# + 2

(,1 1/,1( Citation: 43 Fed. Reg. 40412 1978

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Mar 17 15:30:24 2014 -- 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.

### .40412 RULES AND REGULATIONS [6560-011

Title40-Protecti6n ofEnvironment rFRL958-4] CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL 

### PROTECTION AGENCY SUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS 

### PART 81-AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES

Attainment Status Designations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, topublish on a State-by-State, pollutant-by-pollutant basis the attainment status of all areas within the States in relation to the national am- bient air quality standards (NAAQS) as submitted by the States and approved, or as designated by EPA (43 PR 8962, March 3, 1978). Both the State and EPA can initiate changes to -these designations but any State redes- Ignation must be submitted to EPA for concurrence. This final rule amends the designations for areas of certain States by indicating whether the areas attain the national ambient airqualitystandards. '

In addition, the preamble states EPA's position on certain general issuesraised in comments onthe origi-- nal designations of areas in these or other States. Copies of the comments submitted are available at the appro- priate EPARegional Offices. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1978. 

### FOR FURTHER INFORiATION CONTACT:

Lanny M. Deal, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, telephone 919- 541-5365, orPTS-629-5365. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the 1977 amendments), Pub. L. 95-95, added to the Clean AirAct (the act) anew section 107(d), 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) of the act to promulgate the State lists, with any necessary modifications. For, each standard, areas are designated as either not meetingthe standard (nonattainment areas), meeting the standard (attainment areas), or lacking sufficient data to be classified (unclassifiable areas). EPA published these lists in the FEDERAL REGISTER on March 3, 1978, 43 FR8962, and invited the public to submit comments to the Agency byMay 2, 1978.

This FEDERAL REGISTER notice serves essentially two purposes. First, the preamble to this rulemaking states EPA's position on certain general issues raised in comments on the designations in all parts of the country. This discussion will serve as part of the response to comments for every State, including those whose designations are not §pecifically discussed in thispublicatiofi.

Second, EPA makes necessary amendments to the designations for the following States, and responds to comments' applicable specifically to these States: EPiARegionI:

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New

Hampshire. EPARegion IV:

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

North Carolina, andTennessee. EPARegion VI:

Arkansas,Louisiana, NewMexico, Oklahoma,andTexas. EPARegionVIII:

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and

Utah. EPARegion M

Idaho andWashington. All States are not included in this publication because the volume of spe- cific comments varied widely among various regions ofthe country. Certain EPA Regional Offices could therefore finish preparing FEDERAL REGISTER documents responding to comments and amending designations sooner than others. Rather than delaying publication of all documents until the last oneis completed, EPAisnow pub- lishing those documents that are ready, and will publish the remaining documents as soon as they are com- pleted.

The designations promulgated on March 3, as amended today, are final but can be further amended if neces- sary. Under -section 107(d)(5) of the act, a State may from time to time revise andresubmit its list of designations, andEPA must then promulgate the revised list with such modifications as the Agency deems necessary. Furthermore, even without State submittal ofa revisedlist,the Agency can .modifythe currentlist ofdesignations if necessary, under section 107(d)(2). To have any designation amended, a person should submit a petition with supporting data and analysis to the State, with a copy to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. If the person is notsatisfied with the State's response to the petition, he may then petition the appropriate EPA Regional Office tomodify the currentlist.I

'The addresses of all EPA Regional Offices are printed in the March 3 FEDERAL REGisTERnotice,43FR8962. The amendments to designations are being made effective Immediately, for good cause. As discussed below, the principal effect of these designations is to Identify problem areas for which State air quality planning must be completed by a statutory deadline, These designations impose no additional obligation on any source. Defer. ring the effective date Is therefore un- necessary.

The general Issuesraised Inthe com- ments are discussed below under the following headings: (A) Geographic Impact of Designations; (B) Use of Projected Future Air Quality; (C) Relationship of Designations to Supplementary Control Systems (SCS): (D) Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and Standing Air Monitoring Work Group (SAMWG) Guidelines; and (E) Procedural Objections. Comments also raised general Issues concerning the size and regulatory effect of designa- tions for photochemical oxidants (ozone). EPA's response to these com- mentsIs underpreparation and will be published shortly.

Following the discussion of general issues are the responses to specific comments and amendments to designations for States in EPA Regions I, IV, VI, VIII, and X. Today's rulemaking action innoway affects those desIgnations made on March 3, 1978, for which no comments were received during thepubliccomment period. I. GENERAL ISSUES A.EFFECTOFDESIGNATIONS ON CLEANAIR ACT REQUIREMENTS Several commenters discussed the effect of attainment status designa- tions on individual stationary sources of pollution. The commenters often assumed that every source within a designated nonattainment area would be subject to stringent nonattainment requirements and that every source within a designated attainment or un- classifiable area would be subject to less stringent prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) requirements. However, this Is an oversimplification that doesnot accurately reflect the re- quirements ofthe Act. 1. Generalpurposeandeffect ofdesig. nations The purpose ofthedesignations Isto Identify air quality problem areas for which the States and EPA must seek solutions. As EPA stated in the March 3 promulgation, "[tlhe section 107(d) designations are meant to provide a starting point for States in their ef. forts to correct existing air quality problems and to implement programs under the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments." 2The area designation, whether nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, thus does not In and

243FR 8963col. 2.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978by itself dictate the applicable new or existing source requirements. There areessentially threereasons forthis.

First,because airpollution emissions are transported from one area to an- other, the sources that cause or con- tribute to a violation, or affect a clean locality, may be in different locations from the violation or clean locality itself. Controls will therefore often haveto apply to sources outside ofthe area that the controls are intended to protect.

Second,Statesmay choosetoimpose requirements over a broader or narrower geographic region than the precise area where sources exist that directly contribute toparticular concen- trations of a pollutant. For example, forreasons ofequity, simplicity ofadministration, or to allow more growth in clean areas, States may choose to make their revised emission limitations applicable statewide, ratherthan restricting the requirement to sources that directly cause or contribute to violations.

Finally, section 107(d) of the Act provides thatbttainment status designationswere tobe made within a very short timeperiod, and were tobecom- posed ofairquality controlregions (or portions thereof), which are often based on State,county, or otherpolitical jurisdictional boundaries. This process is bound to include pockets where the air quality does not corre- spond to the designation of the area. These anomalies can be taken into ac- count inthe more elaborate andthorough proceedings required under the Actfor development ofplans and issu- ance ofindividual permits. 2. Effect ofdesignations, onparticular CleanAirActrequirements EPA's promulgations .and policy statements implementing the Act's re- quirements for individual sources are' set forth in several FEDERAL REGISTER notices.3 The following summary of the requirements applicable toindividual sources is provided to correct the misunderstandings expressed in the comments, and to set the attainment status designations inperspective. a.-State Implementation Plan Revisions Under sections 171(2) and 172 of the Act, a State must revise -itsState implementation plan (SIP)toprovide for attainment (nonattaimentplan), as expeditiously as practicable but no later than certain specified deadlines, in any areadesignated asnonattainment. Under sections 10l(b)(1) and 161 of

3See, eg., 43 FR 26380-410, June 19. 1978 (PSD new source review and State planre- quirements); 43 FR 21673-77, May 19, 1978 (nonattainment State plan requirements): forthcoming revision of the Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling, originally publishedat41FR55524,Dec.21. 1976. 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS theAct,a State mustsubmitaplanrevision to prevent significant deterioration(PSDplan) inany area wherethe air quality is better than the standards, regardless of the applicable designations. Since States have substantial latitude to meet these objectives, andcandevelop plans evenmorestringentthannecessary tomeetthe objectives,itisImpossible to determinenow what sources will be affected by the SIP development process Initiated by thesedesignations.

For every nonattainment area, a nonattainment plan (SIP) must be adopted that (among other things) requires permits for the construction and operation of major new sources and major modifications. In addition, the plan must require sufficiently stringent control technology so that attainment is demonstrated as expedi- tiously aspracticable butnolater than the statutory deadlines. Prior to attainment, the plan must also demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment. States will establish the requirements to which existing sources in and adjacent to nonattainment areas will be subject after theyhavehad anopportunityto study the cause ofthe nonattainment problem and conduct the analysis necessarytodevisea solution.

