+(,121/,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

Title 40-Protecti6n of Environment

rFRL 958-4]

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, to publish 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

air quality standards. ' In addition, the preamble states

EPA's position on certain general

issues raised in comments on the origi--

nal designations of areas in these or other States. Copies of the comments

submitted are available at the appro- priate EPA Regional 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, or PTS-629-5365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1977 (the 1977 amendments), Pub. L.

95-95, added to the Clean Air Act (the

act) a new 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 meeting the 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 FR 8962, and invited

the public to submit comments to the

Agency by May 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

this publicatiofi.

Second, EPA makes necessary

amendments to the designations for

the following States, and responds to

comments' applicable specifically to

these States:

EPiA Region I:

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New

Hampshire. EPA Region IV:

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

North Carolina, and Tennessee.

EPA Region VI:

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

EPA Region VIII:

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and

Utah.

EPA Region M

Idaho and Washington.

All States are not included in this

publication because the volume of spe- cific comments varied widely among

various regions of the 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 one is completed, EPA is now 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 and resubmit its list of designations, and EPA must then promulgate

the revised list with such modifications as the Agency deems necessary. Furthermore, even without State submittal of a revised list, the Agency can .modify the current list of designations

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

not satisfied with the State's response

to the petition, he may then petition

the appropriate EPA Regional Office

to modify the current list.I

'The addresses of all EPA Regional Offices are printed in the March 3 FEDERAL

REGisTER notice, 43 FR 8962.

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 Issues raised In the 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- ments Is under preparation 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 in no way affects those desIgnations made on March 3, 1978, for

which no comments were received

during the public comment period.

I. GENERAL ISSUES

A. EFFECT OF DESIGNATIONS ON CLEAN AIR

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 of significant

deterioration (PSD) requirements. However, this Is an oversimplification

that does not accurately reflect the re- quirements of the Act.

1. General purpose and effect of desig.

nations

The purpose of the designations Is to

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." 2 The area designation,

whether nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, thus does not In and

243 FR 8963 col. 2.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978
by itself dictate the applicable new or existing source requirements. There

are essentially three reasons for this.

First, because air pollution 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

have to apply to sources outside of the

area that the controls are intended to

protect.

Second, States may choose to impose

requirements over a broader or narrower geographic region than the precise area where sources exist that directly contribute to particular concen- trations of a pollutant. For example,

for reasons of equity, simplicity of administration, or to allow more growth

in clean areas, States may choose to

make their revised emission limitations applicable statewide, rather than

restricting the requirement to sources that directly cause or contribute to

violations.

Finally, section 107(d) of the Act

provides that bttainment status designations were to be made within a very

short time period, and were to be com- posed of air quality control regions (or

portions thereof), which are often

based on State, county, or other political 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 in the more elaborate and thorough proceedings required under the

Act for development of plans and issu- ance of individual permits.

2. Effect of designations, on particular

Clean Air Act requirements

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 to individual sources is provided to correct the

misunderstandings expressed in the

comments, and to set the attainment

status designations in perspective.

a.-State Implementation Plan

Revisions

Under sections 171(2) and 172 of the

Act, a State must revise -its State implementation plan (SIP) to provide for

attainment (nonattaiment plan), as expeditiously as practicable but no later

than certain specified deadlines, in

any area designated as nonattainment.

Under sections 10l(b)(1) and 161 of

3

See, eg., 43 FR 26380-410, June 19. 1978

(PSD new source review and State plan re- quirements); 43 FR 21673-77, May 19, 1978

(nonattainment State plan requirements):

forthcoming revision of the Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling, originally published at 41 FR 55524, Dec. 21. 1976.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

the Act, a State must submit a plan revision to prevent significant deterioration (PSD plan) in any area where the

air quality is better than the standards, regardless of the applicable designations. Since States have substantial latitude to meet these objectives, and can develop plans even more stringent than necessary to meet the objectives, it is Impossible to determine now

what sources will be affected by the

SIP development process Initiated by

these designations. 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 as practicable but no later 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

they have had an opportunity to study the cause of the nonattainment problem and conduct the analysis necessary to devise a solution.

A State must also prepare a PSD

plan to require, among other things,

permits for every major new source or

major modification that affects the air

quality of areas presently cleaner than

the standards. A PSD plan must also

provide that the necessary emission

reductions will be obtained where the

air quality increment has been. or will

be, exceeded. The protection of air

quality increments in clean localities

must always be a consideration whenever a major new source wishes to construct, regardless of the applicable designation.

b. EPA Promulgated New Source

Review Requirements

In addition to the requirements for

nonattainment and PSD plan revisions, the 1977 amendments generally ratified the new source review 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 superseding those previously in effect 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 at 41 FR 55528-30, and will

soon be revised and recodified at 40 CFR

Part 51. AppendLx S. The PSD re ulation3 are found at 40 CFR 52.21. as revised at 43

FR 26403. June 19. 1978.

