+(,121/,1(

Citation: 44 Fed. Reg. 21261 1979 

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Thu Oct 13 16:36:38 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

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

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 70 I Tuesday. April 10. 1979 I Rules and Regulations 21281

29, 1978, the effective date given both in

the preamble and at the end of the

document now reading "December29,

1979" should have read "December 29,

1978."

BILLING CODE 1505-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 0

Delegating Increased Settlement

Authority to Assistant Attorneys

General; CFR Correction

In Title 28, revised as of July 1, 1978,

on page 54, the introductory text of

§ 0.160 is corrected to read as follows:

§ 0.160 Offers which may be accepted by

Assistant Attomeys General.

Each Assistant Attorney General is

authorized with respect to matters

assigned to his division, to accept offers

in compromise of claims in behalf of the

United States in all cases in which the

difference between the gross amount of

the original claim and the proposed

settlement does not exceed $250,000 or

10 percent of the original claim,

whichever is greater, and of claims

against the United States in all cases, or

in administrative actions to settle, in

which the amount of the proposed

settlement does not exceed $500,000

except:

BILLING CODE 1505-01-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria,

and Control Techniques; Attainment

Status Designations

AGENCY- Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking responds to

comments and makes necessary

amendments to the designations of

attainment status relative to the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and

total suspended particulates (TSP) that

were promulgated for Arizona on March

3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). In addition to this

rulemaking, a notice of proposed

rulemaking is being prepared for the

TSP designation in Morenci, Arizona

that EPA is proposing to change to

nonittainment.

DATES.Effective immediately.

ADDRESS: Comments on this rulemaking

should be directed to: Arnold Den,

Chief, Air Technical Branch, EPA Region

IX, 215 Fremont Street (A-4), San

Francisco, CA 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Charlotte Hopper, Acting Chief,

Technical Analysis Section, EPA Region

IX, Phone: (415) 556-2002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the

1977 Amendments), Pub. L 95-95, added

Section 107(d) to the Clean Air Act (the

Act) which directed each State to submit

to the Administrator a list of the

NAAQS attainment status of all areas

within the State. The Administrator was

required under Section 107(d)(2) to

promulgate the State lists, with any

necessary modifications. For each

NAAQS, areas are classified as either

not attaining the standard or, for.certain

pollutants, projected not to maintain the

standard (nonattainment areas), meeting

the standard (attainment areas), or

lacking sufficient data or information to

be classified (unclassified areas). The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA

or the Agency) published these lists in

the Federal Register on March 3,1978

(43 FR 8962).

Attainment status designations for

Arizona were prepared and promulgated

by EPA because the State of Arizona did

not submit its designations to EPA by

the deadline required for publication by

March 3,1978 nor by the date

established in the Act. During this

period, the State held public n]gptings to

obtain local and regional input to the

designation process. The State

subsequently submitted attainment

status designations to EPA on August

15,1978. This rulemaking addresses only

the SO2 and TSP designations submitted

by the State. The designations for

carbon monoxide, photochemical

oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide in

Arizona, as well as the designations for

all five criteria pollutants in the other

states in Region IX were addresed in a

recent final rulemaking and a notice of

proposed rulemaking.

The SO2 and TSP designations

prepared and promulgated for Arizona

by EPA on March 3 were made on a

countywide basis, in keeping with

Agency policy. If NAAQS violations

were recorded anywhere in the county,

EPA designated the entire county

nonattainment, and the fugitive dust

policy was not considered in the original

TSP designations. In the State of

Arizona's submittal of August 1978,

designations were made on the basis of

subcounty areas which is acceptable

under section 107(d). In this rulemaking,

EPA has approved the State's boundary

designations, with the result that many

nonattainment areas have been reduced

from entire counties to subcounties

which encompass the population and

source-oriented areas. Those areas

designated nonattainment on March 3,

1978 and reaffirmed as nonattainment in

this rulemaking remain under the

requirements of Part D of the Act. A

state implementation plan revision

(nonattainment plan) must be adopted

by the State of Arizona and approved by

EPA by July 1.1979.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

The State of Arizona has designated

the following six areas of the State as

nonattainment (primary) for SO:. Ajo.

