# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofVirginia.

* * 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 ofAir Pollution consisting of confirmation oflocal 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 ofOklahoma 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 ofthe enforcement discretion approach by the State and tomeet 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 ofclarification

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 byreference 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 ofthe Federal Register, Rm.

8401, 1100 L Street,NW., Washington, D.C. 20460 Oklahoma State Department ofHealth,

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 ofEquipment), as revised on June 1, 1981. EPAreviewed 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 andMalfunctions) 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 inreviewing 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 ofthe information mandated in Sections 1.5(c)(2) (A), (B), and (C) does not exempt the facility from enforcement ofthe violation. The violation can be pursued ifthe Chief (i.e., The Department) is not satisfied that excess emissions were not unavoidable." This Is interpreted as the Chiefexercising his enforcement discretion depending on the circumstances surrounding the excess emissions rather than anautomatic exemption. The State will use the information submitted in response to the requirements ofRegulation 1.5 to

I EPA Evaluation Report forOklahoma Regulation 1.5-Reports Required: Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown andMalfunction 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 themaximum extent practicable, the air pollution control equipment, process equipment, orprocesses were at all times maintained and operated, Ina manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions;

Regulation 1.5-This criterion ismet under Section 1.5(e)(2)(H), along with the October 18,1982, clarification letter.The State stated that "itis the intentthat Section 1.5(e((1-] allows the Chiefofthe Air Quality Service to require the submission ofpreventive maintenance plansnecessary to prevent, detect and correct malfunctions of equipment." EPAinterprets this toinclude documentation onprocess equipment or processes.

(2) Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the operatorknew or should' have known that applicable emission limitations were being exceeded, Offshift and overtime labor must have been utilized to insure that such repairs were made as expeditiously aspossible;

Regulation 1.5-This criterion Ismet 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 Chiefof the Air Quality Service in a timely manner thatmeasures such as off-shift and overtime labor have been used to effect repairs and minimize emissions."

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

on ambient airquality; and

Regulation 1.5-This criterion Ismet under Sections 1.5(c)(2(B) and 1.5(e)(2) (F) and (C),

(5)

The excess emissions are notpart of a recurring pattern indicative ofinadequate 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 Chiefnot to pursue enforcement ofviolations 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 anexamination ofthe facts surrounding the event that no enforcement action is appropriate. If EPA takes a different view ofthe facts andbelieves that enforcement action is
necessary because ofthe 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. TheirMay 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 thatinvariably will emit

excess emissions during this phase of their operation... The approach requires prior approval, but upon approval allows the source toreport these occasions on a quarterly basis. Thus, the State canreview quarterly the

occurrences to assure thatexcessive 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 ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofSection 3 ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under Section 307(b)(1) ofthe Act, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by (60days from today). This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 307(b)[2).)

Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan for the State ofOklahoma was approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register onJuly 1, 1982.

This notice offinal rulemaking is issued under the authority ofSection 110 ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7410.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

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 ofChapter 1,Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations Is amended

as follows:
SubpartLL-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 ofEquipment was submitted by the Governor on February 8,1983. Letters ofclarification were submitted bythe 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) ofthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA submitted a final regulation establishing procedures for the conditional registration ofpesticide products -whichare Identical or substantially similar to those currently registered, and the conditional registration ofnew uses ofexisting pesticides by EPA to both Houses of Congress for review prior tothe regulation taking effect. Theregulation

was published in the Federal Register of July 26,1983 (48 FR 34000). Theminimum 60-day period forCongressional review ended on November 10,1983.
OATm 

### Theregulation became effective

on November 10,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### By math JeanFrane, Registration Division (TS-767C), Office ofPesticide 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 ofJuly 20,1983 (48 FR 34000), under section 3of FIFRA. The regulation established procedures for the conditional registration ofpesticide products which

are Identical or substantially similarto those currently registered, and the conditional registration ofnew uses of existing pesticides, bytheAgency. The rule also replaced current regulations on conditional registration that theThird Circuit Court ofAppeals found hadbeen issued without adequate notice and
comment. However, asrequired by section 23(a)(4) ofFIFRA, theregulation couldnot tahe effect untilithadbeen submitted tobothHouses ofCongress fora period of60 days ofcontinuous Congressional session, as definedby section 25(a)(4). Since itwas not possible topredict an exact date on whichthe Congressional review period would end, the preamble tothe final regulation statedthat EPA wouldissue a separate Federal Registernotice after thereview period was over announcing the effective date ofthe regulation. On November 10,1933, 60 days of continuous Congressional session elapsed.

Accordingly, the final regulation promulgated onJuly 26,1933 (48 FR 34000). became effective onNovember 10,1983. (Sec. 25, as amended.Pub.L 98-a39,94 Stat. 3195 (7U.S.C. 136))



### List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart162

Administrative practice and procedure,Intergovernmental relations, Labeling, Packaging andcontainers, Pesticides andpests.

Dated January 12.1934. JohnA. Moore, Ac. istant Adzninftraor forP~s Icide and
To: Szbstancea.



### CX1 COZZ Mss-sco-u

40 CFR Part 180

[PP3E2090/R623 PH-FRL2510-8]



### Tolerances and Exemptions From Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals In

oron Raw Agricultural Commodities; Dimethoate
AGENCY. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTIO,, Final rule. 

### 3085

HeinOnline -- 49 Fed. Reg. 3085 1984