A State must also prepare a PSD plan to require, among other things, permits for every major new source or major modification thataffects theair quality ofareaspresently cleaner than the standards. A PSD plan must also provide that the necessary emission reductions will be obtained where the airquality increment has been. orwill be, exceeded. The protection of air quality increments in clean localities must always be a consideration wheneveramajor newsourcewishes toconstruct, regardless of the applicable designation. b.EPAPromulgatedNewSource ReviewRequirements In addition to the requirements for nonattainment and PSD plan revisions, the 1977 amendments generally ratified thenew sourcereview requirements established by EPA for localities where ambient standards are violated (the Emission Offsets Interpre- tative Ruling) and localities cleaner than the standards (the PSD regula- tions). New PSD regulations supersedingthose previously ineffect were recently promulgated and the Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling is about to be revised.' At least one of these 

### two administrative approaches applies

'The Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling is found at41 FR55528-30, andwill 

### soon be revised and recodified at 40 CFR Part 51. AppendLx S. The PSD re 

### ulation3 are found at40 CFR 52.21. asrevised at 43 FR26403.June 19. 1978. 

### 40413 regardless of designations of attainmentstatus.

The Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling Imposes stringent conditions on any proposed major source or major modification that will cause or significantly contribute to a violation of a standard, regardless-of the designation applicable tothe localitywhere the source orthe violation is found.If a sourcewill causeorsignificantly contribute to a violation, even if the source, the violation orboth, are located in areas originally designated as attainment orunclassiflable, theEmission Offsets Interpretative Rulingwill apply. Likewise, the PSD regulations apply to any source or modification that affects air quality cleaner than the standards, regardless ofthe applicabledesignation.

For any nonattainment area, the Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling willbesuperseded when an approved orpromulgated nonattainment plan comes into effect. Likewise, 

### EPA's PSD regulations will be superseded when a State PSI) plan is approved. Further, for any designated nonattainment area without an adequate approved orpromulgatednonattainment plan, the conditions of the Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling will be replaced with a ban on new construction after June 30, 1979, whentherequirements ofStatenonattainmentplans are tobe ineffect.

The ban on construction will apply to any major new source or major modification that wll cause or signiflcantly contribute to an airquality violation within the nonattainment area. D. USE OFPROJECTED FUTUREVIOLATIONIS

Several commenters questioned EPA's policy on the use of projected futureviolations inmaking nonattainment designations. On the basis of those comments, EPA has clarified its policy and is altering certain designations accordingly.

In California, where certain nonattainment designations were based on projected future violations, conmenters objected that this was contrary to the EPA guidance generally available. In Valdez the Alaska Department of Environmental Conserv

- tion has requested a nonattainment designation for a presently clean but Imminently dirty area. Afterreviewing the Actanditslegislative history, EPA has determined that projections of future violations may provide the basis of nonattainment designations. but only in certain limited circumstances.



### Under sections 171(2) and 172, nonattainment areas where SIP revisions are required, are defined as areas that currently exceed any NAAQS, including any areas Identified under paragraphs (A) through (C) of section

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978

### 40414 107(d)(1). Areas are to be identified under paragraphs (A) through (C) if they either donotmeet a standard, or -inthejudgement of theState may not attain or maintain the primary standard for sulfur dioxide (SO.) or total suspended particulate matter (TSP). These statutory provisions set'up two criteria for determining nonattainment areas. Any area that currently violates the standard is tobe designated as nonattainment, and any area where in the State'sjudgment the primary standard for S02 or TSP may not be maintained may also be designated asnonattainment.

It is initially the State's option whether to designate a-clean area as nonattainment because the primary SO2orTSP standard maynotbemaintained. However, EPA must modify the State's nonattainment designation ifnecessary. The State must submitto EPA the information and analysis on which the State based its judgment that the standard would notbe maintained.

Applying a,nonattainment designa- tion to clean areas where future violations are projected will further the purposes of the nonattainment provisions ofthe Act. The effect of designating an area as a nonattainment area, as discussed above, is to require the State to develop a nonattainment plan. Where the State concludes that a violation ofthe standard may beimminent, planning to assure attainment and satisfy the other requirements for a nonattainment plan isessential.

In an area where, the standard is generallly violated and a nonattainment plan is required, there will ordinarily be few pockets with clean air where PSD requirements would apply. However, in an area that is now clean but is designated as nonattainment be- cause the,State projects future violations, PSD requirements may govern the entire area. Unless the increased emissions expected to cause violations are part of the PSD baseline concen- tration upon which growth in PSD areas is calculated,5clean areas where violations are projected for the future must also protect a PSI increment that may be substantially more stringent than the standard. For such areas, the State plan must not only provide for attainment of the NAAQS but also protect any available PSD increment. C. RELATIONSHIP OF DESIGNATIONS TO ScS

Some commenters questioned, the Agency's legal authority to designate areas nonattainment in instances where sources were employing disper5PSD "baseline concentration" is defined at 40 CFR51.24(b)(11), and its importance in determining ambient air increments is stated at 40 CFR 51.24(c), asrevised 43 FR 26383-384 (June 19, 1978). 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS sion techniques in place of SIP emission limitations to prevent concentrations of pollution that exceed the standards. Congress hasforbidden use of dispersion techniques, such as tall stacks or SCS whichvary with atmospheric conditions as a substitute for required constant control techniques in SIP's.6 Areas relying on dispersion in this way mustbe viewed as not attainingthe standards.

Thestatuterequires thatthe quantity,rite, or concentration ofemissions belimitedona continuousbasisbyuse of "emission limitations" or constant control techniques. Dispersion techniques do not reduce total emissions on a continuous basis; rather, emissions are dispersed over awide area by useof.a stackhigher than required by good engineering practice, or the rate ofemissions is Varied according to atmospheric conditions by use ofan intermittent or supplemental control system. These dispersion techniques are designed topermit emissions uptoa level that will not result in ground level pollutant concentrations exceedin& theambient standards. In the 1977 amendments, Congress expressly affirmed that dispersion techniques may not be used as a replacement for the constant controls required to attain standards. No State plan may provide for attainment of the standards by means ofdispersion techniques, and no State may insure attainment byapprovinguse ofdisper- sion techniques. Therefore, any area where sources are using dispersion to prevent pollution concentrations that exceed standards, instead ofcomply- ing with emission limitations required in SIP's, must be viewed as an arga where the standards are notbeing attained.

By applying anonattainment desig- nation to areas where sources are using dispersion techniques to avoid pollution concentrations that would violate standards, EPA is forwarding the congressionalpurposes inenacting the nonattainmentrequirements. Congress was concerned with the failure ofmany areasto attain the airquality mandated intheAct.With the nonattainment provisions applied to areas where dispersion techniques are impermissibly used to avoid pollution concentrations in excess of standards, States,will be pressedtocommit themselves to implement and enforce the constant controls necessary for attainment and maintenanceA Where the

GSee Section123 oftheAct,42U.S.C. This prohibition does not apply to stack heights in existence or dispersion techniques imple- mented before Dec. 31, 1970. 

### See alsoConference report to accompany H.R. 6161, H. Rept. No. 95-564,. 95th Cong., 1st sess. 144 (Aug. 3. 1977); section l10(a)(2)(B) of the Act,42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(B).

- 7See section 302(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(k).

3See sections 172(b) (7) and (10) of the Act,42U.S.C. 7502(b) (7) and (10). necessary constant controls are not being used so that impermissible amounts of pollution are being emitted, further construction would be re- stricted. 9The application ofnonattainment requirements to areas in which dispersion techniques are used to avoid impermissible concentrations forces States to bring sources Into compliance with emission limitations and insures that national standards will be met through constant controls as Congress intended.

D.TSPMONITORING SITING AND SAMW V GUIDELINES Several Statesinterpreted EPA guid- ance as allowing the exclusion for the purposes ofattainment status designa- tions of all monitoring data for TSP collected at sites not in accordance with the SAMWG guidelines that were proposed on,August 7, 1978, as appendix E to 40 CFR part 58.10 Only those monitoring sites which aro unduly influenced byreentralned road dust can be excluded in establishing both the design values for SIP development work and for designation purposes. Thus, It wasnot the Intent,nor is it current Agency policy, that only those monitoring sites which precisely meet the height and distance criteria of the SAMWG guidelines be used for SIP development and attainment status designation purposes.

'The SAMWG siting guidelines are intended to promote uniformity In lo. cations ofnew monitoringstations and also to encourage States to classify ex- isting monitors in terms of the types of activities impacting the air quality at each site. Thus, existing stations showingnonattainment ofthe NAAQS should be examined not only in terms ofthe proposed siting criteria but also in terms of those factors causing high TSP concentrations. EPA has pro- posed regulations on this subject stating that there are situations in which data from existing monitors located in the to-called "unacceptable" zone may still be useful. For example, monitoring sites near roadways where traffic is less than several thousand vehicles per day would not necessarily have to be located at the prescribed distances fromroadways.

For sitesnot located in conformance withthe proposed guidelines, and evaluation could be conducted to deter-' mine the roadway influence. The purpose of this evaluation would be to consider contentions regarding Improper siting of monitors and specifl9Section 173(4) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7503(4).

