because the standard was not in place until after August 

Page 48 of63 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

23, 2010, three of the four quarters (and thus 2010) are incomplete by defmition in 40 

CFR Part 50, Appendix T. The first three quar1ers were designed and operated for the 

regulatmy purpose of measuring an older, substantially higher NAAQ8 of 500 ppb and 

thus use of the 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 of the 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 "ex post facto" application of law and the lack of effective 

notice is a selective and arbitrary denial of effective due process. The commenter quotes 

"It is a commonplace of administrative law that ' [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'l Min. Ass'n v. Dep't 

of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 859 (DC Cir. 2002))). The language of the NAAQ8 statute does 

not provide for retroactive application. Instead, the statute provides additional time if 

needed to make determinations and allows an unclassifiable designation when 

insufficient data are available. Thus EPA's nonattainment designation determines 

compliance with a new rule based on past behavior that was not subject to the rule for 

which compliance is being measured. The commenter concludes that EPA cannot apply 

the 802 rule retroactively to emissions that complied with the previous standm·d and must 

instead use data gathered when the new rule is in effect to determine compliance. 

EPA's Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter. There were no specific changes 

made in the Quality Assurance requirements for 802 monitoring in 40 CFR Part 58 

Appendix A for the new 1-hour S02 NAAQS. Thus data collected prior to June 2010 

when the new 1-hour 802 NAAQS was finalized meet the same 802 Quality Assurance 

requirements as S02 data collected after the !-hour NAAQ8 was finalized. Montana 

DEQ conducted audits at the Coburn Road 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 of audit values Montana DEQ used, and 

therefore, EPA finds the 2009-2011 data robust enough to be reliable for a 75 ppb 

standm·d. 

EPA also disagrees v.~th the commenter's suggestion that using valid data that predates 

the new NAAQS for purposes of subsequent designations under the NAAQS somehow 

renders the NAAQ8 retroactive in its effect. Designations by their 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 plan that may (or may not) include new futureapplicable emissions limitations. And those limits will not be established or impose 

binding obligations on air pollution sources before separate state and federal action is 

taken to 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 any way. Moreover, adopting the commenter's view on this issue 

would render it in1possible for either states or EPA to 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 of monitoring could mn and 

generate certified and submitted data. Such a reading cannot be reasonable. 

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. EPA found the data Ji'om the non-regulatory monitors in the Uinta 

Basin were inadequate to make a nonattainment designation, although they were 

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 of the 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. If the 

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 from the 75 ppb standard as extreme values. The 

Co bum Road monitor was not designed or operated for the regulatmy purpose of 

measuring compliance with the 7 5 ppb standard. The three-year average 99th percentile 

value for 2009-2011 is 79 ppb, only 4 ppb above the 75 ppb standard. The potential bias 

range for the Co bum Road 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 error range, it 

is not known whether the area is exceeding the standard. Thus this data is insufficient to 

designate the 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 if the 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 before the 

effective date of the new NAAQS, EPA must designate Yellowstone County as 

unclassifiable. 

EPA's Response: The specific circumstances leading to the EPA's conclusions that data 

from the Uinta Basin monitors were non-regulatory were unique to those monitors, and 

included the lack of approval of a monitoring QAPP by the EPA and a lack of complete 

quality assured data showing an ozone NAAQS violation. The Uinta Basin ozone 

monitors referred to in this comment did not have an approved Quality l\.ssurance 

oversight program at the time of designations for the 2008 ozone standard. In addition, 

ozone monitors in the Uinta Basin did not have three years of data available at the time of 

designations. The monitor at Co bum Road is operated under a Quality Management Plan 

by the State of Montana, and has generated three calendar years of data. Montana's 

historical audit levels are discussed in a separate response and summarized in Table 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 Co bum Road monitor, have shown compliance with the previous 500 ppb 

standard since 2001. 

EPA·'s Response: The comment is outside the scope of this 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 only marginally in 

violation, is in an atypical location, and it will virtnally be in compliance from 20 II 

forward. 

EPA's Re5ponse: The EPA disagrees that there was a 'marginal' violation of the !-hour 

S02 standard. Per the CAA section l07(d)(l)(A)(i) a nonattainment area is any area that 

does not meet the national priroary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the 

pollutant or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the standard. The design 

value for designations for the period 2009-20 II 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 maximum concentration of S02 

for the area, which would better protect public health, and approved by EPA into the 

State's monitoring network. The 79 ppb design value for the Co bum Road 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 opportnnity to demonstrate or achieve 

compliance in the future, the State of Montana and .Yellowstone County should be 

afforded the same opportunity. 

EPA's Response: The EPA disagrees that parts ofY ellowstone County should not be 

designated during this initial designations process. 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 greater than 

the new !-hour S02 standard, in accordance with CAA section l07(d)(l)(A)(i), this area 

should be designated as nonattainment. We are not prepared 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 be considered 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 of the 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 not require EPA 

to designate nonattairunent, nor is there anything that requires EPA to modifY state 

recommendations. 

EPA's Response: 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 national primary or 

seconda1y ambient air quality standard for the pollutant or that contributes to a nearby 

area that does not meet the standard. The defmition ofunclassifiable is any area that 

carmot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting the NAAQS. EPA's 

review of the available info1mation concludes that there is no lack of information that 

would justifY any action, in accordance with CAA section 107, for the area around the 

violating Coburn Road monitor other than a nonattainment designation. Our TSD 

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 of current air quality 

and with the lower emissions, reduced compared to 2010 emissions, the area would be 

attaining. 

EPA's Response: 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 not provide any new info1mation, the EPA based its 

designation ofnonattainment on 2009-2011 design value that is in violation of the 

NAAQS, consistent with the other areas that EPA is designating as nonattaimnent at this 

time. 

Comment: Multiple commenters state that 2011-2013 data would provide the EPA a 

clearer picture of emissions in Yellowstone County. This would show Yellowstone 

County as currently attaining. Another conrmenter states that 2011-2013 would be the 

first period in which 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 on the three years 2009-20 II) for the Coburn Road 

monitor in Yellowstone County violates that standard at 79 ppb. For this initial 

designation mlemaking, EPA is 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 on the three years 2010-20 I 2) also violates the standard at 78 ppb. Since 

the Co bum Road monitor has a design value greater than the new !-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 in these 

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 of the new !-hour 

S02NAAQS. 

Comment: Multiple conunenters question the reliability and representativeness of201 0 

data, and the data set of2009-2011 used by EPA, at the Co bum Road 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 of the exceedances for 2009-2011 were in 

2010. From 2008-2012, 70% of highest monitored concentrations were in 2010 and fi·om 

this same period that the average for 2010 was 13 ppb higher than the other four-year 

averages. This same cornmenter discusses that the standard deviation of 99th percentile 

over the past six years ranges from 63.2 ppb- 88.1 ppb, which represents reasonable 

values and any data outside ofthis range should be considered outliers. From this 2007, 

2008, and 2010 are questionable. Therefore, the 2010 monitoring data from Cobum 

Road monitor should not be used for the designations process. 

EPA's Respome: The EPA disagrees. While the numbers of exceedances 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 by the State show that the monitor was reading correctly and that the data 

are valid. The potential for inter-annual variability in data is a key reason that NAAQS 

compliance is detennined by using a three-year average form of the standard (using 

consecutive years), so it is inappropriate to further account for variability by selecting 

specific years to use or to discard. 

Comment: Multiple cornmenters discuss that S02 values for 2010 were influenced by 

the requirement under an EPA, State of Montana and ExxonMobil consent decree for 

catalyst testing at ExxonMobil and that the data is not representative of cunent or future 

concentrations. A commenter also discusses that 2008 is not representative due to early 

catalyst testing at ExxonMobil under the consent decree. Another cornmenter discusses 

that the consent decree driven emissions increase in 2010 cotTesponds directly to a 

majority of the documented NAAQS exceedances, 10 of 16, for the 2009-2011 timeperiod. 

