Federal Register 

# / Vol. 47, Nc. 129 

# / Tuesday, July 6, 1982 

# I Rules and Regulations 29231

properties located in foreign countries, it is notfeasible to approve grant applications outside ofthe United States ofAmerica. The regulation has been reviewed pursuantto Executive Order 12291 and will not impact on the public orprivate sectors as ~ major rule as 

### defined by the Executive Qrder. The regulation, therefore, i~ found to be nonlnajor. The Adniinistrator hereby certifies that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial~number ofsmall entities~ as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.601—612. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the regulation ~s therefore exempt from the final regu1~toryflexibilityanalyses requiremez~ts ofsections 603 and 604. This regulationwill only impact upon veterans with certain disabilities residing in foreign countries and will not impact upth small entities located in the United States, itsTerritories, or possession~. There will be no compliance costs or reporting burdens
on individuals ororganizätions~
List ofSubjects in 3~CFR Part

### 36 Condominiums, Handicapped, Housing, Lçan programs—housing and communitydeve)opment, Mobile homes, Veterans, Veterans Administration. (Sec. 210(c) (1:), 801(a) and (bJ oftitle 38, U.S.C.) (Catrçlog ofFederal Domestic Assistance I~ogram number64.106). Approved:lJune 17, 1982 Robert P. Nithmo, Administrator,

PART 36HL0AN GUARANTY

Section J8.44l1 is added as follows: §36.4411 ~eographlcai limits. Any real~property purchased, constructed, altered, improved, repaired,
or speciall~ adapted, in whole or in part, with the prpceeds ofany specially adapted housing grant, shall be situated in the United States, which, for purposes of38 U.S.C~ Chapter21, is defined as the several Sta~tes, Territories, and possession~, including the District of Columbia, ~he Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, Guan~, American Samoa, the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, an~d any other area overwhich the United1States may, at some future date, acquire sovereignty. (38 U.S.C. 210(c), 801(a) and (b)).

FR Ijoc. 62—181~OPiled 7—Z—82~ 8:45 ami BILLING 000E8320-O1-M ENVIRONMENTAL 

### PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [A—9—FRL2142-8)
California 

### State Implementation Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protectioif Agency. ACTlO~4: Notice offinal rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes final action to approve revisions to rules ofthe Bay Area and South CoastAir Quality Management Districts (AQMD) and the Kern and San Diego County Air Pollution Control Districts {~APCDs) submitted by the CaliforniaAir Resources Board (AEB) for incorporation into’ the Califorrtht State Implementation Plan (SW). These revisionsgenerally are administrative and retain equivalentemission.control requirements. EPA reviewed these rules with respectto the Clean AirAct and determined that they should be approved. DATE: This action is effective September 7, 1982. ADDRESSES Copies ofthe 

### revisions are available for 

### publicinspecti’àn during normal 

### business hours atthe EPA RegionS office and the following locations: Public Information 

### Reference Unit, Environmental Protection Agency, Ubrary, 401 M Street SW., Room. 2404, Washington, 

### D.C. Z0460~

- Library, 

### Of~caofthe Federal Register, 1100 LStreet NW., Room 8401,. Washington, D.C. Z0408~ FOR FURTHER INFORMATiONCONTACT~ Douglas Grano, ChieL State Implementation Plan Section. Air Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,215 Fremont Street,, San. Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 974—8058. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The ARB submitted as SIP revisions the following rules on the indicated dates: Bay AreaAQMD July 30, 1981 Regulation 2 Permits—Rule’2 2—2-414 Exemption, Non Ozone Precursor Regulation 5 Open Burning 5—401.13 Allowable Fires—Wildlife Management June 22, 1981 Regulation 5 Open Burning 5—401.3 Allowable Fires—Orchard Pruning and Attrition January28, 1981 1—112 Breakdown 1—113 Discretionary Etiforcement, Breakdown 1—115 Exemptions, Modifications to Meet Emission Standards Regulation 9 Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants—Rule 3 9—3—202 Modified HeatTransfer Operation July10, 1980 Regulation 1 General Provisions and Definitions 1—206 Bar 1—541 Emission Excesses Regulation 9 Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants—Rule I 9—1—600 Manual of Procedures 9—1—601 Sampling and Analysis of Gas Streams 9-1-602 Sulfur Contentof Fuels 9—1—603 Averaging Times 9—1—604 Ground Level Monitoring 9—1~-605 Emission Monitoring Jur~ç 2, 1980 Regulation 1 General Provisions and Definitions 1—520 Emission Monitoring 1—542 Area Concentration Excesses 1—600 Manual ofProcedures 1—601 Approval ofSampling Facilities 1—602 Area and Source Monitoring Requirements