"OU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Standing AirMonitoring Work Group, "Air Monitoring Strategy for State Implementa. tionPlans" (PublicationNo.EPA450/2-77- 010, June 1977). Proposed In the FEDERAL REGISTER dated August 7, 1978, on page 34892asappendixEto 40CFRpart58.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978

### RULES AND REGULATIONS cally to decide if the roadway influ- ence is significant enough to warrant disregarding ormodifying the air quality data from the monitor. If this is found to be the case, the designation status can be revised to unclassifiable provided no other monitoring or modeling data exists which supports the nonattainment designation. An exception isif thesuspect monitoring siteis impacted by a point source (or sources). Air quality dispersion modeling mustbe performed to determine if the source(s) would result in an ambientviolation. If, in fact, the source(s) does contribute emissions such that airqualitylevels in excess ofthe ambient standards are estimated to exist, the nonattainment designation of the area in question should be retained and the estimated air quality level should be employed for SIP developmentpurposes. E.PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS Many commenters criticized the administrative procedures followed by the Agency in promulgating the March 3, 1978, area designations. The -criticismfocused on theAgency's decisiontomake the designations effective before solicitingpublic comment.However, EPA had good reason for using the method it did, no one was prejudiced by it, and the opportunity to submit comments subsequent to the March 3 designations has mooted any possibleobjections totheprocedures.

As explained in detail above, the principal purpose of the I-arch 3 designations was to identify the areas of the country,for which the Statesmust begin development of nonattainment plans. EPA explained in the March 3 notice that States' obligation to meet the tight deadlines under the Act "requires that theStates have immediate guidance as to the attainment status of the areas designated under section 107(d)

.... Under these circumstances it would beimpracticable and contrary to the public interest to ignore the statutory schedule and postpone publishing these regulations until notice and comment can be effectuated." i' For these reasons, the Administrator adopted the procedural approach of promulgating the designations as immediately effective but simultaneously soliciting comment on those decisions.

By making the designations immediately effective, EPA gave the States the benefit ofits immediatejudgment so that they could move forward with developing the necessary plans required 9 months later. By simultaneously soliciting comment, EPA provided an opportunity for the public comment on these initial decisions, and providedfor later promptrevision ofthe designations.

Since the designations will not cause additional requirements for emission

1143FR 8962,col2,Mar.3, 1978. reductions to apply until after the re- quired State plans are approved or promulgated by EPA, the decision to make thedesignations immediately effective placed no additional burden on any party. When this procezo is concluded, EPA will have fully invited andresponded to public comment, will have corrected improper designations, will have proirlded States the greatest possible lead time forsubmitting their required nonattainment plans, and willhave imposed nohardship on any source.

Some commenters also raisedtheobjection that States didnot holdpublic hearings- on the designations before making their submittals toEPA. However, EPA has no authority to review the procedures used by the States in developing the lists. Unlike sections 110 and 172 of the Act, which require States tohold hearings and engage in other public procedures before adopting State implementation plans, section 107(d) of theAct does not specify procedural requirements for the States. EPA did encourage States to involve the public in this procez. as much as time allowed. Many State3 held public meetings, and some made extensive coordination efforts with affected local governments. However, even in the absence of these efforts, EPA's procedures gave the public adequate opportunityto participate in the establishment of designations, and fully satisfied any legal requirements forpublicparticipation. II.REGIOiALDIscussIon REGION1 I NewHampshire

The Agency received commentschallenging specific portions of the SO, and TOP nonattainment designations in New Hampshire. The area dezignations in question have been reviewed by EPA. The conclusion reached was that the data base supporting the desIgnatiojs s both accurate and valid, and that revisions to the designations arenot supported atthe present time. Massachusetts

Regarding the TSP designations for Massachusetts, the table is revised to include, for each air quality control region (AQCR), the statement "all other cities and towns," accompanied by an "X" in the attainment column. Omission of a designation for "all other cities andtowns" in theoriginal notice was anoversight. Connecticut

Regarding the TSP designation for AQCR 43 in Connecticut, the table is revised to reflect nonattainment for primary standards. The change from secondary standards nonattainment was requested by the State of Connecticut based on he Judgment that 

### 40415 monitors in the region are notrecording short-term primary standard violations that exist. Thisjudgment issupported by the relatively high annual average TSP concentrations recorded In AQCRI 43 andby the occurrence of violations at monitoring sites elsewhere which resemble the urban industralized character ofnonmonitored locations inAQCR 43. REGIWONIV Alabama

One commenter said that Fairfield, Ala., in Jefferson County, should be redesignated as attainment for TSP because monitoring data didnotshow violations. The monitoring data on which the 'designation was based showed violations of the annual and 24-hour standards during 1976 and 1977,and other monitors in the same area have shown violations. For these reasons, Fairfield must remain designat.ed nonattainmentforTSP.

One commenter said that Florence, Ala..inLauderdale County, withinthe area adjacent to TVA's Colbert Steam Plant, should be designated attainment for TSPsince the siteis unduly influenced by reentrained road dust. After careful evaluation, Florence is being redesignatedunclansifable since themonitor wasfoundnottobe representative of true ambient air quality levels. Another monitor has been located to obtain more representative airquality data.

Anothercommenter saidthe description of the Florence, Ala., nonattainment area should be changed to disazsoclate the Colbert Steam Plantfrom It and Isolate the nonattainment area to thelocalarea ofFlorence.Modeling analysis has shown that the nonattainment area is not significantly impacted by the Colbert Steam Plant, and this area description isbeing generalized to "a portion of Lauderdali CountycontainingFlorence." Floridd

One commenter said that HillsboroughCounty, Fla, should beclassified asattainment forSO. rather thanunclassifiable as previously designated. However, due to special studies ongoing in Hillsborough County, this area willremain unclassifiable for SO. until the results of these studies are conclusive.

One commenter said that Pinellas County, Fla., should be designated attainment forSO except forthenorthwestcomer ofthe county where violations have been recorded. Monitoring data forthis county substantiates this po ition, so the area ofnonattainment for SO is not generalized as "the northwest comer of Pinellas County."

Due to the comment submitted on Pinellas County, the Agency decided to designate the southwest comer of

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MOINDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978

### 40416 Pasco County as uncIassffiable for SO2. This Is being donebecause ofthe lack of monitoring data in this area where a few major SO2 sources-are located.

Four commenters suggested a reduction in the size of the nonattainment area for TSP in Hillsborough County, Fla.Airmonitoring data and computer modeling data in support ofsuch axe- designation show that a delineation of the areainviolation ot the TSP standard is warranted. Accordingly, the nonattainment area is revised to be "that portion of Hillsborough County which falls within the area of the circle having a centerpoint at the intersection of U.S. 41 and State Road 60 anda radiusof 12 kilometers."

Several commenters submitted letters supporting the redesignation of all ofPolk County, Fla., as attainment forTSPor as attaining theTSP standards county-wide except for a 1- square-mile area to include the city of Mulberry. EPAhas foundthat thetwo TSP samplingsitesused in designating this area nonattainment are bi~sed. and is in the process of reevaluating the entire TSP monitoring network forPolk County.After establishing an approved TSP monitoring network and until data are collected showing representative air quality levels for particulate matter, Polk County is being designated as unclassifiable for TSP.

Based on historical monitoring data, one commenter requested a change in the size of the Duval County, Fla., nonattainment area, With the exception of two TSP monitoring sites in 'the county, all other approved sites in the county show attainment of the standards. The Agency agrees and this redesignation describes an area which encompasses the violations and the sources believed to be the causes of the violations. The' new nonattainment area is "the downtown Jacksonville area located just north and west of the St.Johns River and east of I95."

One commenter said that Seminole County, Fla., should be designated as attainment for TSP. This opinion was based on that part oftheEPAfugitive dust policy which defines rural areas "as those which have: (1) a lack of major industrial development or the absence of significant industrial particulate emission; and (2) low urbanized population densities." For purposes of these designations, any rural area experiencing TSP violations which could be attributed to fugitive dust could claim attainment of the TSP NAAQS. EPA agrees that a low urbanized population density exists in this area, but based on point sources ofTSP emissions in the general area .ofthe violations, there is not an,ab- sence of significant industrial TSP 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS emissions. For thisreason and as sup- ported by recorded violations the secondary TSP standard, Seminole County remains designated nonattainment forTSP. Georgia

Onecommenterpointed outthatthe designation for TSP nonattainment status for Georgia was partially incorrect. The TSP status for Washington County (Sandersville) area was shown as nonattainment for the primary standard. This table should have indicated nonattainment for the secondary standard. The area,does meetprimary standards for TSP.EPA agrees that this was a typographical error and is changing the designation to reflect nonattainment with respect to thesecondary standard only.