40413

regardless of designations of attainment status.

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 to the locality where

the source or the violation is found. If

a source will cause or significantly contribute to a violation, even if the

source, the violation or both, are located in areas originally designated as

attainment or unclassiflable, the Emission Offsets Interpretative Ruling will

apply. Likewise, the PSD regulations

apply to any source or modification

that affects air quality cleaner than

the standards, regardless of the applicable designation.

For any nonattainment area, the

Emission Offsets Interpretative

Ruling will be superseded when an approved or promulgated 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 or promulgated nonattainment plan, the conditions of the

Emission Offsets Interpretative

Ruling will be replaced with a ban on

new construction after June 30, 1979,

when the requirements of State nonattainment plans are to be in effect.

The ban on construction will apply

to any major new source or major

modification that wll cause or signiflcantly contribute to an air quality violation within the nonattainment area.

D. USE OF PROJECTED FUTURE VIOLATIONIS

Several commenters questioned

EPA's policy on the use of projected

future violations in making 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. After reviewing

the Act and its legislative 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 do not meet a standard, or -in the judgement of the State 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 to be designated as nonattainment, and any area where in the State's judgment the primary standard for S02 or TSP may

not be maintained may also be designated as nonattainment.

It is initially the State's option whether to designate a- clean area as nonattainment because the primary

SO2 or TSP standard may not be maintained. However, EPA must modify the State's nonattainment designation

if necessary. The State must submit to

EPA the information and analysis on which the State based its judgment that the standard would not be maintained.

Applying a, nonattainment designa- tion to clean areas where future violations are projected will further the

purposes of the nonattainment provisions of the 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 of the standard may be imminent, planning to assure attainment

and satisfy the other requirements for a nonattainment plan is essential.

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, 5 clean 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 CFR 51.24(b)(11), and its importance in determining ambient air increments is

stated at 40 CFR 51.24(c), as revised 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 has forbidden use

of dispersion techniques, such as tall

stacks or SCS which vary with atmospheric conditions as a substitute for

required constant control techniques in SIP's.6 Areas relying on dispersion in this way must be viewed as not attaining the standards.

The statute requires that the quantity, rite, or concentration of emissions

be limited on a continuous basis by use

of "emission limitations" or constant

control techniques. Dispersion techniques do not reduce total emissions

on a continuous basis; rather, emissions are dispersed over a wide area by

use of.a stack higher than required by good engineering practice, or the rate

of emissions is Varied according to atmospheric conditions by use of an intermittent or supplemental control

system. These dispersion techniques

are designed to permit emissions up toa level that will not result in ground level pollutant concentrations exceedin& the ambient 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 of dispersion techniques, and no State may insure

attainment by approving use of disper- sion techniques. Therefore, any area

where sources are using dispersion to

prevent pollution concentrations that

exceed standards, instead of comply- ing with emission limitations required in SIP's, must be viewed as an arga where the standards are not being attained.

By applying a nonattainment desig- nation to areas where sources are

using dispersion techniques to avoid

pollution concentrations that would

violate standards, EPA is forwarding the congressional purposes in enacting the nonattainment requirements. Congress was concerned with the failure

of many areas to attain the air quality mandated in the Act. With the nonattainment provisions applied to areas

where dispersion techniques are impermissibly used to avoid pollution concentrations in excess of standards, States,will be pressed tocommit themselves to implement and enforce the

constant controls necessary for attainment and maintenanceA Where the

GSee Section 123 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. This

prohibition does not apply to stack heights in existence or dispersion techniques imple- mented before Dec. 31, 1970. See also Conference 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, 42 U.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. 9 The application of nonattainment 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. TSP MONITORING SITING AND SAMW V

GUIDELINES

Several States interpreted EPA guid- ance as allowing the exclusion for the

purposes of attainment 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 by reentralned road

dust can be excluded in establishing both the design values for SIP development work and for designation purposes. Thus, It was not 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 of new monitoring stations 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

showing nonattainment of the NAAQS

should be examined not only in terms

of the 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

from roadways.

For sites not located in conformance

with the 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 Air Monitoring Work Group, "Air

Monitoring Strategy for State Implementa. tion Plans" (Publication No. EPA 450/2-77-

010, June 1977). Proposed In the FEDERAL

REGISTER dated August 7, 1978, on page 34892 as appendix E to 40 CFR part 58.

