# + 2

(,1 1/,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 atthe end ofthe document now reading "December29, 1979" shouldhave read "December 29, 1978."

BILLING CODE 1505-01-M



### DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 0 Delegating Increased Settlement Authority toAssistant Attorneys General; CFR Correction

InTitle 28, revised as ofJuly 1, 1978,

on page 54, the introductory text of §0.160is corrected toread 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 ofclaims in behalfofthe United States in all cases inwhich the difference between the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not exceed $250,000 or 10 percent ofthe original claim, whichever is greater, and ofclaims against the United States in all cases, or in administrative actions to settle, in which the amount ofthe 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 statusrelative to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) and total suspended particulates (TSP)that

were promulgated forArizona onMarch 3, 1978 (43FR 8962). In addition to this rulemaking, a notice ofproposed rulemaking isbeing prepared for the TSP designation in Morenci, Arizona thatEPA 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 of1977 

### (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 ofall 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 orinformation 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 ofArizona did
not submit its designations toEPA by the deadline required forpublication 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 toEPA on August 15,1978. Thisrulemaking 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 EPAon March 3 were made on a countywide basis, in keeping with Agency policy. IfNAAQS 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 ofAugust 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'sboundary 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 ofPart D ofthe Act.A
state implementation plan revision (nonattainment plan)must be adopted by the State ofArizona and approved by EPAby July 1.1979.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

The State ofArizona has designated the following six areas ofthe 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 ofthese nonattainment areas have been designated unclassified by the State because ofinsufficient air quality data. The remainder ofthe State has be designated attainment based on air quality data.The State identified the boundaries of the nonattainment and unclassified areas on the basis ofone or
more townships, orportions 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 ofArizona's nonattainment and unclassified SO2 designations and

concurs with them based on a review of the air quality data.

The State ofArizona designated Coconino County attainmentfor SO2. On March 3,.1978, EPA designated the County unclassified pending the promulgation ofthe stack height regulations implementing section 123 of the Clean Air Act. The SOz designation ofthe Page areawithin Coconino

- Conty.including the Navajo power plant,may be affected by these forthcoming regulations. Inthe interim, the SQ2 designation 6fthe Page area which encompasses township T4IN, R9E, will remain unclassified. The State's attainment designation for the remainder ofCoconino County and the remainder ofthe State is acceptable since no violations ofSO, 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 ofArizona designated 19

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



### remainder ofArizona attainment. The EPA's review-indicates that the State. did notprovide adequate doeumentation to support their TSP-designations -and that some ofthe designations were not madeJn accordance with the requirements of'Section 107(d) df the Clean Air Act. Specifically, areas with air quality data recording TSPviolations that shouldhave been designated nonattainment were, in fact, designated unclassified or attainment by the State. Consequently, some ofthe 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 TSPviolations 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 ofmajorindustrial development orthe absence of significant industrialparticulate 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. Forthis purpose major industrial development is defined as an industrial

source in a category listed in the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration

- 

### regulations-(40 CFR 52.21) 

### 'with actual emissions ofmore than 100 

### tons-peryear
or 'anindustrial source in any other

source category with actual particulate emissions ofgreater than 250 tonsper year. Because the State ofArizona failed toproperly designate areas with respect to TSP, EPAhas modified'certain ofthe 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 ofArizona designated the' Phoenix and Tucson areas as unclassified for TSP.Areview of the air quality data shows violations ofthe primary TSP standards in both areas. Because ofthe recorded violations ofthe 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 thePhoenix and Tucson urban areas and contain major industrial development and sources of significant industrial particulate emissions, are acceptable.

The State ofArizona designated

seven areas surrounding major 'stationary'sources ofparticulate emissions'as unclassified. The areas are. Ajo, Douglas, Hayden,Miami (copper smelters)Joseblh:City, Page {power plants), and Paul Spur (limeplant. A review of the-air-quality -data-hows that each areahas recordedviolations of'the TSPprimary 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 ofparticulate emissions are located within the State's designated boundaries and EPA affirms those boundaries for each ofthe seven areas.

The State ofArizona designated ten other areas as unclassified for TSP. They are Casa Grande, Flagstaff, Florence, M6have Valley, Nogales, Parker, Safford,-Show Low, Superior, and Yuma. Areview ofthe air quality data shows that violations ofthe TSP standards have been recorded in each

area. However, each area can be designated attainment based on EPA's fugitive dustpolicy which considerslow population andlack ofmajor industrial development orthe absence of significant industrial particulate emissions. Based on this consideration, EPA accepts the State's boundaries but revises the designation ofeach ofthe

areas to attainment.

The SanManuel area ofPinal County has been designated attainment forTSP by the State ofArizona. No violations of the TSPNAAQS have beenrecordced in the area in recent years. However, preliminary air.pollution dispersion modeling performed by EPAprojects a violation df'the 24-hour secondary TSP standard caused by the major stationary

source ofparticulate emissions at San Manuel.'The modeling also indicates that'no monitors are located in the area ofestimated maximum TSP concentration. Until sufficient information concerning the area's attainment status becomes available, EPA designates San Manuel unclassified forTSP.