For other comments concerning Georgia, seethetext onTennessee interstateareas. Kentucky

The area ofnonattainment present- edintheMarch 3rulemaking forHenderson County for TP was inadvertently in error and isrevised toreflect the actualarea ofnonattainment.

A conmenterrequested thatthe designation for Muhlenburg County be changed from nonattainment for SO2 

### to attainment because no monitors in the area have registered violations, andthe SCSused attheTVAParadise plant has prevented violations. The nonattainment designation is not being changed. EPA modeling indicates that the effect of either the Paradise plant or the Kentucky Utilities Green River plant, at the actual emission rates occurring over the past few years, would cause violations "of primary SO2 

### standards if a SCS was notbeingused.

A commenter requested the designa- tion for Greenup County for nonattainment of the SO. standards be changed to attainment, because the plant which caused the modeling- based violation had been in violation ofthe SO 2

### emissionlimit, butwasnow in compliance. The nonattainment designation is not being chahged because theplant hadnot demonstrated continual compliance before the date of the designation, and still has not beencertified asbeingincompliance. Mississippi

For comments concerning Mississip- pi, see the text on Tennessee interstateareas: NorthCarolina

One commenter, withrespect tothe designation ofthe Spruce Pine area as nonattainment for TSP, noted that recentviolationsoftheprimary standard in Spruce Pine were likely due in somemeasure to construction'activity in the vicinity ofthe monitoring stationaswell astransport ofwind-blown fugitive dust from open mines and un. stabilized tailingspiles scattered along the mountain valley. This commenter asked that consideration be given to fugitive dust problems In keeping with the-Agency's policy on rural fugitive dust.The Agency agrees that the role played by rural fugitive dust In the area's nonattainment problem will limit the type.and scope of control strategy revision that canbe eupected.

Another commenter asked that the portion of Avery County included in the Spruce Pine.nonattainment area be removed on the bass of 1977 air quality data gathered by a private firm operating in the county. The Agency deems itinappropriate to doso at this time since the nonattainment designation was made in accordance with the guidelines set forth for that purpose by EPA, i.e., there were violations in calendar year 1976 according tothe same firm's data. Consequently, no change inthe Spruce Pine designationisbeingmade.

Another commenter asked that the designation of Buncombe County (Asheville) be changed from nonat. tainment to unclam-iflable for oxidants. Again, sincethedesignation was made on thebasis of a recorded violation, the Agency feels that It is inappropriate torevise It at this time. The general observations made in the preceding paragraph apply to this area's designation also.

One commenter noted that Durham County was designated nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and oidants (O.) on the basis of data gathered by EPA, and that the data in question has not been made available to the State agency. It was requested that Durham County be redesignated as unclassifiable for these two pollutantsuntil such time as thedata are re- viewed and certified to be valid. The Agency agrees and accordingly Is modifying,the designation of Durham Countytounclassifiable. South Carolina

One commenter on the South Carolina designation requested a change In the Georgetown status from nonattainment for the primary TSP standards to nonattainment for the secondary TSP standard. The commenterre- ferred to recent air quality data Indicating values slightlybelow the primary standard. The possibility ofmeterological-conditions or other transient factors resulting in the decreased air quality values Is sufficient to retain the nonattainment designation for the primary TSP standard. Therefore, no change is beingmade. Tennessee

-Several industries in the area com- mented that the nonattainment designation for Maury County should be withdrawn. It was their opinion that
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978the samplingstationrecordingthe violation was influenced by fugitive road dust,automobile exhaust, andresidential burning of coal. One commenter stated that the area should be redefinedso thatindustry was not "targeted" as the causative factor. The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Division (TAPCD) commented that the nonattainment area should be redefined to incorporate a smaller area, with the remainder-of the original nonattainment area being designated as unclassifiable until additional monitoring canbeperformed.

EPA concurs in these views of the State agency and the change is being made. TheTAPCD isinthe process of establishing additional high-volume sampling stations to ascertain the actual airquality situation inthearea. The Tennessee agency has also requested the privately-gathered air quality data which several industries assert are adequate to show attainment. TAPCD is conducting acomprehensive emissions inventory for the area and plans to remodel the entire area.

One commenter statedthat thenonattainment area for Shelby County should be revised since the CO monitors are biased by heavy traffic flow andindustry isbeing penalized by violations caused bymobile sources.Also, designation of the entire county was felt tobe wasteful" ofmanpower and financial resources, as most of the county is rural. TAPCD recommends that the nonattainment area be limited to Metropolitan Memphis and not include all of Shelby County. EPA agreesthat the area ofnonattainment should be limited to Metropolitan Memphis, and the change is being made.

TAPCD requests that the Knox County nonattainment area for CObe limited totwospecific areaswithin the metropolitan areas of Knox County. EPA agrees that entire countynonattainment designations for CO may be excessive, and i changing the nonattainment designation to conform to the areas identified by the State of Tennessee.

For Davidson County, TAPCD feels that, due to automobile density flow andtraffic patterns, CO shouldnotbe a major problem at the perimeter of the urban areas. The agency requests that the Davidson County nonattainment designation be limited to the central city area of Nashville. -EPA agrees that entire county designation may be excessive and is changing the designation to conform to the nonattainment area suggested by the State ofTennessee.

One industry commenter requested that the Kingsport nonattainment area be reducedto exclude specific industrial sources inthe TSPnonattainment area. The commenter felt the 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS designation wasbased onlimitedmonitoring data,andthattheTSPconcentrations may have been caused bythe fugitive dust rather than Industrial emissions. Since the designation was based on valid air quality data, the original designation will stand until additional airquality data are submitted to Justify revising the nonattain

### mentstatus.

TVA recommends that Sumner Countybered'esignated as attainment for TSP.It is theirbelief thatfugitive road dustwas the nan contributor to the violations, as the monitor recordingviolation was located near an unpaved road. The road was recently paved andno violations have occurred since that time. EPA bases Its nonattainment designation on the TSP violations recorded during the period January 1, 1976, through June 30, 1977, andretains the original designa- tion until sufficient additional monitoringdataarecollectedwhichdemonstratesattainment,

TVA contends that while excessive particulate concentrations have been measured in Anderson and Knox Counties surrounding TVA'sBullRun plant, they have been lowered since mid-1976 due to the operation ofnew electrostatic precipitators. They also state thatagravel road,whichwasinfluencing one ofthe sampling tations has been paved and no excessive T5P concentrations have been recorded since that time. Therefore, they requestthat theareaberedesignated attainment.EPA takes thepositionthat until adequate air quality data are submitted to Justify revising the nonattainment status, the original designationwill stand.

TAPCD commented that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County and Memphis-Shelby County nonattainment areas for photochemical oxidants should be expanded to include contiguous counties onthe Georgia andMississippi sides of the State line since the Bureau of Census apparently includedpopulationfromtheselocations in definingurbanized areas. The State ofGeorgia responded to thiscomment questioning the need of designating the contiguous counties In Georgia since therewereno significantsources ofhydrocarbons inthose counties and Georgia felt the amount of traffic comingfrom Georgia into Chattanooga did not produce a significant part ofthe ozone problem InChattanooga. EPA is currently evaluating the comments and arguments presented. No changes in the designation of these two Interstate areas will be made at this time, but revised designations maybemade atalater date. REGIO VI 

### GeniralComments

The comments received from the general public, elected officials, and 

### 40417 State and local agencies-relating to the nonattainment designations, while presentinga broadspectrum oftechnical and policy Issues, were generally motivated by the potentially adverse impact on economic growth through mplementation ofthe emission offset 

### policy as a result of these designations.

The principal Issues raised concern- ing the oxidant designations fell into four categories: (1) Level ofthe ozone standard; (2) boundaries ofthenonattainment areas; (3) impact of transported ozone; and (4) rural oxidant problems.

Many feltthattheleveloftheozone standard was based on Insufficient clinical data andthatIt was arbitrarily set attoolow alevel In thesamevein, a desirewas expressed formedical evidence that the ozone concentrations observed at specific locations in the region had a demonstrated adverse health effect onthe peopleofthatgeographic location. Also, evidence was requested that ozone concentrations observed were actually conducive to thephotochemical smogproblem. The implicit theme within therecomments is that the meteorology indigenous to this geographic region perhaps re- duces the adverse impact of a given levelofozone.

Many charged that the boundaries ofthenonattanment areas (generally the county/parish line)werearbitrary anddiscriminatory.