Douglas, Hayden. Miami, Morenci, and

San Manuel. These six areas contain all

of the major point sources which

contribute to monitored SO violations.

Additional areas near each of these

nonattainment areas have been

designated unclassified by the State

because of insufficient air quality data.

The remainder of the State has be

designated attainment based on air

quality data. The State identified the

boundaries of the nonattainment and

unclassified areas on the basis of one or

more townships, or portions thereof.

Townphips are nominally squares

measuring six miles on a side. The

description of each area and its

designation is listed in the table

following this notice. EPA has reviewed

the State of Arizona's nonattainment

and unclassified SO2 designations and

concurs with them based on a review of

the air quality data.

The State of Arizona designated

Coconino County attainment for SO2.

On March 3,.1978, EPA designated the

County unclassified pending the

promulgation of the stack height

regulations implementing section 123 of

the Clean Air Act. The SOz designation

of the Page area within Coconino -

Conty.including the Navajo power

plant, may be affected by these

forthcoming regulations. In the interim,

the SQ2 designation 6f the Page area

which encompasses township T4IN,

R9E, will remain unclassified. The

State's attainment designation for the

remainder of Coconino County and the

remainder of the State is acceptable

since no violations of SO, standards

have been recorded in these areas. The

State's SO designations, except for

Page, replace those promulgated by EPA

on March 3,1978.

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

The State of Arizona designated 19

areas unclassified for TSP and the

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 70 / Tuesday. April 10. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 21261
Federal Register /'Vol. 44, NO. -70 1 Tuesday, April 10, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

remainder of Arizona attainment. The

EPA's review-indicates that the State.

did not provide adequate doeumentation

to support their TSP-designations -and

that some of the designations were not

made Jn accordance with the

requirements of'Section 107(d) df the

Clean Air Act. Specifically, areas with

air quality data recording TSP violations

that should have been designated

nonattainment were, in fact, designated

unclassified or attainment by the State.

Consequently, some of the State's

designations have been modified as

described below.

Under EPA's fugitive dust policy, as

describedin the March 3, 1978 (43 FR

8962) rulemaking, any rural areas

experiencing TSP violations that could

be attributed to fugitive dust could be

designated attainment with respect to

the TSP NAAQS. Rural areas for this

purpose are defined as those that have:

(1) A lack of majorindustrial

development or the absence of

significant industrial particulate

emissions, and (2) low urbanized

population densities. In this rulemaking,

an area containing less than 50,000

population and with no major industrial

development is considered to be rural.

For this purpose major industrial

development is defined as an industrial

source in a category listed in the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration -

regulations- (40 CFR 52.21) 'with actual

emissions of more than 100 tons-per year

or 'an industrial source in any other

source category with actual particulate

emissions of greater than 250 tonsper

year. Because the State of Arizona failed

to properly designate areas with respect

to TSP, EPA has modified'certain of the

designations to conform to 'the Clean Air

Act and EPA's fugitivb dustpolicy.

Descriptions of the TSP areas are

provided in the table following this

notice.

The State of Arizona designated the'

Phoenix and Tucson areas as

unclassified for TSP. A review of the air

quality data shows violations of the

primary TSP standards in both areas.

Because of the recorded violations of the

TSP standards, EPA does not accept the

State's unclassified designation but

retains the nonattainment designations

promulgated by EPA onMarch 3, 1978.

The boundaries defined by the State,

which encompass the Phoenix and

Tucson urban areas and contain major

industrial development and sources of

significant industrial particulate

emissions, are acceptable.

The State of Arizona designated

seven areas surrounding major 'stationary'sources of particulate

emissions'as unclassified. The areas are.

Ajo, Douglas, Hayden, Miami (copper

smelters)Joseblh:City, Page {power

plants), and Paul Spur (lime plant. A

review of the-air-quality -data -hows that

each area has recordedviolations of'the

TSP primary standards.Because'of the

violations, EPAdoes not.accept the

State's unclassified-designations but

retains the nonattainment designations

promulgated by.EPA onMarch 3,21978.

