+(,121/,1(

Citation: 49 Fed. Reg. 3084 1984 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jan 28 15:45:29 2013

-- 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.
3084 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 25, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

(75) Amendments to Sections 4.56,

5.02(a), and 5.15; submitted on January 5,

1983 by the Commonwealth of Virginia. * * 4t *

(78) The Washington Metropolitan Air

Quality Plan for the Northern Virginia

Nonattainment Area for Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide Air Quality

Standards submitted by the Virginia

State Air Pollution Control Board on

January 12, 1983.

(79) Amendments to Appendix I of the

Virginia Regulations for the Control and

Abatement of Air Pollution consisting of

confirmation of local government

commitments by Fairfax County and

Loudoun County to implement the

Northern Virginia Nonattainment plan;

submitted on December 3,1982 by the

Virginia State Air Pollution Control

Board.

[FR Do. 84-1=-0 Filed 1-24-4; 845 am]

DILUNG CODE 650.-50-m

40 CFR Part 52

[A-6-FRL 2512-8]

Revision to Oklahoma Regulation 1.5-

Reports Required; Excess Emissions

During Startup, Shutdown and

Malfunction of Equipment

AGENCY: Enviromental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action approves a

revision to the State of Oklahoma Air

Quality Control Implementation Plan

which was submitted by the Governor on February 8, 1983. Specifically, the

State revised Regulation 1.5-Reports

Required: Excess Emissions During

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction of

Equipment to ensure the use of the

enforcement discretion approach by the

State and to meet EPA's criteria for a malfunction regulation. Prior to this

submittal, the State submitted a letter of

clarification to Regulation 1.5 on October 18, 1982, in response to a preliminary review by EPA. The State

submitted another letter of clarification on May 24, 1983. The proposed approval wa published on October 12, 1983, at 48

FR 46392. One comment was received

which supports EPA's action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on February

24, 1984.

ADDRESSES: Incorporation by reference

material is available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Waste Management Division, Air

Branch, State Implementation Plan

Section, 1201 Ehn Street, Dallas,

Texas 75270

Environmental Protection Agency,

Public Information Reference Unit,

EPA Library, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

The Office of the Federal Register, Rm.

8401, 1100 L Street, NW., Washington,

D.C. 20460

Oklahoma State Department of Health,

Air Quality Service, 1000 Northeast

10th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73152

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

IKathryn M. Griffith, Air and Waste

Management Division, Air Branch, State

Implementation Plan Section, 1201 Elm

Street, Dallas, Texas 75270, (214) 767-

9853.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 8,1983, the Governor of

Oklahoma submitted a SIP revision to

Regulation 1.5 (Reports Required: Excess

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown

and Malfunction of Equipment), as revised on June 1, 1981. EPA reviewed

the State's submittal and developed an evaluation report 1 in accordance with

the minimum criteria established by the

EPA policy memorandum dated,

September 28,1982 (Policy on Excess

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,

Maintenance and Malfunctions) and the

clarification memorandum dated

February 15, 1983. This evaluation report

is available for inspection by interested

parties during normal business hours at

the EPA Region 6 office and the other

address listed above.

EPA believes that Oklahoma's

Regulation 1.5 is consistent with EPA's

malfunction policy. EPA's basic criterion

in reviewing malfunction regulations is

that the regulations must not provide for an automatic exemption during a maintenance/malfunction episode. The

State's response to automatic

exemptions as stated in their letter of

clarification dated, May 24,1983, is "the mere providing of the information

mandated in Sections 1.5(c)(2) (A), (B),

and (C) does not exempt the facility

from enforcement of the violation. The

violation can be pursued if the Chief

(i.e., The Department) is not satisfied

that excess emissions were not

unavoidable." This Is interpreted as the

Chief exercising his enforcement

discretion depending on the

circumstances surrounding the excess emissions rather than an automatic

exemption. The State will use the

information submitted in response to the

requirements of Regulation 1.5 to

I EPA Evaluation Report for Oklahoma

Regulation 1.5-Reports Required: Excess Emissions

During Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction of

Equipment.

determine whether enforcement action

is appropriate.

The policy memoranda list 5 other

criteria which a State's malfunction

regulation must meet and they are:

(1) To the maximum extent practicable, the

air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or processes were at all times

maintained and operated, In a manner

consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions;

Regulation 1.5-This criterion is met under

Section 1.5(e)(2)(H), along with the October

18,1982, clarification letter. The State stated

that "it is the intent that Section 1.5(e((1-] allows the Chief of the Air Quality Service to

require the submission of preventive maintenance plans necessary to prevent, detect and correct malfunctions of

equipment." EPA interprets this to include

documentation on process equipment or

processes. (2) Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the operator knew or should'

have known that applicable emission

limitations were being exceeded, Off shift

and overtime labor must have been utilized

to insure that such repairs were made as

expeditiously as possible; Regulation 1.5-This criterion Is met under

Section 1. (c)(2)(B), along with the October

18, 1982, clarification letter. The State

ndicated that "sources are also required to

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chief of

the Air Quality Service in a timely manner that measures such as off-shift and overtime

labor have been used to effect repairs and

minimize emissions."

(3) The amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods of such emissions;

Regulation 1.5--This criterion is met under

Sections 1.5(e)(2) (B), (C), and (G).

(4) All possible steps were taken to

minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and

Regulation 1.5-This criterion Is met under

Sections 1.5(c)(2(B) and 1.5(e)(2) (F) and (C),

(5) The excess emissions are not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate

design, operation or maintenance.