Commenters claimed that EPA guidelines on oxidant nonattainment designations were especially trouble- some in those areas with low hydrocarbon emissions, thus contributing littleto the observed ozonelevels,will be penalized for aproblem overwhich 'they have no control. This is particularlytruein somerural areaswhichHe across the air trajectories of large urban areas.

Asimilarcaseinvolves countiesthat, because of their negligible hydrocarbon emissions, were monitored to es- tablish an ozonebackground. The desIgnation of nonattainment based on thatkind ofdata appears inconsistent with the intent of the Clean Air Act because the control of the emissions withinsucha countywillhavelittleor noeffectonambient ozone levels.

The majority of comments relating to the particulate matter designations - centered around: (1) The inequities of therural fugitive dustpolicy; (2) mon- itor siting criteria; and (3) the impact ofresuspended streetdust.

The use of the rural fugitive dust policytodiscount the data fromthose monitors in rural areas thatwere not beinginfluenced byindustrial sources was generally agreeable to alL However, the separate population criteria for the definition of an eastern and western area was challenged as being FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMIER 11, 1978RULES AND REGULATIONScompletely arbitrary and technicallS unfounded.

The latter two issues are actuall. closely related. The argument wa. made thatmonitors thatwere sitedin. consistently with EPA gudelinec should not be used to support nonat tainment designations for the sam( reason that these data should not bf used for implementation plan'develop. ment, i.e., these data are unduly influ. enced by the large particulate compo. nent ofresuspended fugitive dust. Arkansas



### IntheMarch 3,1978, FEnEAL REGIS. TER four areas in Arkansas v'ere designated nonattainment by the State for TSP. These were portions of Ashley, Pulaski, and Sebastian Counties for the secondary standard and a portion of Arkansas County for.the primary standard. A reevaluation by the State revealed that data from days onwhich dust storms occurred were not re- moved. The removal of data taken on days of unusual meteorological phe- nomena yielding unrepresentative data brought the monitors in Pulaski and Sebastian Counties into attainment. In the case of Ashley County, the State was able -to demonstrate that there was no imliact ofindustrial sources at thatsite.The rural fugitive dust policy (RFDP) would then apply at that site. Also, the high volume filter analysis used to support the designation in Arkansas County, i.e., a demonstration of the impact of industrial emissions, was foundto behighly questionable and unreliable due to nonhomogeneous particulate loading on the only filter indicating a significant-impact from local industry. The RFDP would then similarly apply to Arkansas County.

Thus the nonattainment designation of the following counties is being changed to attainment for TSP: Ashley, Arkansas, Sebastian, and Pulaski. Louisiane

Information received by EPA during the public comment period revealed that EPA erred by not including Bossier Parish onthe list of thoseparish- es that were designated nonattainmentforphotochemical oxidants.Two factors became known that necessitate this designation. First, the ozone monitor data thatwere usedto support the designation in Caddo Parish were found to be located in Bossier Parish because of a minor deviation of the parish line from the Red River. Second,; Bossier City (Bossier Parish) is considered by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), in their publication PC(1)-A20, to be partof the Shreveport (Caddo Parish) urbanized area. Hence, because the population of the Shreveport urbanized area according to the 1970 census is over 200,000both Caddo andBossier Parishes are being designated nonattainment for photochemical. oxidants based on EPA's guidelines for nonattainment designations. NewMexico

In the March 3 FEDERAL REGISTER

- designations, EPA declared Bernalillo

- County, N.TMex. anonattainment area for photochemcial oxidants based on measured airquality data showingviolations of the standard. During the public comment period the State ac-

. knowledged the oxidant nonattainment designation promulgatedby EPA for Bernalillo County. However, they suggested and EPA endorses, that the * designation of the dntirety of Bernalillo County as nonattainment was * questionable due to the outstanding terrain features to the east and west of Albuquerque, and due to the prevailing wind directions. These factors also suggest that an area larger than

. metropolitan Albuquerque should be designated nonattainment. Toward this end the nonattainment designation is being revised to be portions of Bernalillo County.

Also in the March 3 designations, EPA designated all of Grant County nonattainment for TSP. The entire county was chosen because a detailed demonstration ofthe impact of industrially emitted particulates atthe non- attainment monitor sites was not available at that time. The State has submitted the results of a dispersion modeling exercise todemonstrate that the area designation should be a smaller area encircling the major stationary source in the Grant County. Thus, the designation is changed such that only aportion ofGrant Countyis designated nonattainment for the primary TSP standard.

The March 3 EPA TSP designation ofnonattainment forthe city of Albuquerque is being changed, in accord- ance with the State recommendation, to reflect the localized nature of the TSP problem. The designation is now changed to apply only to some areas within the city ofAlbuquerque.

Portions of Eddy and Lea Counties were inadvertently omitted from the March 3, 1978, nonattainment designation for the secondary TSP standard. This designationis added,asthe State recommended.

EPA nonattainment designation in Grant County of the secondary SO 2 standard was also revised. The State suggested that it was not correct to designate an area nonattainment for the secondary standard only, if the use of a SCS was the reason for the designation. The original designation was based on monitored violations of the secondary standard only and the fact that the primary source of SO2 emissions inthe county Is using aSCS. However, EPA agrees and, based on Agency policy to designate as nonattainment those areas where NAAQS are being met through the use of an unauthorized dispersion technique, i.e., SCS, the designation Is being changed to reflect a nonattainment statusfor theprimary SO. standard. Oklahoma

The Stateof Oklahoma recommends and EPA concurs on a change from the March 3 FEDERAL REGISTER designation of nonattainment for SO2 in Washington County to attainment based onthe followingfactors:

1. The original designation was based on 'dispersion modeling of one company's emissions which showed that on 1 day over a 6-month period there was apotential foran excursion above the ambient SO2standard. Company production values were used to predict potential emission rates and resulting air quality. On only 1day did the production numbers exceed values which could result Inviolations of am- bientairquality standards.

2. The air quality surveys conducted byEPA's National Enforcement Investig'ations Center and a contractor did, not indiceite violations of ambient air quality standards forSO2.

3. The in-stack monitor which has beenin place atthe company since December has not shown S02 levels which would cause violations of ambientairquality standards.

Thus Washington County, Oklaho- ma s being designated attainment for the SO2 standard.

In order to make EPA's nonattainment designation for TSP in Mayes County more commensurate with the area of probable impact of industrial sources in the vicinity of Pryor Creek, Okla., the area of nonattainment Is being changed to be a portion of Mayes County. The portion selected corresponds to an area initially submitted by the State as unclassifiable forTSP. Texas

In the promulgation ofoxidant non- attainment areas, EPA approved the State designation for Neuces County. However, a review of the information used to support the designation indicates that apartial county designation cannotbe supported withgeographical or emission densities arguments. Hence, for consistency, the designa- tion is being changed such that the status of the entire county is nonattainment.

EPA's unclassifiable designation for SO. in El Paso County remains un- changed. Although data show that the SO2 standards are being attained, one source in the county is using a SCS. Furthermore, the source was using some form ofSCS prior to the end of
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 

## 40418

### RULES AND REGULATIONS 1970. EPA is considering whether the presentSCS isanunauthorized dispersion technique under section 123 of the Act.As soon as the determination is made, the designation for the area willbereconsidered.

EPA also received requests to en- large the COnonattainment areainEl Paso to include property on which some major industries are located. EPA didnot feelthat the existing CO data were sufficiently detailed to warrant such a change.

EPA is also reviewing proposals to change several TSP designations for 'Texas. A final decision onthe proposalswill bemadebyEPA shortly.
REGION VI This notice revises nine of the attainment status designations pub-

- lished by EPA on March 3, 1978. Six revisions are beingmade forphotochemical oxidant nonattainment designations in Colorado (1), Montana (1), North Dakota (3), and Utah (1). These revisions are based on a detailed review ofthe ambient air quality data by the States and EPA. Two nonattainment designations in Utah for TSP and one in Colorado are being re- vised following attainment in accordance withEPA'sfugitive dustpolicy. Colorado

Ten comments questioned EPA's designation ofRio Blanco County as a nonattainment areaforphotochemical oxidants, including a detailed analysis by the Colorado Department of Health. EPAhas reviewedthe ambient air quality on which the designation was based and is revising the nonattainment designation to unclassified. Othercomments objected to the desig- 'nation of the Pueblo area as nonattainment for TSP, the boundaries of the _arimer Weld DesignatedArea for TSP, and the boundaries of the CO and O. nonattainment designations in the Denver area. EPA and the State havereviewed the comments "and have determined that these designations shouldnotberevised dtthistime.

Craig is a city with a population of less than 15,000. It is believed the readings above the TSP standard are the results of fugitive dust emissions since there are no known existing point sources. However, since energy development is occurring in this area and point source construction is planned, a thorough understanding of the problem is necessary. Such an analysis is being undertaken and is -scheduled for completion by January.