However, the major stationary sources

of particulate emissions are located

within the State's designated boundaries

and EPA affirms those boundaries for

each of the seven areas.

The State of Arizona designated ten

other areas as unclassified for TSP.

They are Casa Grande, Flagstaff,

Florence, M6have Valley, Nogales,

Parker, Safford,-Show Low, Superior,

and Yuma. A review of the air quality

data shows that violations of the TSP

standards have been recorded in each

area. However, each area can be

designated attainment based on EPA's

fugitive dust policy which considers low

population and lack of major industrial

development or the absence of

significant industrial particulate

emissions. Based on this consideration,

EPA accepts the State's boundaries but

revises the designation of each of the

areas to attainment.

The SanManuel area of Pinal County

has been designated attainment for TSP

by the State of Arizona. No violations of

the TSP NAAQS have been recordced in

the area in recent years. However,

preliminary air.pollution dispersion

modeling performed by EPA projects a

violation df'the 24-hour secondary TSP

standard caused by the major stationary

source of particulate emissions at San

Manuel.'The modeling also indicates

that'no monitors are located in the area

of estimated maximum TSP

concentration. Until sufficient

information concerning the area's

attainment status becomes available,

EPA designates San Manuel unclassified

for TSP.

Based on air-quality data -from a State

operated air quality monitoring station,

Morenci, Greenlee County, was

designated attainment for TSP by EPA

on March 3, 1978 and by the State of

Arizona in their August 1978 submittal.

However, a-review of air quality data

shows numerous violations of the TSP

standards at-several monitoring stations

operated by the owner of the copper

smelter at Morenci. Th& smelter is a

source of significant industrial

particulate emissions and because of the

air quality data, EPA is proposing to

revise the TSP designations'of the

Morenci area to nonattainment. Because

Morenci-was originally designated

attainment'by EPA, a separate notice of

proposed rulemaking Is being developed

to consider the possible redesignation.

Public comments will be solicited,

particularly concerning the validity of

the air monitoring data from the Morenci area.

Except for the 19 areas designated as

unclassified for TSP, the rest of Arizona

was designated attainment by the State

of Arizona in their submittal of August,

1978. With the exception of the

designations described in the preceeding

paragraphs, EPA affirms the TSP

attainment designation for the

remainder of Arizona. The attainment

designation is supported either by

monitoring data or fugitive dust

considerations in areas lacking major

industrial development or significant

industrial particulate emissions and

with low population densities. The TSP

designations promulgated in the table

following this notice replace those

promulgated by EPA on March 3,1978.

* Several publicicomments were

received during the comment period

following the March 3,1978

promulgation of attainment status

designations. Those relevant comments

received by EPA concerning the

designations of TSP and SO2 in Arizona

are summarized below.

Several commenters questioned the

boundaries for the designated areas.

Some suggested larger areas, and others

suggested smaller areas. The State, on

August 15, 1978, chose to designate the

boundaries such that the sources

contributing to air quality problems

were contained within the designated

areas. For the air quality planning

purposes of these section 107(d)

designations, the boundaries are

sufficient to provide for control

strategies that will insure attainment of

the NAAQS and are therefore

acceptable.

One commenter questioned the air

quality monitoring data used to support

a TSP nonattainment designation for the

Tucson area. The designation Is

supported by violations at numerous

monitoring sites. While there are

provisions for adjusting air quality data

to account for unusual phenomena (40

CFR 51.12(d)), the commenter did not

provide sufficient technical information

to support a revision in the current

designation.

One commenter recommended that

Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Yuma be

designated nonattainment for TSP until

it can be demonstrated that violations

were not caused by human activity.

Violations of the TSP standards have

been recorded in each ofthe four cities

and the Phoenix andTucson areas'have

21262
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 70 / Tuesday. April 10. 1979 / Rules and Regulations

been designated nonattaihment.

Flagstaff and Yuma, however, have been

designated attainment based on EPA's

fugitive'dust considerations (low

population and lack of major industrial

development or significant industrial

particulate emissions).