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 or modifying 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 is if the suspect monitoring site is

impacted by a point source (or

sources). Air quality dispersion modeling must be performed to determine if

the source(s) would result in an ambient violation. If, in fact, the source(s)

does contribute emissions such that

air quality levels in excess of the 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 development purposes.

E. PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS

Many commenters criticized the administrative procedures followed by

the Agency in promulgating the

March 3, 1978, area designations. The

-criticism focused on the Agency's decision to make the designations effective

before soliciting public 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

possible objections to the procedures.

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 States must

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 the States have immediate

guidance as to the attainment status

of the areas designated under section

107(d) .... Under these circumstances

it would be impracticable 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 of its immediate judgment

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 provided for later prompt revision

of the designations.

Since the designations will not cause

additional requirements for emission

1143 FR 8962, col 2, Mar. 3, 1978.

reductions to apply until after the re- quired State plans are approved or

promulgated by EPA, the decision to

make the designations immediately effective placed no additional burden on any party. When this procezo is concluded, EPA will have fully invited

and responded to public comment, will

have corrected improper designations,

will have proirlded States the greatest

possible lead time for submitting their

required nonattainment plans, and

will have imposed no hardship on any

source.

Some commenters also raised the objection that States did not hold public

hearings- on the designations before

making their submittals to EPA. 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 to hold hearings and engage in

other public procedures before adopting State implementation plans, section 107(d) of the Act 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 opportunity to participate in the

establishment of designations, and

fully satisfied any legal requirements

for public participation.

II. REGIOiAL DIscussIon

REGION1 I

New Hampshire

The Agency received comments challenging 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

are not supported at the 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 and towns" in the original

notice was an oversight.

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 not recording short-term primary standard violations that exist. This judgment is supported by the relatively high annual

average TSP concentrations recorded

In AQCRI 43 and by the occurrence of

violations at monitoring sites elsewhere which resemble the urban industralized character of nonmonitored

locations in AQCR 43.

REGIWON IV

Alabama

One commenter said that Fairfield,

Ala., in Jefferson County, should be

redesignated as attainment for TSP

because monitoring data did not show

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 nonattainment for TSP.

One commenter said that Florence,

Ala..in Lauderdale County, within the

area adjacent to TVA's Colbert Steam

Plant, should be designated attainment for TSP since the site is unduly

influenced by reentrained road dust.

After careful evaluation, Florence is

being redesignated unclansifable since

the monitor was found not to be representative of true ambient air quality

levels. Another monitor has been located to obtain more representative

air quality data.

Another commenter said the description of the Florence, Ala., nonattainment area should be changed to disazsoclate the Colbert Steam Plant from

It and Isolate the nonattainment area

to the local area of Florence. Modeling

analysis has shown that the nonattainment area is not significantly impacted by the Colbert Steam Plant,

and this area description is being generalized to "a portion of Lauderdali

County containing Florence."

Floridd

One commenter said that Hillsborough County, Fla, should be classified

as attainment for SO. rather than unclassifiable as previously designated.

However, due to special studies ongoing in Hillsborough County, this

area will remain unclassifiable for SO.

until the results of these studies are

conclusive.

One commenter said that Pinellas

County, Fla., should be designated attainment for SO except for the northwest comer of the county where violations have been recorded. Monitoring

data for this county substantiates this

po ition, so the area of nonattainment

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 done because of the

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. Air monitoring data and computer

modeling data in support of such axe- designation show that a delineation of

the area in violation 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 and a radius of 12 kilometers."

Several commenters submitted letters supporting the redesignation of

all of Polk County, Fla., as attainment

for TSP or as attaining the TSP standards county-wide except for a 1-

square-mile area to include the city of

Mulberry. EPA has found that the two

TSP sampling sites used in designating

this area nonattainment are bi~sed.

and is in the process of reevaluating

the entire TSP monitoring network

for Polk 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 of the EPA fugitive 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 of TSP emissions in the general area .of the violations, there is not an, ab- sence of significant industrial TSP

RULES AND REGULATIONS

emissions. For this reason and as sup- ported by recorded violations the secondary TSP standard, Seminole

County remains designated nonattainment for TSP.

Georgia

One commenter pointed out that the

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 meet primary standards for TSP. EPA agrees that this was a typographical error

and is changing the designation to reflect nonattainment with respect to

the secondary standard only. For other comments concerning Georgia, see the text on Tennessee interstate areas.