EPA's Respome: 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 of exceedances. 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 of the 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 County until full, reliable data is collected. Another 

commenter asse11s that the EPA improperly concluded in their TSD that the 2009-2011 

dataset provides adequate evidence of emissions of cun·ent and future years and is not 

indicative of current and future nonattainment of the 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 pmt to 

avoid a needless rush to judgment 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 emission reductions. Another commenter discusses that it would 

be reasonable to presume that the CAA does not expect a state to revise their SIP when 

federal requirements in a consent decree interfere with attainment ( 42 USC § 

741 O(a)(3)(C)). 

EPA's Response: The EPA is not designating any m·eas of the counl!-y as unclassifiab]e 

with this 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 design value years. In Region 

8's TSD, EPA discusses that the consent decree between ExxonMobil, the State of 

Montana, and EPA was not the cause of exceedances in 2010. Since the Coburn Road 

monitor has a design value for 2009-2011 greater than the new !-hour S02 standard, in 

accordance with CAA section I 07(d)(l )(A)(i), this area is appropriately designated as 

nonattainment. 

Comment: Multiple commenters discuss PPL-Montana's plan to mothball the Corette 

power plant in April2015 because of upcoming 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 of the !-hour standard 

when PPL was offline or even when winds were from other directions other than from the 

southwest. Therefore, the monitor data will decrease drastically and remain low 

indefinitely as a direct result ofPPL's power plant being mothballed. The commenters 

further discuss that ifPPL were to decide to resume operations, they would frrst need to 

demonstrate compliance with the new Mercury Air Toxics (MATS) rule, and thus 

installation of a baghouse would be necessary. The commenters discuss that the 

baghouse will incidentally reduce S02 emissions, on top of the captw·e achieved by the 

current Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP), by capturing particles and ash material, and 

perhaps I 0% of S02 could be captured on this material. They conclude that I 0% is very 

significant since PPL accounted for about 90% of emissions to the Coburn Road monitor 

site during 20!0. Reductions ofS02 necessary to achieve demonstrated compliance are 

not very large and a small tonnage reduction can be very significant. 

Page 54 of63 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

EPA's Re.1ponse: The EPA agrees that if the Corette power plant were to be mothballed 

that the overall emissions in the area would be reduced. However, PPL does not plan to 

mothball or add controls until April2015, or April2016 if the 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 of the 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 on the part ofPPL and MDEQ with respect 

to the designations decision. Other areas are being granted this deferral under the Next 

Steps policy statement by EPA. Another commenter discusses that, if provided 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's Response: The EPA agrees that PPL and MDEQ should be working to reduce 

S02 emissions from the Corette power plant, 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 of this final action, are to be treated should be raised in response to 

our future proposed designations for those areas. The Coburn Road monitor is violating 

the !-hour S02 standard for 2009-2011 based on valid data and is appropriately 

designated nonattainment with this mlemaking. 

Comment: One commenter discusses that the nonattainment area should extend only a 

few thousand feet nmtheast of Coburn Road monitor, stopping short of the elevation 

contour of lower Co bum monitor, Brickyard monitor, Lockwood Park monitor, 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 or violations at Co bum Road monitor. The 

commenter went further to discuss that when Phillips66 or CHS were online but not PPL 

Corette, there were no exceedances. The commenter also noted that there were still 

exceedances when Westem Sugar was offline but only when PPL was online. Thus the 

nonattainment area should extend out from contributing source, PPL Corette, not 

significantly farther than Coburn Roads distance from PPL Corette, and exclude all areas 

below the elevation of Lower Co bum station. Another commenter discusses that if EPA 

would designate a portion of the county nonattairunent then EPA should be sure to 

include all sources contributing to the nonattainment designation within the boundary. 

The commenter continues that it would be inappropriate to set a designation boundary 

that failed to capture areas that are potentially influenced by the other sources. 

EPA's Response: The EPA agrees that the initial nonattainment area should be revised 

from the entire county to a smaller boundary. The EPA reviewed 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 (Coburn Road 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 of the initial 

nonattainment area. 

Comment: Two conunenters submitted a five-factor analysis for a smaller nonattainment 

area boundary for Yellowstone County. 

EPA's Respouse: 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 

through the actions ah·eady required by existing and enforceable programs. However, 

another commenter discusses that all but two will ha:ve little to no impact on reducing 

S02 emission, which are the EPA's refinery initiative/associated consent decree and 

EPA'sFIP. 

The following discusses comments on each of the 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 State of Montana. 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 of normal emissions." In 2010, 

ExxonMobil had more than a 1,600 tons per year increase over 2009 and 2011 years, 

which EPA noted as "normal." Years 2011 and 2012 show dramatic decreases in 

emissions at ExxonMo bil. These additional emissions that resulted fi·om the consent 

decree required catalyst testing contributed to the high values in 2010 and since the 

controls have been added, emissions are unlikely to retum to 2010 levels. Thus 2010 is 

an anomaly. The commenter also 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 apply to those facilities. The FIP prin1ru·ily applies to flaring events at refmeries 

(CHS, ExxonMobil, and Phillips66) and MSCC, where these facilities ru·e required to 

develop and submit to EPA for approval flare monitoring plans. These pl8!1s were 

possibly held up by the recent litigation. 

Page 56 of63 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 09/0512013 

EPA's Response: The EPA has revised the initial nonattainmem area to include only the 

Corette power plant and the violating monitor (see Region 8's TSD). Thus the other 

sources and the areas thai will show reductions from the EPA's refinery initiative and 

from the 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 of this initial 

nonattainment designation. 

cRegional Haze FIP: One commenter discusses that for the Corette power plant 

the Regional Haze FlP revised the SOz emission standard, which represents a 19% 

reduction in the previously allowable standard. This would effectively eliminate 

previously allowable excursions of high emissions that would cause Corette to exceed the 

standard. Additionally, the FIP would have effectively shaved off about 30% fl-om the 

allowable high-end emissions that Corette would emit. The commenter concludes that 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 other than the S02 

limit, which is averaged over a rolling 30-day period, no additional emissions reductions 

would result in the Billings/Laurel area. 

EPA's Response: 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 Corette power 

plant is allowed to emit and is based on Corette's actual emissions with an added margin 

of compliance. Corette's actual emissions would not necessarily be reduced by the lower 

allowable limit under the Regional Haze FIP. 

-MATS/Utility MACT Implementation. One commenter discusses that the 

facilities affected by this mle would be Corette and YELP. Another commenter discusses 

that for the implementation of this mle, Corette would need substantial controls to lower 

air taxies and S02 emissions or mothball 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 would take the hydrochlmic acid limit. Any controls installed 

for this mle associated with PM or metal limits will provide co-benefit of additional S02 

control. 

EPA's Response: The EPA has revised the initial nonattainment area to include only the 

Corette power plant and the violating monitor (see Region 8's TSD). Thus the other 

sources and the areas that will show reductions from of the MATS/Utility MACT mle 

(except for PPL Corette) are outside the scope of this initial nonattainment designation 

and will be addressed in a future fmal designations action. EPA agrees that if the Corette 

power plant were to be mothballed, the overall emissions in the area would be reduced. 

However, PPL does not plan to mothball or add controls to Corette until April2015, or 

April2016 if an extension under 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 of the 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 of this 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 on the area. The 

reconsideration ofEPA's Boiler MACT standard for major sources was finalized and 

published as 40 CFR 63, subpart DDDDD on January 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 of the rule. The commenter continues that reduction in S02 is 

not quantifiable at this early stage, but improvements in efficiency and tune-up will likely 

lead to slightly lower emissions. Additionally, the reconsideration of EPA's Boiler 

MACT standard for area sources was finalized and published as 40 CFR 63, subpart JJJJJ 

on February 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 still unclear what 

steps Western Sugar may take to meet the Hg emission limits. If scrubber upgrades are 

considered for Hg control at Western Sugar, a co-benefit of S02 emissions reductions 

will be realized. 

EPA's Response: The EPA agrees that exact S02 emission reductions for the Boiler 

MACT implementation rule cannot be known at tllis time. However, the EPA has revised 

the initial nonattainment area to include only the Corette power plant 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) of the Boiler 

MACT rule are outside the scope of this initial nonattainment designation and will be 

addressed in a future final designations action. For PPL's Corette power plant, 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 of the air 

quality standard. 