1979. Until the completion of this analysis, the area is being designated asunclassifiable. Montana

The State has reviewed the 0. violations at Costrip, which were used to designate Rosebud County as nonattainment, and has discovered that the reported ambient concentrations were twice the actual values. The State has concluded that the 0. standard has notbeen exceeded at Colstrip and has requested that thenonattainment designatlon for Rosebud County be revised. EPA has verified the State's analysis and is redesignating Rosebud Countyto attainmden

Two comments objectedtothe designation of Yellowstone County as nonattainment for 0. on the basis of am- blent violations In the cityof Billings. However, because of the pervasive nature of O, EPA guidelines recom- mend that county boundaries be used for designating nonattainment areas. Therefore, lacking additional monitoring data in the county, no change is being madeforthe areaboundary.

One comment addressed the validity of the monitoring and modeling data used to designate the Laurel Area as nonattalnment for SO,. EPA has contractedfor a study ofthe emission and modeling data in the area and may revise the current designation on the basis ofthe study.

Theoriginal designation forButte of nonattainment withrespect to the sec- ondary standard for TSP was based upon an apparent reduction in airpollution levels below thenational primary standards from 1976 to 1977. However, a re-examination of the measured data in Butte by EPA has revealed that levelsinButte are continuing to exceed the national primary standards for TSP. Therefore, EPA is amending the nonattainment designationto refer to the primary standards aswell asthesecondary standard. NorthDakota

Two comments, including a detailed analysis performed by the North Dakota State Department of Health. were received which recommended that the three nonattainment areas for 0. (Burleigh, Dunn, and Mercer Counties) be redesignated as unclassifiable. EPAhas reviewed the ambient data which resulted In the original designations and has determined that the measured violations cannot be validated. Consequently, EPA is revis ing the designation of these three areas tounclassiflable. Utah

Eight comments requested that the State's designation of the southern half of Uintah County as nonattainment for 0. should be revised. EPA and the State havereviewcd theambient O data in Uintah County and have determined that no ambient violations occurred in 1976 and 1977. The 1975 data used for the original designation cannot be validated. Therefore, EPA is revising the designation of Uintah County to unclassified. The State originally recommended that the city of Price and Cedar City be designated nonattainment for TSP. Since the cressignation, however, the State has analyzed the sourcesofTSP emissions in these cities and has con- cluded that the ambient violations were caused by fugitive dust. Consequently, the State has requested that both areas be deslgnated attainment In accordance withEPA'sfugitive dust policy. EPA is revising these designationsasrequested bytheState.

One comment objected to the designation ofSalt Lakeand Tooele Counties as nonattainment areas for SO,. However, in view of continuing violations of the NAAQS for SOu. no change is approvable for these designations.
REGION X

EPAreceived comments on13 ofthe .39 pollutant-specifio nonattainment designations made in the States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and is today making several changes. Copies ofcomments received are on filefor publicinspection atthe EPA Public Information Reference Unit as well as- the EPA Regional Office.The changes includeredefining boundaries in some casesandchanging the attainment or nonattainment status of designated areas in other 

### cases. CHANGES 117 ATTAIN=M;ET NNTATTAI277IMT STATUS Three of the changes relate to revisions from nonattainment to attainmentfor certain areas in the State of Washington. The three areas-Walla Walla, Tri-Cities, and Yakima, Wash.-have all been designated nonattainment for TSP. The State of Washington Department of Ecology requested that Walla Walla be designated attainment based on EPA's policy of discounting rural fugitive dust. EPA's rural fugitive dustpolicy is equally applicable to Tri-Cities and Yakima, Wsh. Thus EPA is redesignating Walla Walla, Tri-Cities, and YaldmaasattainmentforTSP. CHANGES IN EOUTDAIES For four areas (fivepollutant specifIc designations), the changes relate to the boundaries of the areas rather than the attainment status. These boundarychanges arerelatively minor in nature and do not affect the basic planning requirements mandated by the Initial nonattainment designations made onMarch 3, 1978.

The areas where EPA is approving changes toboundaries are Boise,Pocatello, and Lewiston, Idaho; and Spokane,Wash. Idaho

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare requested changes to the

FEDERAL REGISTER,,VOL 43, NO. 176-MODAY, STEit 11, 1978 

### 40419

### 40420 boundaries of the following areas: (1) Boise for CO, (2) Pocatello for SO2, and (3) Lewiston for TSP. The change in Boise will make the nonattainment area larger to coincide with the jurisdiction of the agency resp6nsible for State implementation plan-related transportation planning.

The changes inPocatello andLewiston involve reducing the size of the designated areas to more accurately reflect the true areas of nonattainment as indicatedby available ambient air quality data. In addition, a com- ment was received from Alocal industrial source that Pocatello should be designated attainment for SO2 due to procedural changes-made by EPA in the definition of a 24-hour standard violation and limited population expo- sure. EPA is today approving the boundary changes only. The decision to designate Pocatello as nonattainment for SO, was a technical decision based ondocumented violations ofthe NAAQS forthis pollutant. Washington " Spokane, Wash.,was designated nonattainment forboth COandTSP.The State Department of Ecology recom- mended changes tothe TSPboundary to reflect the true area of nonattainment. This modification results in a small reduction in the size ofthe area. The recommendation has the support of the Spokane area b.nd Spokane Valley Chambers of Commerce, and the Spokane Area Development Council Authority. EPA is today approving this change.

The Washington Department of Ecology also made a comment in support oftheiroriginal boundary forthe. CO nonattainment area in Spokane. The State originally designated a small area encompassing the major traffic corridors and the Central Busi- ness District as the nonattainment area. In the March 3, 1978, FEDaERA REGISTER, EPA designated the entire city as a -larger "management area." Comments received from the Spokane City Manager support the State-desig- nated boundaries. Comments received from the Washington Environmental Councilrecommend the designation of an area even larger than the EPA-designated area because of potential violations of the standards as transportationcontrols, such astraffic rerouting, are implemented. Verbal comments re- ceived from the agency primarily re- sponsible for transportation-related planning activities in Spokane support theState-designated boundary.
- 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS The State Department of Ecology has clearly stated in its corresilondence with the Washington Environmental Council that the designated leadagencyis expected to consider the larger urbanarea forSIP revisionpurposes.EPA ispersuaded bythisandby the strong concurrence of the local elected officials in the area. EPA is therefore changing the boundary to that originally designated by the State.

COMYMENTS RECEIVEDBUT NO CHANGES APPROVED Comments were also received on six other designations for which EPA is not approving any changes. Idaho

Comments were received from many residents of the Silver Valley (Kellogg) Idaho area expressing concern over the effect of the TSP and SO nonattainment designations upon local commerce. However, no technical justification was provided in support of an attainment designation. Because the original nonattainment designationsmadebythe State andconcurred in by EPA were based on measured levels of air pollution, as required by the Act, EPA is not approving any changes to the designations at this time.

A local industrial source in Pocatello, Idaho, recommended that the area be redesignated attainment for TSP because of placement ofTSPmonitors inthe area and distribution ofparticle size.EPA has reviewed the nonattainment designation made by the State and has determined that the current nonattainment designation is appropriate. Washington

The Washington Department of Ecology, the mayor of Clarkston, and the Chamber of Commerce of Clarkston, Wash., recommended that the Clarkston area be redesignated attainment because the TSP problem is .caused by rural fugitive dust. EPA Is not approving a changebecause Clarkston ispart of an interstate nonattainment area with Lewiston, Idaho, which is influenced byindustrial emissions. The State of Idaho is currently studying the impact of the industrial emissions and, ifappropriate, the area will be redesignated attainment at a laterdate.

A local industrial source inTacoma, Wash., recommended that this area be redesignated attainment for SO 2 because of the SO2 monitoring method used-at the site where ambient standards were recorded. EPA reevaluated the technical analysis and determined that the nonattainment designation is appropriate due to measured violations andthe use of a SCS by amajor point source in the area. EPA policy requires a nonattainment designation where the NAAQS are being attained through the use of unauthorized dispersiontechniques.

The Washington Department of Ecology requested that the 0. nonattainment designation in Vancouver, Wash., be reconsidered due to the influence of emissions from Portland, Ore., and the alleged minor influence ofVancouver sources onthe 0. stand. ard violations. However, available air quality data shows violations of theO, standards in Vancouver and EPA is therefore not approving any changes tothe O nonattainment designation.