Kentucky

The area of nonattainment present- ed in the March 3 rulemaking for Henderson County for TP was inadvertently in error and is revised to reflect

the actual area of nonattainment.

A conmenter requested that the designation for Muhlenburg County be

changed from nonattainment for SO2

to attainment because no monitors in

the area have registered violations,

and the SCS used at the TVA Paradise

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

not being used.

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

of the SO2 emission limit, but was now

in compliance. The nonattainment

designation is not being chahged because the plant had not demonstrated

continual compliance before the date

of the designation, and still has not

been certified as being in compliance.

Mississippi

For comments concerning Mississip- pi, see the text on Tennessee interstate areas:

North Carolina

One commenter, with respect to the

designation of the Spruce Pine area as

nonattainment for TSP, noted that

recent violations of the primary standard in Spruce Pine were likely due in

some measure to construction'activity in the vicinity of the monitoring station as well as transport of wind-blown

fugitive dust from open mines and un.

stabilized tailings piles 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 can be 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 it inappropriate to do so 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

to the same firm's data. Consequently, no change in the Spruce Pine designation is being made.

Another commenter asked that the

designation of Buncombe County

(Asheville) be changed from nonat.

tainment to unclam-iflable for oxidants. Again, since the designation was made on the basis of a recorded violation, the Agency feels that It is inappropriate to revise 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 pollutants until such time as the data are re- viewed and certified to be valid. The

Agency agrees and accordingly Is

modifying, the designation of Durham

County to unclassifiable.

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 commenter re- ferred to recent air quality data Indicating values slightly below the primary standard. The possibility of meterological -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 being made.

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, 1978
the sampling station recording the violation was influenced by fugitive road

dust, automobile exhaust, and residential burning of coal. One commenter

stated that the area should be redefined so that industry 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

can be performed.

EPA concurs in these views of the

State agency and the change is being

made. The TAPCD is in the process of

establishing additional high-volume

sampling stations to ascertain the

actual air quality situation in the area. The Tennessee agency has also requested the privately-gathered air

quality data which several industries

assert are adequate to show attainment. TAPCD is conducting a comprehensive emissions inventory for the

area and plans to remodel the entire

area.

One commenter stated that the nonattainment area for Shelby County

should be revised since the CO monitors are biased by heavy traffic flow

and industry is being penalized by violations caused by mobile sources. Also,

designation of the entire county was felt to be wasteful" of manpower 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

agrees that the area ofnonattainment

should be limited to Metropolitan

Memphis, and the change is being

made.

TAPCD requests that the Knox

County nonattainment area for CO be

limited to two specific areas within the

metropolitan areas of Knox County.

EPA agrees that entire county nonattainment 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

and traffic patterns, CO should not be 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

of Tennessee.

One industry commenter requested

that the Kingsport nonattainment

area be reduced to exclude specific industrial sources in the TSP nonattainment area. The commenter felt the

RULES AND REGULATIONS

designation was based on limited monitoring data, and that the TSP concentrations may have been caused by the

fugitive dust rather than Industrial

emissions. Since the designation was

based on valid air quality data, the

original designation will stand until

additional air quality data are submitted to Justify revising the nonattainment status.

TVA recommends that Sumner

County be red'esignated as attainment

for TSP. It is their belief that fugitive road dust was the nan contributor to

the violations, as the monitor recording violation was located near an unpaved road. The road was recently

paved and no 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, and retains the original designa- tion until sufficient additional monitoring data are collected which demonstrates attainment,

TVA contends that while excessive

particulate concentrations have been

measured in Anderson and Knox

Counties surrounding TVA's Bull Run

plant, they have been lowered since

mid-1976 due to the operation of new

electrostatic precipitators. They also

state that a gravel road, which was influencing one of the sampling tations

has been paved and no excessive T5P

concentrations have been recorded

since that time. Therefore, they request that the area be redesignated attainment. EPA takes the position that

until adequate air quality data are

submitted to Justify revising the nonattainment status, the original designation will stand.

TAPCD commented that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County and Memphis-Shelby County nonattainment

areas for photochemical oxidants

should be expanded to include contiguous counties on the Georgia and Mississippi sides of the State line since

the Bureau of Census apparently included population from these locations

in defining urbanized areas. The State

of Georgia responded to this comment

questioning the need of designating the contiguous counties In Georgia

since there were no significant sources

of hydrocarbons in those counties and

Georgia felt the amount of traffic

coming from Georgia into Chattanooga did not produce a significant part

of the ozone problem In Chattanooga. 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

may be made at alater date.