Comment: MEIC and Sierra Club suppmt designation of all or a pmtion of Yellowstone 

County as a nonattainment area for the SOz NAAQS, but believe that EPA must also 

designate all or a portion of Rosebud County as a nonattainment area for the S02 

NAAQS. The largest source in Rosebud County is Colstrip, and even with future 

reductions from the regional haze plan, violations of the !-hour S02 standard still occur. 

The commenters agree with EPA that ExxonMobil testing in 2010 is unavailing and since 

ExxonMobil is downwind of the monitor they are unlikely the sole cause of the 

violations. Additionally, MDEQ's five-factor analysis proposal for only Corette in the 

nonattainment area (NAA) does not follow CAA requirements that all contributing 

sources to the violation be included in the NAA. Not one 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 the modeling analysis, where conservative assumptions about the 

other sources emissions were assumed, Corette would need to reduce its S02 emissions 

by more than 88%. In support of these 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's Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that a portion of Yellowstone 

County should initially be designated nonattairunent. However, EPA is not yet prepared 

to conclude whether Rosebud County should be designated in whole or in part 

nonattainment based on a modeling analysis. In this initial round of final nonattairunent 

designations, the EPA is not addressing modeling either in the initial nonattainment areas 

or in other areas, which will be addressed in a future round of final designations. Thus 

Rosebud County and the remaining p01tion of Yellowstone County are outside the scope 

of this initial nonattainment designation, and will be addressed in a future final action, 

which could' include determining whether initial nonattainment boundaries need to be 

extended, new nonattainment boundaries need to be designated, or if the areas should be 

designated attainment or unclassifiable. Region 8's TSD provides a more detailed 

analysis of revising 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 of Kentucky submitted a 

response to EPA's February 6, 2013, intended nonattainment designation and boundary 

detenninations for areas in relation to the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Kentucky expressed strong 

opposition to any portion of Campbell County, Kentucky being designated 

nonattainment. Specifically, the Commonwealth stated" ... Kentucky strongly opposes 

the proposed nonattainment designation of Campbell County due to overwhehning 

supporting data indicating that there is no environmental benefit to designating the 

Kentucky portion 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 Commonwealth provided some general technical points 

implicating the source in Clem1ont County as causing the violation at the monitor in 

Kentucky, and mentioned that the nonattainment designation for Campbell County would 

cause more stringent permitting requirements and would not result in any additional 

programs in Campbell County, Kentucky to reduce S02 emissions. Also, Kentucky 

noted that" ... the total area in Kentucky designated nonattainment is ironically larger 

than the total area designated nonattainment in Ohio, the location of the source causing 

the violation." 

EPA's Response: The EPA has made the detennination that Campbell County, 

Kentucky has a violating monitor for the !-hour S02 NAAQS, and thus is designating a 

portion of this county as nonattainment. Additionally, and in association with the 

violating monitor in Campbell County, Kentucky, the EPA is 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 of the 

nonattaimnent designation, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is obligated under the 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 with the violation monitored in Campbell County is located in Ohio. 

Accordingly, we expect Ohio will address this source as part of their state 

implementation pla!Uling. The EPA will work with Ohio to ensure the required 

nonattainment ar·ea SIP addresses the air quality impact on the citizens of Kentucky. 

With regard to size of the boundary for the Kentuckyp01tion of this ar·ea, the EPA has 

reevaluated its intended boundary determination, and has revised tllis boundary. More 

information on EPA's technical analysis for this area and revised boundary determination 

for Campbell County, Kentucky can be found in EPA's TSD for Kentucky. 

3.2.9.2. Steubenville, OH-'W"V Area 

Commeut: The WV Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has perfotmed additional technical 

analysis and refmed the related nonattainment area boundaries. Therefore, we are now 

recommending that EPA revise its initial Nonattainment Area Designations for West 

Virginia. Our recommendations are priruar·ily based upon the five-factor analysis detailed 

in EPA's Mar·ch 2011 guidance. In the Steubenville OH-WV area, all of the violating 

monitors in Brooke County WV and all significant sources ofS02 einissions in Brooke 

County WV ar·e located in the Cross Creek Tax District portion of Brooke County, WV. 

The West Virginia portion of the Steubenville, OH-WV non attainment area should be 

confmed to the Cross Creek Tax District (within Brooke County). 

EPA's Response: EPA concurs with this recommendation from DAQ. The additional 

information regarding monitor locations and emissions information (Tables 5 and 6 of the 

DAQ Five factor analysis document and related discussion in this document) was 

confnmed by EPA and supports a revised boundary for the WV p01tion of this 

nonattainment area specifically using a partial county boundary of Brooke County 

consisting of the 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 EPA revise its initial Nonattainment Area Designations for the West 

Virginia portion of this ar·ea. Our recommendations are primarily based upon the fivefactor analysis detailed in EPA's Mar·ch 2011 guidance. The West Virginia p01tion of the 

Wheeling, WV -OH nonattairunent area should be confmed to the Clay, Franklin and 

Washington Tax Districts all within Marshall County. 

EPA's Response: EPA concurs with this recommendation from DAQ. The additional 

information from DAQ indicates that the violating monitor in Marshall county is located 

in the Washington Tax District and all significant S02 einission sources are located in 

Franklin Tax District (Tables 7 and 8 of the DAQ five factor analysis and related 

Page 60 of63 
Eh:Jctronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013 

discussion in this document). Clay tax distlict is located directly between Franklin and 

Washington Tax Districts. This information supports a revised boundary for the WV 

po1tion of this nonattainment area specifically using a prutial county boundary of 

Marshall County consisting of the Clay, Franklin, and Washington Tax Districts within 

Marshall County. See the 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 from the PPG Industlies facility which is located 

in the recommended nonattainment area. 

EPA's Response: 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 by EPA this source emitted 2,442 tpy of S02 in 2008 and 2,471 tpy 

in 20 I 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 of S02 emissions as Ormet and is also located within a jurisdictional border 

that is useful for bounding the nonattainment area. EPA did not propose to include the 

Ormet facility in the original nonattainment area wd is not prepared based on the 

emissions information wd other factors to include this source in the initial nonattairm1ent 

area. We will make final designation decision for ru·eas outside the Mru·shall County WV 

area in a subsequent round of designations. See the WV TSD and Ohio TSD for 

additional information. 

Comment: The WV Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has perf01med additional technical 

analysis and recommends that EPA retain Mead Township in Belmont County Ohio in 

the Wheeling WV-OH Nonattainment Area. In pa1ticular although R.E. Burger power 

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 of the NAAQS. 

EPA's Response: EPA does not concur with this recommendation and is removing 

Mead Township from the nonattainment area. Additional information that responds to 

this comment can be found in our response to comment below which addresses a 

comment from Scott Nally of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Additional 

information can be found in the Ohio and WV TSDs. 

Comment: EPA is proposing to designate a portion of Belmont County, Ohio, 

nonattainment as part of the Wheeling WV-OH nonattainment area, as a result of 

violations occurring at a monitor in West Virginia. Upon further review of this 

recommendation, Ohio EPA urges EPA to designate all of Belmont County as 

unclassifiable. As recognized in both the West Virginia and Ohio technical supp01t 

documents supplied by EPA, the only source in Ohio that may have 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 of Ohio's TSD, R.E. 

Bmger represented just over 15,000 tpy out of over 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 at the R.E. Burger plant to zero 

emissions in 2011 and 2012. Tlris is the result of the permanent shutdown of two larger 

units (156 MW each) and the cold storage of two smaller units (94 MW each). Since the 

shutdown and cold storage, the Ohio monitor has shown attainment while the West 

Virginia monitor has continued to show nonattainment. It is Ohio's belief that any future 

consideration of Belmont County sources should be a pati of the upcoming unclassifiable 

planning; therefore, we recommend an unclassifiable designation for all of Belmont 

County. 

EPA's Response: 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 confum the 

emissions information in Ohio's comment. 