The Washington Department of Ecology requested that the boundary ofthe COnonattainment area in Seattle bechanged fromtheEPA-designated larger "management area" to the smaller State-designated nonattainment areas within Seattle and the sur- rounding area. EPA is not approving any changes to the present designation, however, because of the population distribution and density of the greater Seattle-Tacoma areathe desire of the agency responsible for transportation planning activities to deal with a nonattainment area consistent with the "management area."

Finally, It should be noted that appearing in the proposed rulemaking section of this FEDERAL REGISTEn 

### is a notice for the State ofAlaska proposing a redesignation for the Port of Valdez from attainment to nonattain. mentforSO2.

NoE.-The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this document isnot a significant regulation and does not require preparation ofa Regulatory Analy- sisunderExecutive Order 12044.

(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: September 1, 1978. e DOUGLAS M. CosTI, Administrator. Part 81 of Chapter I, title 40, of the Code ofFederal Regulations Isamendedasfollows:

Subpart C-Section 107Attainment Statue Dosignatlions
* * * * *

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978RULES AND REGULATIONS

0 4.

o

0

ca

in

ca .4

CO '-4

o co

"m

Cd 0



### k

0

0

ca 9

to

d 0 4..

cs~

0 k- - 

### 40421

0.

in

E-4 I

a C3
-22

cc W2 124

coc

a :

.- 0a) -a

41
Z 24 22

414

4,,

rii

0-0

24 c c1 Od

-a.

"i 4 4, .u to

ori -02 Q4 a a

s i ci0
4,

. a 2.2 0 0 242

a ci 244,c I

a 44 0 j . 0

## ~ ~ u * 4 " t ci i v * t i a i c- .- 4 Ci Q =4 a0 amco 0 U4 ci -0 22u 4 .4 U4 c 0 .0 0 -A c ci cc '-, m rma~ uo 4 C:a ,4 ci. a 02c 14 w 4$4 a U Q)- 14 0 430 amp- 0 "~a am - w a " ,u, ' c2, -' 0 " - "$ 3 0-'c C: a. 0.46to u a 0u 0.1 00 2 M 41 e>m ao 0c am6t 0 9 

# a4 4, Dc~52 .4 0 4

.4
. 0 'i " 41 0 C3 $4 3a a i a .4 4, w "i, ,'1 00 4- 2.0 4, 0' IJ12. a -. 4-s" Cl 0 ,4 a9 cI0

6
0 u us 0 lE z

-o OS



### .o

### 40422 RULES AND REGULATIONS

00

0a 41'

0134 0l 01.- 0 444u w u)4

Li :3
- 4 t cl 0

0

014034 to to f a ca 4

0 r4-4-
0 C
'4c

W 010

1444 W 43

al

- o 0C3 ' 0 0 q0 4J

a3 43<4 34l 0

-

14 Md 4 4 a2 ca faca~ "4~~ 

## ~ 0" 4 U4 04 C -44

00 PI

## ~ ~ 3- a '£444 Id L '.

co al1 14

CD .43 to 4

4 c

### RULES AND REGULATIONS



## 6

0

09

*0

co

0

43 C,

C C,,

co "n

0*0$

4n C 

### 40423

0

0 '-1

-Ci Go

ell

0

0 cmi U4-

40

-0

00 3 .5 

## ~~ci

o 034 o4 ci 0 C3

m c

2 ; 4 "u =).. 0C3 cci CL : -03 M 2 U U .0
4J.- 1 0 :U Z!AC) 1 ci 00.0 14 $4 wci0 C3 0i ai a00u 4 $4 04 O~. 0 1C C 04 4 0

. i CW - I FA r.vi~f j O'34rO cot ts 9 a ci iss CL C) co 0.q r 0 a U C w005 i 0ou i 9: ci

14U r cd

a) 0 0 ciJ.4 C

ri

0 vi $4 c c

0i0

cici

45,4 0 .-4 00 43 o 34

T3.0

0.3>

u. C3 U Z Z4ZRULESAND REGULATIONS

0

'4 

### 40424

02c

44 ca$

d) Q oUC 0 -tC)- 41

si

## ~

0020 00$

IM0

4o 02 >04 0 C o4 =) 0 4 ,: 3

02 0 14 V24

C3 Q 4C4) W"

0 4'

-H 4=i04 2 030 C 0

4 4 0 V) 4 .0 0 V 00 4 44 2$ 0 0 0 00$ 0 t&4 o , 020 0)~5 P. 0.Ca. 2 0. -0 0. . 0 0

Sj 'I
. 4J 0 14 J 3 4

41 

## ~ ~ ~ 0 02 410.:41

4 J- A 2 j 0 C) 0 a) co g 0 C) 4

IV0 02 -0

E.4

0 4 A)0* C) 0

03

041

001

0aa 020a 0 a) u0X 0 ) C)1

03

.4

413 -o 00A -0 to2C) 002 04 0 cc 0C 403) 03
434 43 C 02 0 0110 C

0 .) 0 0

. 44 c0

ca

W

0 C--

0 I)



### 6

J 0

c, aORULES AND REGULATIONS

0 ".
0 o2 02

43-

ca "± 0

o2

a)

-. 44

cot

.0
0

0

0

44 0 .".4

C2 "o

43 co0

010 43

Q)

mI4- 0 0
4.9x

154

41 0 0 0%. 0 ;h

0
C3 C 0' 0oC 00 V300C : 3 01 4 ! to w0 )w ,14 C

03 t:a0 o :51 :131 ,u )

C ) '0 a4 s )ua 4 

### :
.

'0aE ., up--t C ."t

00

-44 00 a= 0 4

c-4 z. on

_ 444 r0 03

C3 p±4 0 .0 '4 0

M 000443 055 -4r00 '0 a044a0 0 ±0 4
... 0 54 4

. mF54 0..54. m.4.00 00.0
0 4 O 44.'

. 0

0 '0 aj ) Cm (J 0

. . 4 44 * * 0 4 '4 4 0< C) 34 .4 4 02 9j:
00

0.

0i U

.. 0 Uq
-

U. 4
. I 44jt 0 0 00 : 0 0 c 042 : c!0C00:C' : A es 0

. l 3 0 U a U3 A . 4011 u #p " .4

r. ) 9: 0$ J

. i 1 &0 4.04 &1 c Id I0)46 40 1.ci 9 ,: i . ) 1 1" &
C) 00i go0J00C 000o W) 

### 40425,

43

U' >.- US
£a z 0 '0

z

asRULES AND REGULATIONS

'0 Ci 0 ci ".4 Li 0 0 U 04 Li H

ci 44 Li ci ci 0 .0 (I 0 ci ci 0 

### 40426

0a14 4 0 0

44 dc Li 44

4.

0-4

00 Li
. o 014

0 tooc Li c4 0 0 (v 0 0
ow 14 w0p 0 w tog 

### 4-

w c a Li '0 ' W
t. ==P.40

41 C:~-0

o l 93L

ci) 4 0
c

42 0O t.0

-l 4.

.4c iCl0 C i0C 0 ,41'0 " > .- .- > 0 00 i CJ0G.4HH0 H

H'0) U) 0') X0 Z m u v 

### xi f. Ci". ci> l 1 c 4 U 44a014.30- 4 4 4 l* 0N 4 4H c m4-

k .0X~ =. '1xx 0 

### xX.=4j ' .0C ,4X

0 Hf a$ 00

- fc uioil 04 6"RULES AND REGULATIONS

o~ ai

444c

coi

011

t. 119 0 t.3

-0 34.c C,:3 .0U

3-4 Z4 ' 4 oo a -4

_ _0 44 41
- i 3.. 0i 0l 14 3,q 1 Ci 9i3~ 4

44 co

C3 3.
14 V: ci a

44) co 4J C3 13c 4

- 4

4.34 4. 0 ' 4

.
cci '4 0 ' .41q4 $

0 0 r., ,

4J.
En 0

E P; 34 'a
431

ci 0'3

'ci dcii
1314J 

## ~ci ci l

'ci 0 133

" 000 0 " r w c i 

### 40427

### 40428

0;'



## co

c4o 0

Cd
C., c. O0 04 W

0 o

Im14



# .0

*- ,

$4 4

0 0 93

Co
ui 0.-

141

0 Ii Ca

0 4J

0$4t

cia

0:1: 0 0*

4-4 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Ql 0

0 d

AA 0 .o 0. u 0
ca

cis

0 s -4

-o w w (: =- P

45 0 3-S

0 0 0 0 Co -4 2.2 0 p V 0Q 0 44r=

40 U, 0 L r0' 0 ' 0 cc 4 <0 .4 0 14300 '-0 04 01W 04 0 C: -0 1' ( 0 -.t cq 0 =0 c'S IT 4iS0 C 444 .0 4 2 441 41n- 4ln Vl 140 11 0 4o 3

-

El Hod H4 HO 0 H4 H4 re o H 00 DH 0 ) 00) H

..) W 0

. 0,

0 c;

0

,. O zl 0

### RULES AND REGULATIONS 40429

cl 00 M 4X

'cl.