Regulation 1.5--This criterion is met under

Sections 1.5(c](2)(C] and 1.5(O(2](C).

I The State was asked to clarify excess

emissions during scheduled

maintenance under Section 1.5(c)

Notification Requirements. Their May

24, 1983, clarification letter states that

"It is the intent of this regulation to

allow the Chief not to pursue

enforcement of violations due to

removing control equipment from

operation to perform maintenance * *

The regulation requires that pollution

control equipment maintenance be

accomplished to the extent possible

when the process is shut down," As the

regulation is written and interpreted by

the State, excess emissions during.

sch'duled maintenance are not excused,

However, in using the enforcement

HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 3084 1984
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 25, 184 / Rules and Regulations

discretion approach, the State may

conclude from an examination of the

facts surrounding the event that no

enforcement action is appropriate. If

EPA takes a different view of the facts

and believes that enforcement action is

necessary because of the 6xcess

emissions, EPA still has the legal

authority to take that action.

.The State was also asked to clarify

Section 1.5[f) Excesses Resulting From

Engineering Limitations. Their May 24,

1983, clarification letter states "This

section does not grant automatic

exemptions. This section is designed to

reduce the administrative burden on

process startup/shutdowns. There are

some processes that invariably will emit

excess emissions during this phase of

their operation... The approach

requires prior approval, but upon

approval allows the source to report

these occasions on a quarterly basis.

Thus, the State can review quarterly the

occurrences to assure that excessive

startup/shutdowns are not occurring. If

excessive startup/shutdowns are

occurring, the State will take

appropriate action." EPA accepts this

interpretation.

In the October 12,1983, Federal

Register Notice, EPA solicited public

comment Only one comment was

received and it was in support of the

proposed approval.

Regulation 1.5 along with the

clarification letter dated, October 18,

1982, and May 24,1983, meets all of

EPA's minimum criteria for an

approvable malfunction regulation.

Based on this, EPA is hereby approving

Regulation 1.5.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by (60 days from today). This

action may not be challenged later in

proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See 307(b)[2).)

Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State

of Oklahoma was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July

1, 1982.

This notice of final rulemaking is

issued under the authority of Section 110

of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 7410.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur

oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide.

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations. Incorporation by Reference.

Dated: January 19, 134.

WilUam D. Ruckelbhaus.

Adminlstrator.

PART 52-EAMENDED)

Part 52 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Is amended

as follows:

Subpart LL-Oklahoma

1. In § 52.1920, (c) is amended by

adding paragraph (30) as follows:

§ 52.1920 Identflcatlon of action.

(c)

(30) Revision to Oklahoma Regulation

No. 1.5-Reports Required. Excess

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown

and Malfunction of Equipment was

submitted by the Governor on February

8,1983. Letters of clarification were

submitted by the State on October 18,

1982 and May 24,1983.

S:ILRG CODE CzSC-:33-M

40 CFR Part 162

[OPP-250049; PH-FRL 2503-2]

Pesticide Products; Effective Date for

Conditional Registration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTIorN: Final Rule; Confirmation of

Effective Date.

SUMMARY: As required by section

25(a)(4) of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),

EPA submitted a final regulation

establishing procedures for the

conditional registration of pesticide

products -which are Identical or

substantially similar to those currently

registered, and the conditional

registration of new uses of existing

pesticides by EPA to both Houses of

Congress for review prior to the

regulation taking effect. The regulation

was published in the Federal Register of

July 26,1983 (48 FR 34000). The minimum

60-day period for Congressional review

ended on November 10,1983.

OATm The regulation became effective

on November 10,1983.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

By math Jean Frane, Registration

Division (TS-767C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency. 401 M St., SW., Washington.

D.C. 20460. Office location and

telephone number Rm. 1114C, CM -

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway.

Arlington. VA. (703-557-0592).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION EPA

issued a final regulation, which was

published In the Federal Register of July

20,1983 (48 FR 34000), under section 3 of

FIFRA. The regulation established

procedures for the conditional

registration of pesticide products which

are Identical or substantially similar to

those currently registered, and the

conditional registration of new uses of

existing pesticides, by the Agency. The

rule also replaced current regulations on

conditional registration that the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals found had been

issued without adequate notice and

comment. However, as required by

section 23(a)(4) of FIFRA, the regulation

could not tahe effect until it had been

submitted to both Houses of Congress

for a period of 60 days of continuous

Congressional session, as defined by

section 25(a)(4). Since it was not

possible to predict an exact date on

which the Congressional review period

would end, the preamble to the final

regulation stated that EPA would issue a

separate Federal Register notice after

the review period was over announcing

the effective date of the regulation. On

November 10,1933, 60 days of

continuous Congressional session

elapsed.

Accordingly, the final regulation

promulgated on July 26,1933 (48 FR

34000). became effective on November

10,1983.

(Sec. 25, as amended. Pub. L 98-a39,94 Stat.

3195 (7 U.S.C. 136))

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 162

Administrative practice and

procedure, Intergovernmental relations,

Labeling, Packaging and containers,

Pesticides and pests.

Dated January 12.1934.

John A. Moore,

Ac. istant Adzninftraor for P~s Icide and

To: Szbstancea.

CX1 COZZ Mss-sco-u

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 3E2090/R623 PH-FRL2510-8]

Tolerances and Exemptions From

Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals In

or on Raw Agricultural Commodities;

Dimethoate

AGENCY. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTIO,, Final rule.

3085

HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 3085 1984