The First Energy R.E. Burger power plant, in Shadyside, Ohio, is located two kilometers 

fiom the Marshall County monitor in Moundsville, West Virginia, and about seven 

kilometers fi·om the Behnont County monitor. Given this proximity, EPA carefully 

evaluated this source as a potential contributor to the monitored S02 concentrations. On 

March 13, 2013, Ohio informed EPA that the R.E. Burger power plant had emitted no 

S02 in 2011 or 2012. Two of its four units (Units 7 and 8) had shut down permanently 

and enforceably in 2010. The remaining two smaller units (Units 5 and 6) are in cold 

storage. Cold storage is not a federally enforceable shutdown; those units currently retain 

the legal right to restatt without obtaining a new permit. However, as discussed below, 

EPA believes that these units are unlikely to resume operation, and furthermore EPA 

believes that these units are unlikely to operate at a level that would warrant treating the 

source as conttibuting to the violation at the Marshall County monitor. In 2011, when the 

R.E. Burger power plant reported zero S02 emissions to EPA CAMD, the Moundsville 

monitor still exceeded the 2010 S02 NAAQS (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 of several hundred tons each in 2005 and 2007, emissions for all other yeru·s 

since 2005 have been under 100 tons for each unit, with emissions in most years being 

zero. By compru·ison, the larger two units at R.E. Burger (Units 7 and 8) emitted a 

combined total of 14,952 tons in 2008, a level that was close to average for these units for 

the years before they shut down by the beginning of2011. These emissions from these 

larger units are prohibited from recurring by the permanent and enforceable shutdown of 

these units. The only emissions which might hypothetically resume are from Units 5 and 

6, the smaller units at the plant, which have. been effectively shut down since 2008, and 

which historically emitted less than ten percent, and most recently no more than about 

one percent, of the larger units' S02 emissions. It is unlikely that the two smaller units 

will restart, and if they do, they are unlikely to contribute significantly to the 

nonat!ainment values. Since these units were shut down before the larger units were shut 

down, and since these units have been in cold storage for two years after the larger units 

Page 62 of63 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/0512013 

were shut down, the shutdown of the larger units is not expected to result in load being 

shifted to the smaller units. The requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

which would make it even more expensive to operate these units, provide added incentive 

for FirstEnergy to continue keeping these units inoperative. Ohio provided fmiher 

information about this facility in May 2013. Ohio staff spoke with representatives of 

FirstEnergy, who confirmed that they have no intention of restarting Units 5 and 6. The 

company is keeping the two units in "cold storage" rather than permanently shutting them 

down in order to maintain receiving allowances for use in other facilities, and for the 

income tax advantages of retaining the units on cold storage status. Units 5 and 6 are 63 

years old, the R.E. Burger power plant cun·ently has no coal onsite, and economics 

dictate that FirstEnergy is unlikely to restrut these units. Therefore, EPA believes that the 

R.E. Burger power plant is not cutTently contributing and is not likely to contribute in the 

future to the Marshall WV nonattainment area, and EPA agrees with Ohio's 

recommendation that Mead Township, Behnont County, should not be designated 

nonattainment for the 20 I 0 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 Support Document (TSD) 

Illinois 

Area Designations For the 

2010 S02 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Summarv 

Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (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 CAA defines a nonattainment area 

as one that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to poor air quality in a nearby area that 

does not meet the NAAQS. Table 1 below identifies the counties or portions of counties (or 

tribal areas) in Illinois that EPA intends to designate "nonattainment" for the primary 2010 S02 

NAAQS. 

Illinois submitted recommendations on June 2, 2011. On February 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 of counties in Illinois that EPA is initially designating "nonattainment" based on 

monitored violations. EPA is not yet prepared to designate other areas in lllinois, and will 

address them in subsequent rounds of designation. 

T abe 1. N onattainment A rea D . esignations ~ or I llinois 

Area Illinois Recommended EPA's Designation of 

Designation of Areas/ Areas/ Counties 

Counties 

Pekin, IL 

Tazewell County (pmtial) Nonattainment N onattainment 

-Cincinnati Township, 

-Pekin Township 

Peoria County (partial) Unclassifiable Nonattainment 

-Hollis Township 

Lemont, IL 

Cook County (pmtial) N onattainment Nonattainment 

- Lemont Township 

Will County (partial) N onattainment 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 802 NAAQS (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010) by 

establishing a new !-hour standard at a level of75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual99tl' percentile of the 

daily maximum !-hour average concentration at each monitor in an area does not exceed 75 ppb, 

as detennined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR pari 50. 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). EPA 

has detennined that tllis is the level necessary to provide protection of public health with an 

adequate mar·gin of safety, especially for children, the elderly and those with asthma. These 

groups are pariicularly susceptible to the health effects associated with breathing 802. The 

Agency is revoking the two p1ior p1imary standards of 140 ppb evaluated over 24-hours, and 30 

ppb evaluated over an entire year· because the standards will not add additional public health 

protection given a !-hour standar·d at 75 ppb. Accordingly, EPA is not designating areas in this 

process on the basis of either of these two prior p1imary star1dards. Similarly, the secondary 

star1dard for S02 has not been revised, so EPA is not designating areas in this process on the 

basis of the secondary standard. 

EPA's SOz Designation Approach 

Section 107(d) of the CAA provides that not later than I year after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, state Governors may submit their recommendations 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 a notification to states of no less than 120-days prior to 

promulgating an initial area designation that is a modification of a state's recommendation. 

EPA has reviewed the State's recommendations and has notified the State Commissioner through 

letter signed by the Regional Adnlinistrator of any intended modifications. [While lar1guage in 

section I 07 specifically addresses states, we intend to follow the same process for tribes, 

pursuant to section 301(d) of the CAA and Tribal Authmity Rule (40 CFR Part 49). Therefore, 

we intend to designate tribal areas, in consultation with the tribes, on the same schedule as state 

designations.] If a State or Tribe did not subnlit designation recommendations, EPA is to 

promulgate the designations that it deems appropriate. If a state or llibal government disagrees 

with EPA's intended area designations, it had an opportunity to demonstl·ate why any proposed 

modification is inappropriate. 

Designations guidance was issued by EPA through a March 24, 2011, memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standar·ds, to Air 

Division Directors, U.S. EPA Regions I-X. This memorandum identifies 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 of sources and potential 

contribution to ambient S02 concentrations); 3) Meteorology (weather/transport patterns); 4) 

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries); aild 5) Jurisdictional 

boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, pre-existing nonattainment areas, reservations, 

metropolitan planning 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, 20 ll, designations guidance memo recommended that area boundmies be 

defaulted to the county bounda1y unless additional provided infmmation justifies a larger or 

smaller boundary than that of the 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 a different bounda1y than a default county boundary. 

In this TSD, EPA discusses its review and technical analysis of the recommendations submitted 

by lllinois for designations of the !-hour so2 standard and any modifications from these 

recommendations. 

Definition of important terms used in this document: 

l) Designated nonattainment area- an area which EPA has determined, based on a state 

recommendation and/or on the technical analysis included in this document, has violated the 

2010 S02 NAAQS, based on the most recent three yem·s of air 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 monitor meeting all methods, quality assurance and citing 

criteria and requirements whose valid design value exceeds 75 ppb, as described in Appendix T 

of 40 CFR part 50. 

4) 2010 802 NAAQS- 75 ppb, national ambient air quality standard for S02 promulgated in 

2010. Based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily 

maximum 1-hour average concentrations 

5) Design Value- a statistic computed according to the data handling procedures of the 

NAAQS (in 40 CFR 50 Appendix T) that, by compmison to the level of the NAAQS, indicates 

whether the area is violating the NAAQS. 

Technical analvsis for the Lemont, lL Area 

Introduction 

This technical analysis for the Lemont, lL area identifies Cook County with 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 of the area showing the locations and design values of air quality monitors in 

the area, and the counties surrounding any violating 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 of 98 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 of sources 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.onilor attaining 2010 S02 NAAQS (2009-2011) 

Et'Il] EFI>.'s deS1gn<:te\l S02 nonatlainmenl ama 

.. Areas or 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 contributing to the monitored violation in Lemont. 