Two commenters argued that it would

be inconsistent to include an area

classified Class I under the Agency's

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) program in an area designated

nonattainment under section 107 of the

Act.

Under section 162 of the Act,

Congress provided that certain areas of

the country, because of their

recreational or conservational value,

should be designated Class Iregardless

of their present air quality. This does not

mean that these areas could not be

designated nonattainment under section

107 of the Act. This situation would

occur if the air quality in the Class I

area is worse than the national ambient

air standards or if the Class I area is a

clean air pocket within a larger area

designated nonattainment. In either

case, the existence of a Class I area

within a nonattainment area does nor

mean that the Class I area will lose the

protection of the PSD program. If a Class

I area could not be designated

nonattainment because of air quality

violations, then the Act could not

require States to revise their

implementation plans to insure

attainment of the NAAQS in such areas.

This is not the case, however, because

in this instance the nonattainment and

PSD programs work independently, and

an area can be both Class I and

nonattainment at the same time.

To have any designation amended, a

person should submit a petition with

supporting data and analysis to the

State, with a copy to the EPA Region IX

Office at the location given in the

ADDRESS section of this rulemaking. If

the person is not satisfied with the *

State's response to the petition, he may

then petition the EPA Region IX Office

to modify the current designation.

Note.-The Environmental Protection

Agency has determined that this document is

not a significant regulation and does not

require preparation of a regulatory analysis

under Executive Order 12044.

Authority: Sections 107(d). 171(2). 301(a) of

the Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C.

7407(d). 7501(2). 7601(a)).

Dated April 2,1979.

DOUSLAt 1%L Cmed.

Arizona-SO 2

Does oes not Becer tan

Des n d wa me M-cet Cannot be natonal

pcrnly secon - assied standards

5sL'idanis standads

x

x

x

x

x

X

x

x

x

x

-x

X

x

x

x

x

X

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

TIlS. R6W

TIIS. RSW,

T12S. R6WT12S, RSW,,

TS. RSW- T11S. R7W..

T12S. R7W.

T13S. R7W,,

T13S. R5W_

T23S. R27E.

T24S. R27E.

T24S, R28E.

T23S. R26E.

T23S. R28E. T24S. R26E.

Hayden:

TS, RI4E_

T4S, RISE.

TS. RI6E T5S. RI4E.

T5S, RISETSS. RI6E.

T6S. RI4E,,,

T6So RISET6S. RI6E.

T4S. R13E.

Ts. R17E,

T5S. RI3E. T5S. RI7E_

T6S. R13E_,

T6S, RITE

Mian*

T2No RI4E...

T2N. RISE....

TIN. R3E9.

TIN. R14E.

TIN. RISE

TIN. R16E

TIS. R14E

TIS. RI41AE

TIS. RISE.... T2N. R13E1, ,

T2N. RI6F..

TIS. RISE

TIS. RI6E.

T2S. RI4E '.

T2S. RISE.

IVorenck

T3S. R25E t T3S. R29E....

T3S. R3oE,,,

Ts. R28E t Ts. R29ETS, R30E....

2"1263
Federal Register /. VoL 44, No. -O / Tuesday, April 10, 19'79" / Rules and Regulations

Arizona-SO r--Contlnued

Does not 'Does not Better'than

Designated area meet °meet -Cannot be national

primary secondary classified standards

standards standards

T5S, R29E X

T5S, R30E. X

San Manuel:

TgS. R16E X

Tas, RISE. X

TgS, RISE. ". X

TaS, RISE. X

T S, RI7E.- AX.-

TS, RISE........ X

TIOS, RI5E.... . X

TIOS,Rl6E ....... 'X

T10S, R1E.__ _X T1 IS, RI 6E.- 'X

T10S, RISE..---- "X

T11S. R17E-..... X T12S. R1 6 -

T12S, R17E_.... -A

Page:.T41N, R9E Rest of State. - - X

Ale:

T12S, R6W ...... __x

Douglas:

T24S, R27E_ X,

T24S, R28E. .. X

Hayden:

T5S, R15E ......... __X

Joseph City:.