44.

U V
4J

to Wl~

54C3~
QaC C3-

r-) C3

4J r: o3 (Y C



### Em Cl

o C-4 od 4 . N r)Ck C Si e f o

### 40430 RULESAND iREGULATIONS

'0

) o 14

3)4

c

P;2 d 0) 14 U

$4

i ) 0 0

944

49



### 0 0

02

43

0d

0 * 43 *0

.4.

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

ca 

# 6 t12

0 44


### p-a

0
Cd

cs

0
4D

2

C)

C3

0 0 4o cm P-2c 

### 40431

C) 0-0

a) 04) 0i .0 04.

0W 9:0

ri00- C0) C)C o) 0 u Ed 0000

9

- 2
04 0

O '

.0~~4 WJ 14 X C3 0.0 0

.- 0 a~~

=- = d A i C. C3 Q 0 0: A) a' 0 

### ri 

## ~~~ 0- 4 0 0 0 0~O U.4 1 c 00 0 w.0 1 to a a 4i

. .0 co 10 0q 0 4

1T 00014 4 4 co 01o coCd 0 ". 0i 03C M" cd .d'0 0 o" 4 e oo i e a0. .3 u91 N C4 L) aA c vk 'Do oo u- cw 0 40 

## o a-a O-a-a 

## ~I 0--a CO O~.*4~a~-a4 CO O C-ar

to to0 .C~aaaoCt CO C: .00 '0' 0 'C

0 E-0J

40

014 0 0ca

0
. .4 ; 14

00

49 -u U04 I-3 41

-4 4J &dt '0

LIZ 412

co co 0 CO

N

Ca 10

I ,

a

I

-RULES AND REGULATIONS



### 0-

C.) O,

Vi2

Q0'I0,2

C)

0

.5

CO rd

.1.14

- 8

R 

### 40432

034 U) 3-4

03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 3-I

a; C, 03 C) 03 03 C)

032

002 'rii

03 345

4 .1 ,,-I . A E.0,

54 030

0 003a

u cc

44 00 0303

l03- 54 .- Il
- C0 o

C3 0 0 0 ZJ Z ZZ *qCT 00 03 r. i0 4.4 C co "4.03 0 3r 03 0V ) 03 0-U3 13m.10) :2'. 54H0 *.4 5

02 C03.0r3t 0 0030 110 44.3. 43 003 .- :33 0U-4 g: En 

## ~ J 0 0 u.J 03-I 03 03.3 0.- u3/ 0 0 0( 044 00. 0) C.:

Ia. 00 0003U 03 0) 1?0nv3d ' 34J1 00CO.M'" 03 '003a '-I l :>, 03 54l 4

03 103 5 4 w.I '4. 1401(i 5403,-I 540

. 0 03 V40 0 34j '440 54. 0 3el 3 l 035M.0 0

. A4- g.30 0) 03 i0 C333 30 1030 .0o 0 . . 0 034 0 Ct,- a.. -410 43 J 0 0o3 '00303 4141 1434 4-X- '-50 l*43, 144 C:0 30303r40 v w~'oI 00 v0 00$40 0031 00. m'- 0.03 : 410 030 01 0000 0 L) 0 03 0 oo ,44134 4i4. 41 0

. o -03

. 3,- '.0 '403 o40 04 3 0

- 030354,j 14 -H C1- 54 0oA

- C 0.04 0.54-0 00 0 >.I p k 4 914C:W 

## ~0 CL

0 63 4,-rOW a4' 0, 0. 0 C:4 0.'I0) 0 .'10 V)X 03030540 C.14 0.0M .034, .30 9:64H1 P. C 030.0 0241"40 41 a)4 444. 441 M4.1 4J W 4v4 O0 O0 000 0 

## 3



# - *,1 02.Ir , 01* 14 -H' 0 0,14.44 X033)0 .D3)0 .00



### /RULES AND REGULATIONS

CD

C3 ,a

co



### 0

a-0

0

4-

C, 

### 4M3

0 C3

033 0i C 000

c) a s

4- ri 0i ji : 0r CC4 0~ - I

m 94 C.: m:

'r. C) U u I" U4 U. 3 w >i a t" v 0' 

## 3i0 a pcC) :30 C,3 4. c 01 U) :0 03 r :3 43 0 u , - 1 Ci ad0 00C)a0 C) Cul Ca aU 0 i C c)a C : ra o0 ai' m44 170 v '34S- '.4 C4 CZ' C Il W4 IC ) ts .-4 ".4'4 V: 4 r4 .- 4i0 -a" '4 0 Q=4 .4 U004 0 to 63~ 0-14~.-45 94 C C4~CC u l C14 0 rJ.4 m II1C3 -a 

## E- a C). 13 n .4 u

C?

14 M

in
. -0

C.)

ca p

C)

CIC

0 0~ au u A ,a a 0al- 4 q 4
C.1 > 0 0 -

cs 0 a 0a C: a)ot: c C)A0 i OC) UC)4

m 4 , a u. 0 0 '0 4,

- 1 .0-i .4 I m a. . .c 0 00 0 9 03oaC
0 .4 C d 544RULES AND REGULATIONS

0)

.

'54J

41 4 4 Cd 14 4

340 ;E2

44



## ~~44

023 41 034:3 .C 0 U w COU

>O 0 a .0 ,

r- 0 41 to

ACO

ca44~ a) =4 Cw
..

-4' U43

C0 CO)

- r. 3-C C'

0

00 C

0 0)2w4

0 CO w04 oi co-

. L340

r344 0 0 044 U 0 0 CO

0 0 cn C 4. 0 0 cm O 0 4 O C 

### 40434

0

3-4 Cd

C,

4a

ce .0 M0

Co US

0)

€o, .o4a,

### RULESAND REGULATIONS

a

0.

ca

Cd

..

cs

0

S 0 C

;. W

0
C'
ca 

### 40435

a

4= 0 

### I-.

z

Co- 4

co

o d : or iS 0 L. ac

.j 'Ca

-

0 -.4

ri C .)V

to o C) C3

ci f a >i -0 a - o0 caaa 0 ca

o tnRULES AND REGULATIONS [6560-01] , 

### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [40 CFRPart81] [FRL 958-4A] AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS AND 0 CONTROL TECHNIQUESSection 107-Attainment Status Designations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA was required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 to publish, on a State-by-State, pollutant-by-pollutant basis, the attainment status ofall areas within the States in relation to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as submitted by the States and approved, or as designated by EPA (43 FR 8962, March 3, 1978). Both the State andEPA can initiate changes to these designations but any State redesignation must by submitted to EPA forconcurrence.

This rule proposes a change to the attainment/status designations forthe State of Alaska In Region X. The change proposed revises the designation status of Valdez, Alaska from attainment to nonattainment for the primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) standard. EPA Region X is soliciting comments on this proposal for a period of 60 days and willpublishthe revised designation as appropriate. DATES: Commentsare duebyNovember 13, 1978. ADDRESS: Environmental Protection Agency, Region X (M/S 629),_ 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash. 98101. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2922, 401 M Street SW., Washington,D.C. 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clark L. Gaulding, Chief, Air Program Branch (M/S 629), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash. 98101, telephone 206-442-1230 (FRS: 399- 1230). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 3, 1978, as required by sec- tion 107 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA promulgated the attainment status of all States in relation to the national ambient air quality standards (43 FR 8962). Even though this was a final rulemaking action, comments were invited for a period of 60 days. A summary of all RegionX'smodifications tothe March 3, 1978, nonattainment designations appears in'the final rulemaking sec

### tion ofthis FEDERAL REGISTER.

During-the Above comment period, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requested that the Valdez, Alaska, area be re- designated from attainment to nonattainment States for SO2 based upon future projections of SO, emissions from oiltankers associated with activities at the Valdez pipeline terminal. EPA proposes to approve the request by the State ofAlaska, by designating Valdez as nonattainment for the primarO.SO2 standard.

This action is being published as a proposal, rather than as a final rule. making due to its potential major impact upon the Valdez area and the Agency's desire to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on such action.

Comments on the proposed change are invited for a period of 60 days (Nov. 13, 1978). Comments received will be evaluated and a final designation published in the FEDEAL REoisTER.

Sections 107(d), 171(2), 301(a), of tho Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7407(d), 7801(2), 7601(a)).

Dated: September 1,1978. DOUGLAS M. COSTL, Administrator. [FR Doe.78-25601 Filed9-8-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 

### 40436