Based on this assessment, Illinois recommended that an area consisting ofDuPage and Lockport 

Townships in Will County and Lemont Township in Cook County be designated as 

nonattairunent. This recommendation reflected illinois' view that no significant sources are 

located in Cook County near Lemont but that three significant sources are located nearby in Will 

County. 

Based on EPA's technical analysis described below, EPA is initially designating a Lemont 

nonattainment area consisting of Lemont Township in Cook County and DuPage and Lockport 

Townships in Will 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 other possible 

violations are not included in this initial nonattainment area. Such sources and areas will be 

further addressed in a subsequent round offmal designations. 

4 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

Detailed Assessment 

Air Quality Data 

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 20 I 0 S02 NAAQS design values for the Chicago area within Illinois are shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Air Quality Data 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* 

The Lemont monitor in Cook County shows a violation of the 2010 S02 NAAQS. 

Emissions and Emissions-Related Data 

Evidence of S02 emissions sources in the vicinity of a violating monitor is an important factor 

for deternrining whether a nearby area is contributing to a monitored violation. For tlris factor, 

EPA evaluated county level e1nission data for S02 and any growth in S02 emitting activities 

since the date represented by those enrissions data. 

Emissions 

The most recent year for which national emissions infonnation was compiled was 2008. Illinois 

did not provide more recent emissions infonnation. Therefore, EPA relied on the 2008 National 

Enrissions Inventory (NEI) emissions data (NEI08V3). 

Table 3 shows total emissions of S02 (given in tons per year) for Cook County and for adjoining 

Will County. Table 3 also shows pertinent infonnation for sources in these counties emitting 

greater than l 00 tons per year of S02 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 MWG Will 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 Com Products Corporation, at about 18 kilometers fi·om the 

monitor, with emissions of about 2,300 tons per year, 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 on the distance of these sources fi·om the violating monitor, EPA is 

not yet prepared to conclude that these sources contribute to the Lemont monitor's design value. 

These sources will be further addressed in a subsequent round of designations. 

Three of the 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 Lemont nonattainment area. However, considering their emission levels and based on 

their distance from the monitor, EPA is not yet prepared to conclude that two other Will County 

sources, Midwest Generation's Joliet Station and the Exxon-Mobil refmety, are contributing to 

the Lemont monitor's design value. These two sources will also be further addressed in 

subsequent a round of designations. 

Emissions Controls 

The emissions data used by EPA 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 resulting from controls put into place after 2008. 

6 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013 

Meteorology (weather/transport pattems) 

Evidence of source-receptor relationships between specific emissions sources and high S02 

values at violating monitors is another important factor in detem1ining the appropriate 

contlibuting areas and the appropriate extent of the 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 likely to come from the south, west, and 

southwest directions, but also frequently come from all the northeast direction, and occasionally 

from the other directions. This shows that a source from any direction could conttibute to the 

violation at the monitor. The three largest nearby emitters, M\VG Will County Station, Oxbow 

Midwest Calcining, and CITGO Petroleum, are located to the west and southwest of the monitor, 

which are the frequent wind directions. 

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries) 

The Lemont area does not have any geographical or topographical barriers significantly linliting 

air pollution transport within its airshed. Therefore, this factor did not play a significant role in 

determining the nonattainment boundary. 

Jurisdictional boundaries 

lllinois does not have any current S02 nonattainment areas under the prior S02 NAAQS. 

Townships in Illinois have well established boundalies and are a suitable basis for defining 

nonattainment areas. 

7 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013 

Other Relevant Information 

EPA did not receive additional information relevant to establishing a nonattainment area 

boundmy for this area. 

Conclusion 

Illinois has adequately justified an initial nonattainment area, based on the violating monitor in 

Cook County, which includes the Lemont Township containing the monitoring site and two 

townships in Will County, DuPage and Lockport Townships, 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 Joliet plant and the Exxon-Mobil refinery in Will 

County, contribute to the Lemont monitor's design value. In a subsequent round of designations, 

EPA will make fmal designations decisions for areas and sources that are not cmTently included 

in the initial nonattainment area designation addressed in this TSD. 

Technical analvsis for the Pekin. IL Area 

Introduction 

This technical analysis for the Pekin, IL area identifies a Tazewell County monitor that violates 

the 2010 SOz NAAQS. EPA has evaluated this county and nem·by counties based on the 

evidence for the factors reconunended in the March 24, 2011 EPA guidance. 

Figure 3 is a map of the area showing the location and the design value of the air quality monitor 

in the area, and the counties surrounding this air quality monitor. The monitor in Pekin 

(Tazewell County) recorded a 2009 to 2011 design value of21 I ppb. A monitor in Peoria 

County recorded a 2009 to 2011 design value of36 ppb, based on incomplete data. No other 

S02 monitor is located in these or any neighboring counties. 

8 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/0512013 

Figure 3. Map of sources, 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:ll cnunty as nonaU:~inn~ent 

:~.=_: Counties designated as a different 802 ncnallainment area 

¢ Monitor Yi-::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 

--- Nalionat h\QirYay 

Wate-r body 

S02 emission source {NEI 2008v3.0) 

,~ 100·1,000tonslyear 

0 1,000 or mere !cnsiyeat 

C 4 16 Wile:s 

Illinois analyzed the sources· that might be contlibuting to the monitored violation in Pekin. 

Based on this assessment, Illinois recommended that an area consisting of Cincinnati and Pekin 

Townships in Tazewell County be designated as nonattaimnent. 

EPA believes that Hollis Township in Peoria County also contributes to the violation monitored 

in Tazewell County. E.D. Edwards Station, a power plant operated by Ameren, is located in this 

township. This source emits approximately 11,000 tons of S02 per year, in a location that is 

about 4.5 kilometers in a direction that is periodically upwind of the Pekin monitor. 

Based on EPA's technical analysis described below, and based on a monitored violation, EPA is 

initially designating a Pekin nonattaimnent area consisting of Cincinnati and Pekin Townships in 

Tazewell County and Hollis Township in Peolia County. Areas and sources that we are not yet 

prepared to 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 of final 

designations. 

EPA received comments from Ameren and from the Illinois Enviromnental Regulatory Group 

objecting to the inclusion of Hollis Township in the nonattaimnent area, as well as comments 

from Citizens Against Ruining the Enviromnent and the Respiratory Health Association 

generally supporting the intended designation. These comments are addressed in more 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 monitor in Tazewell County based on data for the 2009-2011 

period. The only other monitor in this patt of Illinois is located in Peoria County. The 2010 S02 

NAAQS design values for the Tazewell and Peotia County monitors are shown in Table 4. 

Table 4. Air Quality Data in the Pelon Area 

County I State Recommended Monitor Air Quality Monitor Location S02 Design Value, 

Nonattaimnent? System ID 2009-2011 (ppb) 

Peoria I No 17-143-0024 40.6874, -89.6069 36 

Tazewell I Yes 17 -I 79-0004 40.5565, -89.654 211 

The Tazewell County monitor shows a violation of the 2010 S02 NAAQS. Therefore, some area 

in tbis county and possibly additional areas in surrounding counties must be designated 

nonattainment. The absence of a violating monitor alone is not a sufficient reason to eliminate 

nearby counties as candidates for inclusion in a nonattainment area. 

Emissions and Emissions-Related Data 

Evidence of S02 emissions sources in the vicinity of a violating monitor is an important factor 

for determining whether a nearby area is contributing to a monitored violation. For this factor, 

EPA evaluated county level emission data for S02 and any growth in 802 emitting activities 

since the date represented by those emissions data. 

Emissions 

The most recent year for which national emissions information was compiled was 2008. Illinois 

reported data indicating that emissions from pertinent sources in 2007 and 2009 were similar to 

emissions in 2008. Therefore, EPA relied on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

emissions data (NEI08V3). 

Table 5 shows total emissions of S02 (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 greater than 100 tons per year of S02 according to the 2008 NEI. 