Based on air-quality data -froma State operated air qualitymonitoring station, Morenci, Greenlee County,was designated attainment forTSP byEPA

on March 3,1978 and by the State of Arizonain their August 1978 submittal. However, a-review ofair quality data shows numerous violations ofthe TSP standards at-several monitoring stations operated by the owner ofthe copper smelter at Morenci. Th&smelter is a
source ofsignificant industrial particulate emissions and because ofthe air quality data, EPAis proposing to revise the TSP designations'ofthe 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 ofArizona

was designated attainment by the State ofArizona in their submittal ofAugust, 1978. With the exception of the designations described in the preceeding paragraphs, EPA affirms the TSP attainment designation for the remainder ofArizona. 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 lowpopulation densities. The TSP designations promulgated in the table following this notice replace those promulgated byEPA on March 3,1978.

*Severalpublicicomments were received during the comment period following the March 3,1978 promulgation ofattainment status designations. Those relevant comments received by EPA concerning the designations ofTSP 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 thatwill 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 foradjusting 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 forTSP until it can be demonstrated that violations

were not caused by human activity. Violations ofthe TSP standards have been recorded in each ofthefour cities and the Phoenix andTucson areas'have 21262Federal 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 ofmajor industrial development or significant industrial particulate emissions).

Two commenters argued that it would be inconsistent to include an area classified Class Iunder the Agency's Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) program in an area designated nonattainment under section 107 ofthe Act.

Under section 162 ofthe Act, Congressprovided that certain areas of the country, because oftheir recreational or conservational value, should be designated Class Iregardless oftheir present air quality. This does not

mean that these areas could not be designated nonattainment under section 107 ofthe Act. This situation would

occurifthe 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 ofa Class I area within a nonattainment area does nor

mean that the Class I area will lose the protection ofthe PSD program. Ifa Class I area could not be designated nonattainment because ofair quality violations, then the Act could not require States to revise their implementation plans to insure attainment ofthe 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 apetition 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 ofthis rulemaking. If the person isnot satisfied with the * State's response to the petition, he may then petition the EPARegion IX Office
to modify the current designation. Note.-The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this document is nota significant regulation and does not require preparation ofa regulatory analysis underExecutive Order 12044. Authority: Sections 107(d). 171(2). 301(a) of the Clean AirAct. as amended (42U.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"1263Federal 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, RI6E.- 'X T10S,RISE..---- "X T11S. R17E-..... X T12S. R16

-
T12S, R17E_.... -A Page:. T41N, R9E Rest ofState.

- - X Ale: T12S, R6W

...... __x Douglas: T24S, R27E_ X, T24S, R28E.

.. X Hayden: T5S,R15E

......... __X Joseph City:.

T1

8 N R1 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*coordinatesmoIng ina'clockwlse nannen LA FtN) andLON(W): 32*38.5' 11 "24.0' 32*26.5' 110"47.5_

- Is" 2'I2.5r10*"32. '

__ 31"49.5"110"25.5' 31"42.0.'110 60.F" , 31"52.5 11112." S3

2 24.5 ' 11 1!2 90.

. - . ....- - 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, ANDWELFARE
Office of the Secretary 41 CFR Part 3-2- Procurement by Formal Advertising
AGENCY: 

### Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Office ofthe Secretary, 

### Department ofHealthEducation, 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 ofall oralprotests filed with the Department are obtained, to extend the period forfiling 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 ofprotests 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.

EFFECTIVEDATE: April 10, 1979.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E., 

### S. Lanham, Division ofProcurement Policy and Regulations Development, Office ofGrants -and Procurement, OASMB-OS, HEW, Washington, D.C. 20201 (202-245-6347).

.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It Is the general policy ofthe Department to 

### allow time forinterested 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;40U.S.C. 486(c).

Therefore, 41 CFR Chapter 3 is 

### amended as 'setforth 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, ofPart'3-2, Procurement by Formal Advertising, sections 3-:2.406-:3,"Other mistakes 

### disclosed before .award,3-2.400-4, Disclosure ofmistikes alter award, and 3-2.407-8, Protests against award, are 

### cancelled, and the sections indicated in the table ofcontents and following text

are substituted:
Subpart 3-2.4-Opening of Bids and Award ofContract

Sec.

3-2.4 8 Mistakes in bids. 3-2.408-3 Othermistakes dlsclosed'leforo award. 3-2.40B-4 'Disclosure ofmistakes 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 -beforeaward. (a) Circumstances permitting the correction or withdrawal ofbids are sot forth in §-1-2.406-3. 

### (b)Authority has been delegated to the Director, Division ofProcurement Policy andRegulations Development, 21264