T 1 8 N R 1 E ..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X

TIN, RISE ..... - X

Page:.

T41N.'R9E .Ix Paul Spun

T24S,'R2E "x

PhoenbxcThat portion of Maricopa County known as the Maricopa

associationof Governments (MAG) Urban planning Area-...... I _X

Tucson: Tharportlon within Pima County of the area desclbed'by

-connecting the following* geographical *coordinates moIng

in a'clockwlse nannen LA FtN) and LON(W):

32*38.5' 11 "24.0' 32*26.5' 110"47.5_ - Is" 2'I 2.5r 10*"32. ' __

31"49.5"110"25.5'

31"42.0 .'110 60.F" ,

31"52.5 11112."

S3 2 2 4 .5 ' 1 1 1 ! 2 9 0. -. . ....- - I I " " X

San Manuel:

T10$, R17_ __ "X

'10S, RISE - -- --: - -o X

Rest of State %X

Only.that portion in Gila CountylOnlythat portion In Greenlee County-

'EPA derlgmaaon replaces State desigration.

[FRL 109-71

[FR Doc. 79-11010 Filed 4-9-7, &.45am]

BILLNG CODE.6560-01-M

DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of the Secretary

41 CFR Part 3-2-

Procurement by Formal Advertising

AGENCY: Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary,

Department of HealthEducation, and

Welfare is amending the Departmental

procurement regulations to reflectrevisions to Part 3-2, Procurement by

Formal Advertising.

In the section concerning mistakes in

-bids, amendments are being made to

-clarify recent delegated authorities

concerning administrative -

determinations and to cancel and

reserve those portions whichi restate,

verbatim, what is in the Federal

Procurement Regulations. Under the

section concerning protests against

award, amendments are being made to

require that timely written confirmation

of all oral protests filed with the

Department are obtained, to extend the

period for filing protests with the

Department from five to ten Federal

Government working days to coincide

with'the General Accounting Office's

timeliness requirement, to clarify the

timely filing of protests which result

from aniendments to solicitations, and

to recognize the discretion allowed

contracting officers in making

determinations lo resolve protests filed

at the contracting officer level.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 1979.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E.,

S. Lanham, Division of Procurement

Policy and Regulations Development,

Office of Grants -and Procurement,

OASMB-OS, HEW, Washington, D.C.

20201 (202-245-6347).

.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It Is the

general policy of the Department to

allow time for interested parties to

participate in the rulemaking process.

However, since the amendments

primarily concern internal

administrative procedures and, to the

extent that they affect the public,

liberalize previous procedures, the

public rulemaking process was deemed

unnecessary in his instance. The

provisions of these amendments are

issued under 5 U.S.C. 301;40 U.S.C.

486(c).

Therefore, 41 CFR Chapter 3 is

amended as 'set forth below.

Dated: March 28. ,1979.

E. T. Rhodes.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grnts and 'PrvcurmcIL

Under Subpart 3-2.4, 'Opening'oT Bids

and Award of Conrtract, of Part'3-2,

Procurement by Formal Adver tising,

sections 3-:2.406-:3,"Other mistakes

disclosed before .award, 3-2.400-4,

Disclosure of mistikes alter award, and

3-2.407-8, Protests against award, are

cancelled, and the sections indicated in

the table of contents and following text

are substituted:

Subpart 3-2.4-Opening of Bids and Award

of Contract

Sec.

3-2.4 8 Mistakes in bids.

3-2.408-3 Othermistakes dlsclosed'leforo

award.

3-2.40B-4 'Disclosure of mistakes after

award.

3-2A07 Award.

3-2.407-8 Protests against award.

Authority. 5 U.S.C. 301,40 U.S.C 480(c),

§ 3-2.406 Mistakes in bids.

§ 3-2.406-3 Other mistakes disclosed

-before award.

(a) Circumstances permitting the

correction or withdrawal of bids are sot

forth in §-1-2.406-3.

(b) Authority has been delegated to

the Director, Division of Procurement

Policy and Regulations Development,

21264