10 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013 

Table 5. S02 Emissions in the Pekin Area (NEI08V3) 

County Facility Located Facility- Total SO, Air Facility Location Distance Total County 

in State Emissions NEI08V3 to Pekin S01 Emissions 

Recommended (tons per year) 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 Illinois has reconunended including in the Pekin nonattainment area. Illinois 

did not recommend including any of Peoria County in this nonattainment area. However, EPA 

finds that Ameren's E.D. Edwards power plant is only 4 kilometers from the monitor and has 

significant emissions with potential 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 the violation measured in Pekin. Based on their distance fi·om the 

violating monitor, EPA is not yet prepared to conclude that the other sources in Peoria County 

contribute to the violating monitor's design value. These sources will be further addressed in a 

subsequent round of designations. 

Emissions Controls 

The emissions data used by EPA in this technical analysis and provided in Table 5 represent 

emissions levels taking into account any control strategies implemented on stationaty sources in 

tins area up to and including 2008. EPA has not received any additional infom1ation on 

emissions reductions resulting from controls put into place after 2008. 

Meteorology (weather/transport pattems) 

Evidence of source-receptor relationships between specific ernissions sources and high 802 

values at violating monitors is another impm1ant factor in detetmining the appropriate 

contributing areas and the appropriate extent of the nonattainment area. Figure 4 shows the 

prevalent wind direction for the Lemont, IL area. 

11 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/0512013 

Figure 4: 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 wind rose above suggests that winds come most frequently from the south, somewhat 

fi-equently from the northwest, and occasionally from the other directions. Focusing on days 

when concentrations are above the level of the standard, winds from the north (including variable 

winds that at least in part include north winds) occur with sufficient fi·equency to suggest that 

nearby significant sources located north as well as west and southwest of the monitor are 

contributing to violations measured in Pekin. As discussed in more detail in the response to 

comments document, winds from the north (including variable winds that at least in prui include 

north winds) also occur in particular at times when the standru·d is exceeded at the Pekin monitor. 

Geograplty/topograp!zy (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries) 

The Pekin area does not have any geographical or topographical 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 S02 NAAQS. 

Townships in lllinois have well established boundaries and are a suitable basis for defining 

nonattainment ru·eas. 

Other Relevant Information 

EPA did not receive additional information relevant to establishing a nonattainment area 

boundary for 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 of Tazewell County approp1iately includes the pmtions of Tazewell County 

that are contributing to the measured violation. However, EPA has 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 

monitor measwing a violation, and analysis of wind infmmation supports a finding of 

contribution of emissions fi:om the direction of this source to the violating monitor. Therefore, 

EPA believes that Hollis Township ofPemia County wmnnts inclusion in the initial Pekin 

nonattaimnent area. Thus, after conside1ing the factors described above, EPA is initially 

designating an area that includes Cincinnati and Pekin Townships in Tazewell County and Hollis 

Township in Peoria County as the Pekin, IL nonattaimnent m·ea for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. In a 

subsequent round of designations, we will make final designations decisions for areas and 

sources that we are not yet prepared to conclude m·e contributing to the monitored violations or 

to other possible 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 Register I Vol. 78, No. 150 I Monday, August 5, 2013 I Rules and Regulations 47191 

(b) The Secretary must provide each 

agency by January 15 of each year with 

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 of all 

establishments. The list must include 

information about the department/ 

agency affiliation, NAICS code, a street 

address, city, state and zip code. Federnl 

agencies are also responsible for 

updating their list of estab1ishments by 

May 1 of each year when they submit 

the annual report to the Secretary 

required by § 1960.71 [a)(1 ). 

* • • 

• 8. Add new § 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 OPM job series 

number and job title in Column (c). 

(b) When recording the injuries and 

illnesses of uncompensated volunteers, 

each agency must enter a "V" before the 

OPM job series number in Column (c) of 

the OSH Form 300 log or equivalent. 

(c) Each agency musl calculate the 

total-number of hours worked by 

uncompensated volunteers. 

[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: No lice of deviation 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, at mile 283.1, over 

the A!CW, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. 

The deviation is necessary to 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 7 p.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 Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12-140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West 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, Coast Guard; 

telephone (757) 398-6557, email 

James.L.Rousseau2@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on reviewing the docket, 

call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, (202) 366-9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, 

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 equipment upgrades 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 at all times and on 

signal for pleasure vessels except 

between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., need only 

open on the 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 ongoing maintenance. 

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. In the event of inclement weather, 

the alternate dates and Limes will begin 

at 7 p.m., on Monday August 26, 2013 

ending at 7 p.m., on Tuesday August 2 7, 

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 emergencies but at a slower 

rate. There is no immediate alternate 

route for vessels transiting this section 

of the AICW but vessels may pass before 

and after the closure each dav. The 

Coast Guard will also inform. additional 

waterway users through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

closure periods for the bridge so that 

vessels can arrange their transits to 

minimize any impacts caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: July 25, 2013. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Bridge Program 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: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Pinal rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule establishes air 

quality designations for certain areas in 

the United States for the 2010 primary 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 

EPA is issuing this rule to identify areas 

that, based on recorded air quality 

monitoring data showing violations of 

the NAAQS, do not meet the 2010 S02 

NAAQS and areas that contribute to S02 

air pollution in 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 of the 1-hour so2 

standard. The EPA 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 arc consequently not addressed 

in this final rule. The Clean Air Act 

(CAA) directs areas designated 

nonattainment by this rule to undertake 

certain planning and pollution control 

EXHIBIT 4 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office OB/0512013 

47192 Federal Register I 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 October 4, 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".1ill be 

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 

Constitution A venue 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 

Public Reading 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 modification letters, technical 

support documents, responses to 

comments and other related technical 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions concerning this 

action, please contact Rhonda Wright, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Air Quality Planning 

Division, C539-04, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-

1087, email at wright.rhonda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regional Office Contacts: 

Region !-Donald Dahl (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 of Contents 

The following is an outline of the 

Preamble. 

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

II. What is the purpose of this document? 

III. What is sulfur dioxide? 

IV. What is the 2010 S02 NAAQS 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 the EPA 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 the EPA, states and trib!:ls 

related to this rule? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Impro\•ing Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

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 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act {NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

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 of Federal Regulations 

DC District of Columbia 

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 of Management and Budget 

S02 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

RF A Regul11tory Flexibility Act 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

UMRA Unfunded Mandate 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 of this 

document? 

The purpose of this action is to 

announce and promulgate designations 

and boundaries for certain areas of the 

country not meeting the 2010 S02 

NAAQS based on available information, 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the CAA. The initial list of areas being 

designated nonattainment in each state 

and the boundaries of each 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 calendar years 2009-

2011 indicating a violation of the 

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 of the CAA and provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than October 4, 2018. The CAA directs 

states to submit these SIPs to the EPA 

within 18 months of the effective date 

of these designations, i.e., by AprilS, 

2015. 

III. \•Vhat is sulfur dioxide? 

S02 is one of a group of highly 

reactive gasses known as "oxides of 

sulfur" [SOx). The largest sources of 

so2 emissions are from fossil fuel 

combustion at power plants (73 percent) 

and other industrial facilities (20 

percent). Smaller sources of S02 

emissions include industrial processes, 

such as extracting metal from ore, and 

the burning of high sulfur containing 

fuels by locomotives, large ships and 

non-road equipment. so2 is linked with 

a number of adverse effects on the 

respiratory system. 

IV. What is the 2010 SO, NAAQS and 

what are the health concerns that it 

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 of the air quality 

criteria for oxides of sulfur and the 

primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as 

measured by S02 , the EPA revised the 

primary SO, N!\.AQS to provide 

requisite protection of public health 

with an adequate margin of safety. 

Specifically, the EPA established a new 

1-hour so2 standard at a level of 75 

parls per billion (ppb), which is met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of 1-honr daily 

maximum concentrations is less than or ·equal to 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR 

part 50.40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). The EPA 

also established provisions to revoke 

both the existing 24-hour and annual 

primary S02 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 of adverse respiratory 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 

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 S02 is 

designed to protect against exposure to 

the entire group of SOx. S01 is the 

component of greatest concern and is 

used as the indicator for the larger group 

of gaseous SOx. Other gaseous SOx (e.g., 

S03 ) are found in the atmosphere at 

concentrations much lm .. rer than 802• 

Emissions that lead to high 

concentrations of 802 generally also 

lead to the formation of other SOx. 