REGIO VI

Geniral Comments

The comments received from the

general public, elected officials, and

40417

State and local agencies- relating to

the nonattainment designations, while

presenting a broad spectrum of technical and policy Issues, were generally

motivated by the potentially adverse

impact on economic growth through

mplementation of the emission offset

policy as a result of these designations.

The principal Issues raised concern- ing the oxidant designations fell into

four categories: (1) Level of the ozone standard; (2) boundaries of the nonattainment areas; (3) impact of transported ozone; and (4) rural oxidant

problems.

Many felt that the level of the ozone

standard was based on Insufficient

clinical data and that It was arbitrarily

set at too low a level In the same vein,

a desire was expressed for medical evidence that the ozone concentrations

observed at specific locations in the

region had a demonstrated adverse

health effect on the people of that geographic location. Also, evidence was requested that ozone concentrations

observed were actually conducive to

the photochemical smog problem. The

implicit theme within there comments

is that the meteorology indigenous to

this geographic region perhaps re- duces the adverse impact of a given

level of ozone. Many charged that the boundaries

of the nonattanment areas (generally

the county/parish line) were arbitrary

and discriminatory.

Commenters claimed that EPA

guidelines on oxidant nonattainment

designations were especially trouble- some in those areas with low hydrocarbon emissions, thus contributing

little to the observed ozone levels, will

be penalized for a problem over which

'they have no control. This is particularly true in some rural areas which He across the air trajectories of large

urban areas.

A similar case involves counties that,

because of their negligible hydrocarbon emissions, were monitored to es- tablish an ozone background. The desIgnation of nonattainment based on that kind of data appears inconsistent

with the intent of the Clean Air Act

because the control of the emissions

within such a county will have little or

no effect on ambient ozone levels.

The majority of comments relating

to the particulate matter designations -

centered around: (1) The inequities of

the rural fugitive dust policy; (2) mon- itor siting criteria; and (3) the impact

of resuspended street dust.

The use of the rural fugitive dust

policy to discount the data from those

monitors in rural areas that were not

being influenced by industrial 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, 1978
RULES AND REGULATIONScompletely arbitrary and technicallS

unfounded.

The latter two issues are actuall.

closely related. The argument wa. made that monitors that were sited in.

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 of resuspended fugitive dust.

Arkansas

In the March 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 on which

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 of industrial sources at that site. 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 found to be highly

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 on the list of those parish- es that were designated nonattainment for photochemical oxidants. Two

factors became known that necessitate

this designation. First, the ozone monitor data that were used to 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

part of the Shreveport (Caddo Parish)

urbanized area. Hence, because the

population of the Shreveport urbanized area according to the 1970 census is over 200,000 both Caddo and Bossier

Parishes are being designated nonattainment for photochemical. oxidants

based on EPA's guidelines for nonattainment designations.

New Mexico

In the March 3 FEDERAL REGISTER - designations, EPA declared Bernalillo - County, N. TMex. a nonattainment area for photochemcial oxidants based on measured air quality data showing violations of the standard. During the

public comment period the State ac- . knowledged the oxidant nonattainment designation promulgated by 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 of the impact of industrially emitted particulates at the non- attainment monitor sites was not

available at that time. The State has

submitted the results of a dispersion

modeling exercise to demonstrate 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 a portion of Grant County is

designated nonattainment for the primary TSP standard.

The March 3 EPA TSP designation

of nonattainment for the 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 of Albuquerque.

Portions of Eddy and Lea Counties were inadvertently omitted from the

March 3, 1978, nonattainment designation for the secondary TSP standard.

This designation is added, as the State

recommended.

EPA nonattainment designation in

Grant County of the secondary SO2

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 in the county Is using a SCS.

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

status for the primary SO. standard.

Oklahoma

The State of 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 on the following factors:

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 a potential for an excursion

above the ambient SO2 standard. Company production values were used to

predict potential emission rates and

resulting air quality. On only 1 day did

the production numbers exceed values

which could result In violations of am- bient air quality standards.

2. The air quality surveys conducted

by EPA's National Enforcement Investig'ations Center and a contractor did,

not indiceite violations of ambient air

quality standards for SO2. 3. The in-stack monitor which has

been in place at the company since December has not shown S02 levels

which would cause violations of ambient air quality 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

for TSP.

Texas

In the promulgation of oxidant non- attainment areas, EPA approved the

State designation for Neuces County.

However, a review of the information

used to support the designation indicates that a partial county designation

cannot be supported with geographical 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 of SCS 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

present SCS is an unauthorized dispersion technique under section 123 of

the Act. As soon as the determination

is made, the designation for the area

will be reconsidered.