- 1—603 Visible Emissions 1—604 Opacity Measurements Regulation B Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions 6—305 Visible Particles 6-311 General Operations 6-600 Manual ofProcedures 6-601 Particulate Matter, Sampling; Sampling Facilities, Opacity Instruments andAppraisal of Visible Emissions Regulation 11 Hazardous Pollutants— Rule 1 11—1—500 11—1—501 11—1—600 11—1—601 Limits 11—1—602 Determination of Background Concentrations 11—1—803 Monitoring Equipment May13, 1980 Regulation 8 Organic Compounds Rule 21 RubberTire Manufacturing Operations January 14, 198(J Regulation 2 Permits—Rule 1 2—1—100 General 2—1—101 Description 2—1—102 Applicable Requirements

Monitoring and Recording Monitoring Manual of Proceddres Determination of Emissions29232 

### Federal Register/Vol. 47, No. 129 

# I Thesday, July 6, 1982 

# / Rules and Regulations

2—1—ill Exemption, Sources and OpeFations 2—1—11~2 Exemption, Equipment 2—1—408 Action on Applications

Rule 62 Sulfur Content of Fuels Rule 53 Specific Contaminants October23, 1981

- 

### Rule 218 StackMonitoring Rule 219 Exemptions Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II Rule 220 Exemption—Net Increase in Emissions Rule 409 Combustion Contaminants Rule 502 Filing Petitions November5,1981 Rule 444 Open Fires July 14, 1981

- Rule 301 Permit Fees May28, 1981 Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings January28, 1981 Rule 1115 MotorVehicle Assembly Line Coating Operations. Under Section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act as amended, and 40 CFR Part 51, the Administrator is required to approve or disapprove these regulations as SIP revisions. All rules submitted have been evaluated and found to be in accordance with EPA policy and 40 CFR Part 51. EPA’s detailed evaluation ofthe submitted rules is available atthe EPA Library in Washington, D.C., and the Region 9 office. It is the purpose ofthis notice to approve all the rule revisions listed above and to incorporate them 

### into the California SIP. This is being done without prior proposal because the revisions are noncontroversial, have limited impact, and no comments are anticipated. The public should be advised that this action will be effective September7, 1982. However, ifnotice is received by EPAwithin 30 days that someone wishes to submit adverse or critical comments, the approval action will be withdrawn and a subsequent notice will be published before the effective date. The subsequent notice will indefinitely postpone the effective date, modifythe final action to a proposed action and establish a comment period: Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator has certified that SIP approvals do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. (See 46 FR 8709.) The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291. Underthe Clean AirAct, any petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals forthe appropriate circuit by September7. 1982. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan forthe State of California was approved by the Directorofthe Federal 

### Register on July 1, 1981. (Sacs, 110 end 301(a) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601(a))) List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead, Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons. Dated: June 14, 1982. Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator.
PART 52—APPROVALAND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Subpart F of Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Subpart F—California

1. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(51)(vii)(C), (c)(73)(i)(B), (c)(75)(ii), (c)(79)(ii)(B), (c)(83)(i)(C), (c)(85)(x)(A), (c)(86)(i)(D), (c)(92)(v)(B) and (vi)(A), (c)(93)(ii)(C), (c)(95)(i)(C), (c)(98)(ix), (c)(x), and (c)(xi), (c)(101)(i)(B) and (ii)(B), (c)(102)(iv), (c)(103)(ii)(B) and (xviii), (c)(104)(ii), (121), and (125) to read as follows: § 52.220 IdentIfication ofplan.