Control measures that reduce 802 can 

generally be expected to reduce people's 

exposures to all gaseous SOx. This may 

also have the important co-benefit of 

reducing the formation of fine 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 meet these 

requirements? 

After the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to 

designate areas as "nonallainment," 

"attainment," or "unclassifiable," 

pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the 

CAA. 

The process for designating areas 

following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS is contained in section 

107[d) of the CAA. The CAA requires 

the EPA to complete the initial 

designations process within 2 years of 

promulgating a new or revised standard. 

If the 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. 

At this time, the EPA is initially 

designating as nonattainment most areas 

in locations where existing monitoring 

data from 2009-2011 indicate violations 

of the 1-hour S02 standard. In some 

cases, we have bad to use data from a 

different three-year period or are still 

evaluating whether data from 2009-

2011 are influenced by 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 that focuses 

resources on identifying and addressing 

unhealthy levels of S02 in areas where 

people are most likely to be exposed to 

violations of the standard. For 

1 See Fact Sheet Revisions to the Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Monitoring 

Nelworl:, and Data Reporting Requirement:; for 

Sulfur Dioxide 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 of the 1-

hour SO, NA.-\QS. 

By not later than 1 year after the 

promulgation of a 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 did nol meet 

the statutory requirements or were 

otherwise inconsistent with the facts or 

analysis deemed appropriate by the 

EPA. If the EPA is considering 

modifications to a state's initial 

recommendation, the EPA is required to 

notify the state of any such intended 

modifications to its recommendation 

not less than 120 days prior to the EPA's 

promulgation of the final designation. 

During this period of no less than 120 

days, if the state does not agree with the 

EPA's modification, it has 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 if a 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) of the CAA 

defines a nonattainment area as any area 

that does not meet an ambient air 

quality standard or that is contributing 

to ambient air quality in a nearby area 

that does not meet the standard. If an 

area meets either prong of this 

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 of a 

nonattainment area (e.g., "contributes 

to" and "nearby") for a new or revised 

NAAQS, given cons~derations such as 

the nature of a specific polJutant, the 

types of sources that may contribute to 

violations, the form of the standards for 

Lhe pollutant, and other relevant 

information. In particular, the EPA 

believr:s that the statute does not require 

the agency to establish bright line tests 

or thresholds for what constitutes 

"contribution" or "nearby" for purposes 

of designations. 2 

Similarly, the EPA believes that the 

statute permits the EPA to evaluate the 

appropriate application of the term 

"area" to include geographic areas 

based upon full or partial county 

boundaries, and contiguous or noncontiguous areas, as may be appropriate 

for a particular NAAQS. For example, 

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) of the CAA. This provision of the 

CAA authorizes the EPA to treat eligible 

tribes in o similar monncr as states. 

Pursuant to section 301(d)(2), the EPA 

promulgated regulations, known as the 

Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), on 

February 12. 1999. 63 FR 7254, codified 

al40 CFR parl49. Thal rule specifies 

those provisions of the CAA for which 

it is appropriate to treat tribes in a 

similar manner as states. Under the 

TAR, tribes may choose to develop and 

implement their own CAA programs, 

but nre not required to do so. The TAR 

also establishes procedures and criteria 

by which tribes may request from the 

EPA a determination of eligibility 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 of tribes in the 

same manner as states. Under the TAR, 

tribes generally are not subject to the 

same submission schedules imposed by 

the CAA on states. As authorized by 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 

that treatment of tribes as identical to 

states is "inappropriate or 

administratively infeasible," to provide 

for direct administration by regulation 

to achieve the appropriate purpose. 

To date, six tribes 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 and the EPA 

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 In these letter 

responses, we indicated whether the 

EPA intended to make modifications to 

the initial state or tribal 

recommendations and explained the 

EPA's reasons for making any such 

modifications. For the majority of the 

areas, the EPA agreed with the stale's 

recommended boundary. 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 of the timely 

supporting technical information 

provided. As a result, and based on that 

input and analysis, some of the final 

designations reflect further 

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 not required by section 

107[d) of the 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 public to 

comment on the EPA's intended 

designations. In the notice, the EPA 

stated that public comments must be 

received on or before March 18, 2013. 

The EPA received several requests from 

stakeholders for additional time to 

prepare their comments. Some of the 

requesters noted that the 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. The EP h 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 of the 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 Web site (http:// 

Wlvw.epa.govlso2designations). Timely 

comments from the public and the 

EPA's responses to significant 

comments are in the docket for this 

action. 

VI. What guidance 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 of proposed 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 that guidance and, in the 

notice of final rulemaking (75 FR 35 5 20; 

June 22, 2010), provided further 

guidc.nce concerning implementation of 

the standard and how to identify 

nonatlainment areas and boundaries 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 

years be used to identify a violation of 

the S02 NAAQS. This is appropriate 

because the form of the S02 NAAQS is 

cakulated as a 3-year average of Lhe 

99th percentile of the 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 S02 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 Sulfur Dioxide National AmbiP.nt Air 

Quality Standards," memorandum to Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Stephen D. 

Page, dated March 24, 2011. 

SThis notice refers to monitoring data for 

"calendar years 2009-2011" which includes data 

from January 2009 through December 2011. 

although the determination of whether 

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 

nonattainment areas. 

In the guidance, the EPA stated that 

the perimeter of a county containing a 

violating monitor would 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 could justify establishing 

either a larger or smaller area. The EPA 

indicated that 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 

of the 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 other relevant 

factors or circumstances specific to a 

particular area. 

Mast states and several tribes 

submitted their designations 

recommendations in June 2011. In each 

case, the EPA reviewed the state 

recommendations and, where 

appropriate, the EPA accepted the 

state's recommendations. However, 

where the EPA determined that changes 

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 air quality data has the EPA 

used? 

The final S02 designations contained 

in this action are based upon violations 

of the NAAQS determined by air quality 

monitoring data from calendar years 

2009-2011, except where it ''''as 

necessary or appropriate to use a 

different three-year period. 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 

of the annual 99th percenlile of the 

daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as 

determined in accordance with 

appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. For 

comparison to the level of the standard, 

ambient air quality shall be measured by 

a reference method based on appendix 

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 or Air 

Quality Control Regions listed in the 

tables within the regulatory text are 

designated as indicated. For the first 

round of S02 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 Country being 

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 of designations. 

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 in the 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 of this 

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 and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the 

EPA to designate areas as attaining or 

not attaining the 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 and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action responds to the CAA 

requirement to promulgate air quality 

designations after promulgation of a 

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. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Papenvork Reduction 

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 of a 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. Regulatory Flexibility .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 that will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small 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 statute because the action is not 

subject to the APA. CAA section 

107(d)(2)(E) does not require the EPA to 

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

before is~uing this final action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Heform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of lhe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sec..:tor. 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 of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. It 

does not create any additional 

requirements beyond those of the CAA 

and SO, NAAQS (40 CFR 50.17); 

therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. 

This action establishes nonattainment 

designations for certain areas of the 

C<>'>"t'> {n, tb.~ 2Q1() S00 NAAQS. 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 of this 

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. It will not have 

substantial direct cffecls on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The CAA 

establishes the process whereby states 

take primary responsibility in 

developing plans to meet the so2 

NAAQS in areas de~ignated 

nonattainment by this action. This 

action wil1 not modify the relationship 

of the states and the EPA for purposes 

of developing 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 of certain 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, the EPA 

communicated with tribal leaders and 

environmental staff regarding 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, and to offer 

consultation with the EPA. The EPA 

provided further information to tribes 

through presentations at the National 

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 to the EPA abo\\t th12. 

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 

about the 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 Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

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 S02 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 of the 

EPA's prior action establishing the 2010 

SO, NAAQS. These effects and the size 

of the population affected are 

summarized in the EPA's final S02 

NAAQS rules. See http://wvv1v.epa.gov/ 

ttn!naaqslstandards!so2/frl 

20100622.pdf. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Tlwt 

Significontly Affect Energy 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 under Execulive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advoncement Act (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 regula lory 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. 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 Address Environmental 

justice in Minority Populations 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 environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the U.S. 