EPA also received requests to en- large the CO nonattainment area in El

Paso to include property on which

some major industries are located.

EPA did not feel that 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 on the proposals will be made by EPA shortly.

REGION VI

This notice revises nine of the attainment status designations pub- -

lished by EPA on March 3, 1978. Six

revisions are being made for photochemical oxidant nonattainment designations in Colorado (1), Montana (1),

North Dakota (3), and Utah (1). These

revisions are based on a detailed

review of the 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 with EPA's fugitive dust policy.

Colorado

Ten comments questioned EPA's

designation of Rio Blanco County as a nonattainment area for photochemical

oxidants, including a detailed analysis

by the Colorado Department of

Health. EPA has reviewed the ambient

air quality on which the designation

was based and is revising the nonattainment designation to unclassified.

Other comments objected to the desig-

'nation of the Pueblo area as nonattainment for TSP, the boundaries of

the _arimer Weld Designated Area for

TSP, and the boundaries of the CO

and O. nonattainment designations in

the Denver area. EPA and the State

have reviewed the comments "and have

determined that these designations

should not be revised dt this time.

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

as unclassifiable.

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

not been exceeded at Colstrip and has

requested that the nonattainment designatlon for Rosebud County be revised. EPA has verified the State's

analysis and is redesignating Rosebud

County to attainmden

Two comments objected to the designation of Yellowstone County as nonattainment for 0. on the basis of am- blent violations In the city of 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 made for the area boundary.

One comment addressed the validity

of the monitoring and modeling data

used to designate the Laurel Area as nonattalnment for SO,. EPA has contracted for a study of the emission and

modeling data in the area and may

revise the current designation on the

basis of the study.

The original designation for Butte of

nonattainment with respect to the sec- ondary standard for TSP was based

upon an apparent reduction in air pollution levels below the national primary standards from 1976 to 1977. However, a re-examination of the measured data in Butte by EPA has revealed that levels in Butte are continuing to exceed the national primary

standards for TSP. Therefore, EPA is

amending the nonattainment designation to refer to the primary standards

as well as the secondary standard.

North Dakota

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. EPA has 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 to unclassiflable.

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 have reviewcd the ambient 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 sources of TSP

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 with EPA's fugitive dust

policy. EPA is revising these designations as requested by the State.

One comment objected to the designation of Salt Lake and 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

EPA received comments on 13 of the

.39 pollutant-specifio nonattainment

designations made in the States of

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and is today making several

changes. Copies of comments received

are on file for public inspection at the

EPA Public Information Reference

Unit as well as- the EPA Regional

Office. The changes include redefining

boundaries in some cases and changing

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 attainment for 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 dust policy

is equally applicable to Tri-Cities and

Yakima, Wsh. Thus EPA is redesignating Walla Walla, Tri-Cities, and

Yaldma as attainment for TSP.

CHANGES IN EOUTDAIES

For four areas (five pollutant specifIc designations), the changes relate to

the boundaries of the areas rather

than the attainment status. These

boundary changes are relatively minor

in nature and do not affect the basic

planning requirements mandated by

the Initial nonattainment designations

made on March 3, 1978.

The areas where EPA is approving

changes to boundaries 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 in Pocatello and Lewiston involve reducing the size of the

designated areas to more accurately

reflect the true areas of nonattainment as indicated by available ambient

air quality data. In addition, a com- ment was received from A local 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 on documented violations of the

NAAQS for this pollutant.

Washington

" Spokane, Wash., was designated nonattainment for both CO and TSP. The

State Department of Ecology recom- mended changes to the TSP boundary

to reflect the true area of nonattainment. This modification results in a small reduction in the size of the 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 of their original boundary for the.

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

Council recommend the designation of an area even larger than the EPA-designated area because of potential violations of the standards as transportation controls, such as traffic rerouting, are implemented. Verbal comments re- ceived from the agency primarily re- sponsible for transportation-related planning activities in Spokane support

the State-designated boundary. -

RULES AND REGULATIONS

The State Department of Ecology

has clearly stated in its corresilondence with the Washington Environmental Council that the designated

lead agency is expected to consider the

larger urban area for SIP revision purposes. EPA is persuaded by this and by

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 RECEIVED BUT 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 designations made by the State and concurred

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 of TSP monitors

in the area and distribution of particle

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 change because Clarkston is part of an interstate nonattainment area with Lewiston, Idaho,

which is influenced by industrial emissions. The State of Idaho is currently studying the impact of the industrial

emissions and, if appropriate, the area will be redesignated attainment at a later date.