* * * * * (c)

* * * (51)
* * * (vii)

* *

* (C) New or amended Rule 11. (73)
* * * (i)*

* * (B) New or amended Regulation 2, Rule 1: 2—1—100 to 2—1—102, 2—1—111, 2—1— 112. and 2—1—408.

* * * * * (75)

* * *

* (ii) New or amended Rule 424(F). (79)

* * * (ii)

* * * (B) New or amended Regulation 1: 1— 206, 1—520, 1—542, and 1—600 to 1—604; Regulation 6: 8—305, 6—311, 

### 6—600, and 6— 601; and Regulation 11: 11-1—500, 11—1— 501, and 11—1—600 to 11—1—603.

* * * * * (~3)*** (i)

* * (C) New oramended Regulation 8: Rule 21.

* * * ft * (85)

* * 

### (x) Kern County APCD. Kern County

- July30, 1~981 Rule 198 Stack Monitoring Rule 2~1 Permits Required Rule 3~J1 Permit Fee Rule 362 Permit Fee Schedule Rule 3~5 Hearing Board Fees March 23, 1981 Rule 2i)2 Exemptions Rule 2~2.1 Experimental Research Ope~ations Rule4~6 Experimental Research Ope~ations Decemb~r15, 1980 Rule 110

‘ Arrests and Notices to App~ar Rule 417.1 Agricultural Burning January

.~ 1980 Rule 4~4(F) SmallProducers Exemption San Diego County May20, ~l982 Rule 4Q Permit Fees March 1, 1982

Rule 42 Hearing Board Fees Rule 6~1 Reduction ofAnimal Matter Rule 101 Definitions Rule 102 Open Fires, Western Section Rule 103 Open Fires, Eastern Section Rule 109 Temporary Suspension of Perthits

- May28, ~l98l Rule 2~t Permit Conditions January~8, 1981 Rule 20.1 Definitions May23, ~l979 Rule 1~ Exemptions South C~astAQMD May20, ~l982 Rule 4~1.1 Sulfur Content ofGaseous Fueli March 1~ 1982 Rule 4fr4 Fuel Burning Equipment,

• NOR~ October~3, 1981 Rule 504.1 Rules forWhich Vari~ances Are NotAllowed

### Federal Register 

# I Vol. 47, No. 129 

# / Tuesday, July 8, 1982 

# / Rules and Regulations 29233



### (A) Ne~êorAmended Rules 11&and 417.1.

* * * 

### (j)*

* (D) Neu~ oramended Rule 1—541 and Regulatiort9, Rules 9—1—600 to 9—1—605.
(921*

** (v)

* *

~ (B) New or amended Rule 21. (vi) South 

### CoastAQMD.

* (A) New or

### amended Rule 1~l3. 

### (93)* *~* (jj)*
* (C) New: or amended Regulation 5, Rule 5—401~.3.

*
(95)
* * (j)*
* (C) Neworamended Rules 202, 202.1, and 426.

~ * *

(ix) 

### Bay~AreaAQMD.. (A) New’ 

### oramended Rules 1—112, 1-~ 113, 1—115 and Regulation 9, Rule 9—3-- 202. (x) South CoastAQMD. (A) New~or amended Rule 1115. (xi) San

### ~l)iego CountyAPCD.

* * 1*
* * (1O1)*

~ * 

### (j)*

* * (B) 

### New~oramended Regulatiba2, Rule 2—2--I~i4; RegulationS, 

### Rule 5— 401.13; anc~ Manual ofProcedures— Volume 

### I tb Volume VI. 

### (jj)*
* * (B) 

### New~oramended Rules 108, 201, 301, 302, ahd 305.

* (102)* ~** *
(iv) Soul~h CoastAQMD. (A) Ne~ or amended Rule 301.

* * ~* * * (103)* * * (ii) * * * (B) Neworamended Rules 42, 64, 101— 103, and 109.

* 

### (xviii) S~uth Coast

### AQMD.
(A) New oramended Rules 

### 504.1, 218, 219, 220, 4Q9, and 502.

* * *
(ii) South CoastAQMD.