The CAA requires that the EPA 

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 ambient air quality 

standard for the pollutant." By 

designating as nonattainment areas 

where available information indicate a 

violation of the 2010 S02 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 without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the U.S. The EPA will submit a report 

containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives and 

the Comptroller General of the U.S. 

prior to publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a "major rule" as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804[2). This rule will be 

effective October 4, 2013. 

L. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)[1) of the CAA indicates 

which Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

actions by the EPA. This section 

provides, in part, that petitions for 

review must be 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 or regionally 

applicable, if "such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in 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 

section 307(b)(1). This final action 

establishes designations for areas across 

the U.S. for the 2010 SO, NAAQS. At 

the core of lhis final action is the EPA's 

interpretation of the definition of 

nonattainmt:nt under section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA, and its application of that 

interpretation to areas across the 

country. For the same reasons, the 

Administrator also is determining that 

the final designations are of nationwide 

scope and effect for the purposes of 

section 307(b)(1). This is particularly 

appropriate because, in the report on the 

1977 Amendments that revised section 

307(b)[1) of the 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 effect beyond 

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 of this final action extends to 

numerous judicial 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 of final 

designations must be filed in the Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days from the date 

final action is published in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects 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. The authority citation 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 amended by 

revising the table heading for 

''Alabama-Sulfur Dioxide'' to read 

''Alabama-1 971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS [Primary and Secondary)". 

§81.302 [Amended] 

• 3. Section 81.302 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "AlaskaS02" to read "Alaska-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS [Primary and 

Secondary)". 

• 4. Section 81.303 is amended as 

follows: 

• a. By revising the table heading for 

"Arizona-S02 " to read "Arizona1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary 

and Secondary}"; and 

I b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Arizona-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 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. Section 81.304 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Arkansas-502 " to read "Arkansas1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondar)•)". 

§ 81.305 [AmendedJ 

B 6. Section 81.305 is amended by 

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 Sulfur DioxideNAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§81.307 [Amended] 

• 8. Section 81.307 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Connecticut-502 " to read 

"Connecticut-1 971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

§81.308 [Amended] 

B 9. Section 81.308 is amended by 

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 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

B 11. Section 81.310 is amended as 

follows: 

B a. By revising the table heading for 

"Florida-S02 " to read "Florida-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"; and 

a b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Florida-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 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 of the 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 is amended by 

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 amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Georgia-S02" to read "Georgia-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". §81.313 [Amended] 

• 14. Section 81.313 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Idaho-

• 15. Section 81.314 is amended as follows: 

• a. By revising the table heading for 

"Illinois-802" to read "Illinois-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"; and 

a b. By adding a new table 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 

Type 

47199 

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 a new table 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. By revising the table heading for 

"Indiana-802 " 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 a new table entitled 

"Im'\ra-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)" following the newly 

designated table "Iowa-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§ 81.316 Iowa. 

• a. By revising the table heading for 

"Iowa-SOz" to read "Iowa-1971 

• 

IDWA-201 0 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 amended by 

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 heading for 

''Kentucky-S02'' to read ''Kentucky1971 Sulfur Dioxide 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. By adding a new table 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 new table 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 revising the table heading for 

''Louisiana-S02'' to read ''Louisiana-

§ 81.319 Louisiana. 

• * * 

LOUISIANA-201 0 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 amended by 

revising the table heading for "MaineS02" to read "Maine-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§81.321 [Amended] 

• 22. Section 81.321 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Maryland-S02 " to read "Maryland1 971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonaltainmant. 

§ 81.322 [Amended] 

• 23. Section 81.322 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Massachusetts-S02" to read 

"Massachusotts-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

• 24. Section 81.323 is amended as 

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

Federal Register I Vol. 78, No. 150 I Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations 47201 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"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 amended by 

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 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

• 27. Section 81.326 is amended as 

follows: 

• a. By revising the table heading for 

''Missouri-S02'' to read ''Missouri1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Missouri-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" follo"~ng the newly 

designated table ''Missouri-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§ 81.326 Missouri. 

• • 

MISSOURI-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Jackson County, M01 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. Section 81.327 is amended as 

follows: 

1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a new table 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 revising the table heading for 

"Montana-S02" to read "Montana-

§ 81.327 Montana. 

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

47202 Federal Register I Vol. 78, No. 150 I Monday, 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 1 N, 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 1 N, Range 27E. From that point the boundary proceeds south along the i sec- tion line to the southern boundary of Township 1 N, 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 1 S, 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. Sec lion 81.328 is amended by 

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. By revising the table heading for 

and Secondary)". "New Hampshire-502" to read "New 

• 30. Section 81.329 is amended by Hampshire-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

revising the table heading for "Nevada- NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a new table 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-201 0 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 is amended by 

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 amended by 

revising the table heading for "New 

Mexico-S02'' to read ''New Mexico1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§81.333 [Amended] 

• 34. Section 81.333 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "New 

York-802" to read "New York-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§81.334 [Amended] 

• 35. Section 81.334 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "North 

Carolina-S02" to read "North 

Carolina-1 971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)". 

§ 81.335 [Amended] 

• 36. Section 81.335 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "North 

Dakota-S02" to read "North Dakota1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

• 37. Section 81.336 is amended as 

follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Ohio-SO," to read "Ohio-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Ohio-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 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 Register I Vol. 78, No. 150 I Monday, 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 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

B b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Pennsylvania-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly 

designated table "Pennsylvania-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Pennsylvanin-S02" lo read 

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania. 

PENNSYLVANIA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Allegheny, PA 1 

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 Towns hip 

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-201 0 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. Section 81.340 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Rhode 

Island-SO," to read "Rhode Jsland1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§81.341 [Amended] 

• 42. Seclion 81.341 is amended by 

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 amended by 

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. By revising the table heading for 

''Tennessee-S02'' to read 

"Tennessee-1 971 Sulfm Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)": and 

• b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Tennessee-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly 

designated table ''Tennessee-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide 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) .............................................................................................................................. . 1 0-4-13 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 81.344 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Texas802'' to read ''Texas-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§81.345 [Amended] 

• 46. Section 81.345 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "UtahSO,'' to read "Utah-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.346 [Amended] 

• 47. Section 81.346 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Verrnont-S02:" to read "Vermont1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)'', 

§ 81.347 [Amended] 

• 48. Section 81.347 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Virginia-SO:!' to read "ViTginia1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.348 [Amended] 

• 49. Section 81.348 is amended by 

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 table heading for 

''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 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly 

designated table ''West Virginia-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide 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 Register I Vol. 78, No. 150 /Monday, August 5, 2013 /Rules and Regulations 47205 

• • • • 

• 51. Seclion 81.350 is amended as 

follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Wisconsin-802" to read 

"Wisconsin-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a m:w table entitled 

"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 amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"''Vyoming-S02" to read "Wyoming1 971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)", 

§ 81.352 [Amended! 

a 53. Section 81.352 is amended by 

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 amended by 

revising the table heading for "GuamS02" to read "Guam-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.354 [Amended] 

a 55. Section 81.354 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Northern 

Mariana Islands-S02'' to read 

''Northern Mariana Islands-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§81.355 [Amended! 

a 56. Section 81.355 is amended by 

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 amended by 

revising the table heading for "Virgin 

Islands-S02 " to read "Virgin Islands1971 Sulfur Dioxide 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 G is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Imperial Refining Co. Superfund Site 

located in Ardmore, Carter County, 

Oklahoma, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental 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. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final deletion 

in the Federal 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 of the 

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. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RA); 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, 

Texas 75202-7167. 

• Hand delivezy: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 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 of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-AFUND-2000-

0003. EPA's policy is thal all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may 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 other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

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 information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through hltp:/1 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

ond included as part of the 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 electronicaliy the 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 

l 00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 6060 I 

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 of Legal 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 

Schiff Hardin 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