A local industrial source in Tacoma,

Wash., recommended that this area be

redesignated attainment for SO2 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 and the use of a SCS by a major

point source in the area. EPA policy

requires a nonattainment designation

where the NAAQS are being attained

through the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques.

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

of Vancouver sources on the 0. stand.

ard violations. However, available air

quality data shows violations of the O,

standards in Vancouver and EPA is

therefore not approving any changes

to the O nonattainment designation.

The Washington Department of

Ecology requested that the boundary

of the CO nonattainment area in Seattle be changed from the EPA-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 area the 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 of Alaska proposing a redesignation for the Port of

Valdez from attainment to nonattain.

ment for SO2.

NoE.-The Environmental Protection

Agency has determined that this document

is not a significant regulation and does not

require preparation of a Regulatory Analy- sis under Executive 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 of Federal Regulations Is amended as follows:

Subpart C-Section 107 Attainment Statue

Dosignatlions

* * * * *

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

0 a) -a

41

Z 24 22

414

4,,

rii 0-0

24 c

c1 Od

-a.

"i 4

4, .u

to

o ri

-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 * " ci t i v * t i a i c- .-4 Ci Q =4 0 a0 amco 

U4 ci -0 22u 4 .4 U4 c

ci cc 0 .0 0 -A c '-, m C: a rma~ uo 4 ,4 ci. a 02 c 14 w 4 $4 a U 14 Q)- 0 430 amp- am 0 "~a - w a " ,u, ' c2, -' 0 " - "$ 3 0-'c C: a. 0.46to u a 0u a4 0.1 00 M 2 41 0c e>m ao 0 9 am6t 4, Dc~5 2 .4 0 .4 4 . 0 'i 41 " 0 C3 $4 3a a a i .4

4, w "i, 00 ,'1 4- 2.0 4, 0' IJ12. a -. 4-s" 0 ,4 Cl a9

cI0

6

0

u

us

0

lE

z

-o

OS

.o
40422 RULES AND REGULATIONS

00

0a 41'

0134

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

Li :3 - 4 t

cl 0 0 

014034

to to

f ca a 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 fa ca~ "4~~ 4 ~ 0" 

U4 04 C -44

00

PI ~ ~ a 3- '£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 .0U 

4J.- 1 0 :U Z!AC) 1

ci 00.0 14 wci0 $4 C3 0i ai a00u 4 $4 04 0 1C O~. C 04 4 0 . i CW - I

FA r.vi~f O'34rO j 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

0i 0

cici

45,4

0 .-4

00

43

o 34

T3.0

0.3>

u. C3 U

Z Z4Z
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0

'4

40424

02c

44

ca$

d) Q oU C 0 -t C)- 41

si ~

0020

00$

IM 0

02 4o 

0 C >04 

o4 3 =) 0 4 ,: 

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

0.Ca. P. 2 0. -0 0. . 0 0 Sj 'I . 4J 0 14 J 3 4 41 ~ ~ ~ 410.:41 4 0 J- 02 A 2 j 0 C) 0 a) co g 0 C) 4

IV0 -0 02 

E.4

0 4 A)0*

C) 0

03

041001

0aa 020a

0 a) u0X

0 ) C)1

03

.4

413 -o 00A -0 to2C)

002 04 0 cc

0 C 403) 0 3

434 43 C 02 0 0110 C

0 .) 0 0 . 44

c0

ca

W

0

C--

0

I)

6

J

0

c,

aO
RULES 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

43Q)

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 a4 s )ua 4 : . '0 '0 aE ., 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 055 000443 -4r00

'0 a044 a0 ... 0 ±0 4 0 54 4 . m F54 m.4.00 0..54. 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

0i U 0. 

0 Uq .. -

U. 4 . I 44jt

0 0 00 : 0 0 c 042 :

c!0C00:C' : A es 0 . l 3 0 U U3 a 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" &

00i C) 

go0J00C 000o

W)

40425,

43

U'

>.-

US

£a

z

0

'0

z

as
RULES AND REGULATIONS

'0

Ci

0

ci ".4Li

0

0

U

04

Li

H

ci

44Li

ci

ci

0

.0

(I

0

ci

ci

0

40426

0a14

4 0 0

44 dc Li 44

4.