* (A) New or amended Rule 444. (121) Revised regulations forthe following APCDs submitted on March 1, 1982 by th~ Governor’s designee. (i) South CoastAQM]3. (A) New oramended Rule474. (ii) San Diego CountyAPCD, (A) Newor amended 

### Rules 62 and 53.

* * * * *

- (125) Revised Regulations 

### for the following A-PCDs submitted on May20, 1982 bythe Governor’s designee. (i) San Diego CountyAPCD. (A) New oramended Rule 40. (ii) South CoastAQMD. (A) New or amended Rule 431.1.

* * * * * IFR floc. 8Z—16V2 Filed7.-2—8~ 8:45 an4 BILLING CODE 1560-50-M



### 40 CFR Part 52 [A~-7—2139.-2]
Missourl 

### Approval and Promulgation ofState implementation Plans; MO 83
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State ofMissouri which exempts existing Missouri type charcoal kilns from the process weight regulation contained in the approved 

### SIP. EPAproposedto approve, the revision on April 12, 1982 at

### 47.FR 15609, and 

### asked forcomments on the proposed action. One 

### comment letter
was received and 

### the relevant issues raised 

### in thatletterhave been considered in this 

### final rulemaking. DATE: This rule will become effective August 5, 1982. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe SIP revision
are available forinspection during normal business hours at the following addresses: Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air.Branch, 324 East 11th Street, Kansas City. Missouri 64106 Environmental Protection Agency, Public Information Reference Unit,,401 M Street SW.~

### Washington, D.C. 20400 

### Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, 1101 Rear Southwest Beulevard, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dewayne K Durst, Air Branch, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region VII, 324 

### East11th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 (816) 374—3791. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION~

### On September

### 5, 1980, the 

### State ofMissouri submitted a revision to their SIP which 

### exempts existing Missouri type charcoal 

### operations from the processweight provision of state regulations. 

### On November 4, 1981 (46 FR 54730), EPA announced the availability ofthis submittal and approved it as a revision to the Missouri SIP. The rationale for the approval is contained in the November 4, 1981 

### Federal Register. In the approval notice, EPA advised the public that the effective 

### date ofthe approval would be deferred for 60 days. Ifnotice was received within 30 days. ~after publication 

### thatsomeone wanted to submit adverse 

### orcritical comments, the approval would be withdrawn and 

### a new rulemaking action would 

### be initiated to 

### providefora 

### public comment period. Noticewas received 

### within 30

### daysthatsomeone did want

### to submit adverse 

### or critical comments. 

### On April 12, 1982 (47 FR 15581) EPA withdrewthe final rulemaking and provided notice 

### that publiccomments.
were being solicited in a notice of proposal rulemaking (47 FR 15609). 

### One comment letterwas received on the proposalto approvethe state submittal. The commenter questioned EPA’s conclusiortthat the ambient air qualitystandards are not

### violated in the vicinity ofMissouri type charcoal ki-Ins even when the kflns are notcontrolled. This questionwas in responseto a statement in the November4, 1981 Federal Register 

### which indicated visible emissions are 100% opacity during portions ofthe charcoal production cycle. The 

### determinationthatMissouri type charcoal kilns do not cause violations 

### of the NationalAmbientAirQuality Standard (NAAQS) forparticulates was based upon ambientsampling studies conducted by-the State ofMissouri at the property line ofcharcoal kiins. The statement in the Federal Register concerning opacity levels from Missouri type charcoal kilns was provided as background information but did not serve as 

### a basis forapproving or disapproving the SIP revision which exempted the kilns from the process weight regulation. There are several reasons why high opacity levels from a Missouri type charcoal kiln do notresult in violations of

### the NAAQS. The stacks on the kilns generally do not extend above rooflevel and thus are approximatelyten feet above grade. This tends to limit dispersion. Also, exitvelocities are very low (about 1.5 meters persecond). These two factors cause the amhlent impact of the stackemissions to be greatestvery close to the kilna. Because the kilns are located in isolated areas and the kiln operations are generally located at some distance fromthe owners property line, the impact ofthe emission on surroundingproperty is diminished. In addition, because the stack gases are ator nearthe. saturation point, there
can be interference from watervapor in