0-4

00

Li . o 0 14

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

H'0)

0') X0 U) Z m u v xi ci> Ci". f. l 1 c 4 U 44a014.30- 4 4

4 0N l* 4 4H c

m4- k.0X~ =.'1xx 0' xX.=4j .0C ,4X

Hf 0 a$ 00 -

04 fc uioil 6"
RULES AND REGULATIONS

o~ ai

444c

coi

011

119 t. 0

t.3

-0 34.c

C,:3 .0U

3-4 Z4 ' 4

oo a

-4 _ _0

44 i 41 -

3.. 0l 0i 14 3,q 1

Ci 9i3~ 4

44 co

C3 3.

14 a V: ci 

4J 44) co 

C3 13c 4 - 4

4.34 4. 0 ' 4 .

cci '4 0 ' .41q4 $

r., 0 0 ,

4J.

En 0

E P; 34 'a

431

ci 0'3

'ci

dcii

1314J

~ci

ci l

'ci 133 0 

" 000 0 " r c i w 

40427
40428

0;'

co

c4o

0

Cd

C.,

c.

O0

04

W

0

o

Im

14

.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 -4 s 

-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 14 300 '-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 0 DH 00) ) H ..) 0 W .

0,

0

c;

0

,.

O

zl

0
RULES AND REGULATIONS 40429

cl 00 M 4X

'cl.

44.

U V

4J

to Wl~

54 C3~

QaC C3-

C3r-) 

4J

r: o3 (Y C

Em Cl

o C-4 od 4 . N r)Ck C

Si e f o
40430 RULES AND 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 XWJ 14 

0.0 C3 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 0 00 w.0 1 to a a 4i . .0 co 10 0q 0 4

1T 00014 4 4 co coCd01o ". 0 M" 0i 03C cd .d'0 o" 0 4 e oo i e a0. .3 u91 N aA C4 L) 'Do c oo vk u- 0 cw 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

Q

0

'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

003au cc

44

00 0303

.- Il l03- 54 - C0 o

C3 0 0 0

*qCT ZJ Z ZZ 

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 ~ 0 0 J u.J 03-I 03 03.3 u3/ 0.- 0 0 0( 044 00. 0) Ia. C.: 0003U 00 03 0) 1?0nv3d

' 3 4J1 00CO.M'" 03 '003a '-I l :>, 03 54l 4 03 103 5 4 w.I '4. 14 01(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 Ct,- 0 -410 a.. 43 J 0 0o3 

C:0 '00303 4141 1434 4-X- '-50 l*43, 144 30303r40 v w~ 'oI 00 v0 00$40 0031 00.

m'- 0.03 : 410 030 01 0 000 0 L) 0 03 0 oo

,4 4134 4i4. 41 0 . o -03 . 3,- '.0 '403 o40

04 3 - 0 030354,j 14 -H C1- 54 - C 0oA 

0.04 0.54-0 >.I p 00 0 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 W 4J 4v4

O0 O0 0 00 30- *,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 a t" >i v 0' a 3i0 pcC) :30 C,3 4. c

U) 01 :0 03 r :3 43 0 u , - 1

Ci ad0 00C)a0 C) Cul Ca aU 0 i C

c)a C o0 : ra ai' m44 170 v '34S-

'.4 C4 CZ' C Il W4 IC ts ) .-4 ".4 '4 V: 4 r4 .- 4i 0 -a" '4 0 Q=4 .4 U004 0 to 63~ 0-14~ .-45 94 C C4~CC u l C14 0 rJ.4 II1C3 m -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

0 00 9 03oaC

0 C .4 d 544
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0) .

'54J

41 4 4

Cd 14 4

340

;E2

44

~~44

023 41

034:3 .C 0 U w COU

0 >O a .0 ,

r- 0

41 ACO ca44~ to a) .. =4 Cw 

-4'

U43

C 0 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 0 C 4. 0

cm O 0 4 O C

40434

0

3-4

Cd

C,

4a

ce.0

M0

Co

US

0)

€o,

.o4a,
RULES AND 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 -

-.4 0 

ri C

.)V

to o C) C3 ci f a

>i -0 a -

o0 caaa 0 ca

o tn
RULES AND REGULATIONS

[6560-01] ,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[40 CFR Part 81]

[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 of all 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 and EPA can initiate changes to

these designations but any State redesignation must by submitted to EPA

for concurrence.

This rule proposes a change to the

attainment/status designations for the

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 will publish the revised designation as appropriate.

DATES: Comments are due by November 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

Region X's modifications to the March

3, 1978, nonattainment designations

appears in'the final rulemaking section of this 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 oil tankers associated with activities at the Valdez pipeline terminal.

EPA proposes to approve the request

by the State of Alaska, 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 Filed 9-8-78; 8:45 am]

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

40436